Antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in people with liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 2.5% of all hospitalisations in people with liver cirrhosis are for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis is associated with significant short-term mortality; therefore, it is important to prevent spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in people at high risk of developing it. Antibiotic prophylaxis forms the mainstay preventive method, but this has to be balanced against the development of drug-resistant spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, which is difficult to treat, and other adverse events. Several different prophylactic antibiotic treatments are available; however, there is uncertainty surrounding their relative efficacy and optimal combination. OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits and harms of different prophylactic antibiotic treatments for prevention of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in people with liver cirrhosis using a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different prophylactic antibiotic treatments according to their safety and efficacy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers to November 2018 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis at risk of developing spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis undergoing prophylactic treatment to prevent spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previously undergone liver transplantation, or were receiving antibiotics for treatment of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis or other purposes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the odds ratio, rate ratio, and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 randomised clinical trials (3896 participants; nine antibiotic regimens (ciprofloxacin, neomycin, norfloxacin, norfloxacin plus neomycin, norfloxacin plus rifaximin, rifaximin, rufloxacin, sparfloxacin, sulfamethoxazole plus trimethoprim), and 'no active intervention' in the review. Twenty-three trials (2587 participants) were included in one or more outcomes in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies, with or without other features of decompensation, having ascites with low protein or previous history of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. The follow-up in the trials ranged from 1 to 12 months. Many of the trials were at high risk of bias, and the overall certainty of evidence was low or very low. Overall, approximately 10% of trial participants developed spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and 15% of trial participants died. There was no evidence of differences between any of the antibiotics and no intervention in terms of mortality (very low certainty) or number of serious adverse events (very low certainty). However, because of the wide CrIs, clinically important differences in these outcomes cannot be ruled out. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life or the proportion of people with serious adverse events. There was no evidence of differences between any of the antibiotics and no intervention in terms of proportion of people with 'any adverse events' (very low certainty), liver transplantation (very low certainty), or the proportion of people who developed spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (very low certainty). The number of 'any' adverse events per participant was fewer with norfloxacin (rate ratio 0.74, 95% CrI 0.59 to 0.94; 4 trials, 546 participants; low certainty) and sulfamethoxazole plus trimethoprim (rate ratio 0.19, 95% CrI 0.02 to 0.81; 1 trial, 60 participants; low certainty) versus no active intervention. There was no evidence of differences between the other antibiotics and no intervention in the number of 'any' adverse events per participant (very low certainty). There were fewer other decompensation events with rifaximin versus no active intervention (rate ratio 0.61, 65% CrI 0.46 to 0.80; 3 trials, 575 participants; low certainty) and norfloxacin plus neomycin (rate ratio 0.06, 95% CrI 0.00 to 0.33; 1 trial, 22 participants; low certainty). There was no evidence of differences between the other antibiotics and no intervention in the number of decompensations events per participant (very low certainty). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life or development of symptomatic spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. One would expect some correlation between the above outcomes, with interventions demonstrating effectiveness across several outcomes. This was not the case. The possible reasons for this include sparse data and selective reporting bias, which makes the results unreliable. Therefore, one cannot draw any conclusions from these inconsistent differences based on sparse data. There was no evidence of any differences in the subgroup analyses (performed when possible) based on whether the prophylaxis was primary or secondary. FUNDING: the source of funding for five trials were organisations who would benefit from the results of the study; six trials received no additional funding or were funded by neutral organisations; and the source of funding for the remaining 18 trials was unclear. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on very low-certainty evidence, there is considerable uncertainty about whether antibiotic prophylaxis is beneficial, and if beneficial, which antibiotic prophylaxis is most beneficial in people with cirrhosis and ascites with low protein or history of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Future randomised clinical trials should be adequately powered, employ blinding, avoid postrandomisation dropouts (or perform intention-to-treat analysis), and use clinically important outcomes such as mortality, health-related quality of life, and decompensation events.

Induction immunosuppression in adults undergoing liver transplantation: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation is considered the definitive treatment for people with liver failure. As part of post-liver transplantation management, immunosuppression (suppressing the host immunity) is given to prevent graft rejections. Immunosuppressive drugs can be classified into those that are used for a short period during the beginning phase of immunosuppression (induction immunosuppression) and those that are used over the entire lifetime of the individual (maintenance immunosuppression), because it is widely believed that graft rejections are more common during the first few months after liver transplantation. Some drugs such as glucocorticosteroids may be used for both induction and maintenance immunosuppression because of their multiple modalities of action. There is considerable uncertainty as to whether induction immunosuppression is necessary and if so, the relative efficacy of different immunosuppressive agents. OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different induction immunosuppressive regimens in adults undergoing liver transplantation through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different induction immunosuppressive regimens according to their safety and efficacy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until July 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in adults undergoing liver transplantation. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults undergoing liver transplantation. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had multivisceral transplantation and those who already had graft rejections. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the odds ratio (OR), rate ratio, and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) based on an available case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 25 trials (3271 participants; 8 treatments) in the review. Twenty-three trials (3017 participants) were included in one or more outcomes in the review. The trials that provided the information included people undergoing primary liver transplantation for various indications and excluded those with HIV and those with renal impairment. The follow-up in the trials ranged from three to 76 months, with a median follow-up of 12 months among trials. All except one trial were at high risk of bias, and the overall certainty of evidence was very low. Overall, approximately 7.4% of people who received the standard regimen of glucocorticosteroid induction died and 12.2% developed graft failure. All-cause mortality and graft failure was lower with basiliximab compared with glucocorticosteroid induction: all-cause mortality (HR 0.53, 95% CrI 0.31 to 0.93; network estimate, based on 2 direct comparison trials (131 participants; low-certainty evidence)); and graft failure (HR 0.44, 95% CrI 0.28 to 0.70; direct estimate, based on 1 trial (47 participants; low-certainty evidence)). There was no evidence of differences in all-cause mortality and graft failure between other induction immunosuppressants and glucocorticosteroids in either the direct comparison or the network meta-analysis (very low-certainty evidence). There was also no evidence of differences in serious adverse events (proportion), serious adverse events (number), renal failure, any adverse events (proportion), any adverse events (number), liver retransplantation, graft rejections (any), or graft rejections (requiring treatment) between other induction immunosuppressants and glucocorticosteroids in either the direct comparison or the network meta-analysis (very low-certainty evidence). However, because of the wide CrIs, clinically important differences in these outcomes cannot be ruled out. None of the studies reported health-related quality of life. FUNDING: the source of funding for 14 trials was drug companies who would benefit from the results of the study; two trials were funded by neutral organisations who have no vested interests in the results of the study; and the source of funding for the remaining nine trials was unclear. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low-certainty evidence, basiliximab induction may decrease mortality and graft failure compared to glucocorticosteroids induction in people undergoing liver transplantation. However, there is considerable uncertainty about this finding because this information is based on small trials at high risk of bias. The evidence is uncertain about the effects of different induction immunosuppressants on other clinical outcomes, including graft rejections. Future randomised clinical trials should be adequately powered, employ blinding, avoid post-randomisation dropouts (or perform intention-to-treat analysis), and use clinically important outcomes such as mortality, graft failure, and health-related quality of life.

Treatment for ascites in adults with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of people with cirrhosis develop ascites. Several different treatments are available; including, among others, paracentesis plus fluid replacement, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts, aldosterone antagonists, and loop diuretics. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their relative efficacy. OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits and harms of different treatments for ascites in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for ascites according to their safety and efficacy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until May 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and ascites. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and ascites. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previously undergone liver transplantation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the odds ratio, rate ratio, and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 49 randomised clinical trials (3521 participants) in the review. Forty-two trials (2870 participants) were included in one or more outcomes in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies, without other features of decompensation, having mainly grade 3 (severe), recurrent, or refractory ascites. The follow-up in the trials ranged from 0.1 to 84 months. All the trials were at high risk of bias, and the overall certainty of evidence was low or very low. Approximately 36.8% of participants who received paracentesis plus fluid replacement (reference group, the current standard treatment) died within 11 months. There was no evidence of differences in mortality, adverse events, or liver transplantation in people receiving different interventions compared to paracentesis plus fluid replacement (very low-certainty evidence). Resolution of ascites at maximal follow-up was higher with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (HR 9.44; 95% CrI 1.93 to 62.68) and adding aldosterone antagonists to paracentesis plus fluid replacement (HR 30.63; 95% CrI 5.06 to 692.98) compared to paracentesis plus fluid replacement (very low-certainty evidence). Aldosterone antagonists plus loop diuretics had a higher rate of other decompensation events such as hepatic encephalopathy, hepatorenal syndrome, and variceal bleeding compared to paracentesis plus fluid replacement (rate ratio 2.04; 95% CrI 1.37 to 3.10) (very low-certainty evidence). None of the trials using paracentesis plus fluid replacement reported health-related quality of life or symptomatic recovery from ascites. FUNDING: the source of funding for four trials were industries which would benefit from the results of the study; 24 trials received no additional funding or were funded by neutral organisations; and the source of funding for the remaining 21 trials was unclear. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on very low-certainty evidence, there is considerable uncertainty about whether interventions for ascites in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis decrease mortality, adverse events, or liver transplantation compared to paracentesis plus fluid replacement in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis and ascites. Based on very low-certainty evidence, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt and adding aldosterone antagonists to paracentesis plus fluid replacement may increase the resolution of ascites compared to paracentesis plus fluid replacement. Based on very low-certainty evidence, aldosterone antagonists plus loop diuretics may increase the decompensation rate compared to paracentesis plus fluid replacement.

Antibiotic treatment for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 2.5% of all hospitalisations in people with cirrhosis are for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP). Antibiotics, in addition to supportive treatment (fluid and electrolyte balance, treatment of shock), form the mainstay treatments of SBP. Various antibiotics are available for the treatment of SBP, but there is uncertainty regarding the best antibiotic for SBP. OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits and harms of different antibiotic treatments for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until November 2018 to identify randomised clinical trials on people with cirrhosis and SBP. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in adults with cirrhosis and SBP. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previously undergone liver transplantation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified eligible trials and collected data. The outcomes for this review included mortality, serious adverse events, any adverse events, resolution of SBP, liver transplantation, and other decompensation events. We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the odds ratio, rate ratio, and hazard ratio with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) based on an available-case analysis, according to the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Decision Support Unit guidance. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 12 trials (1278 participants; 13 antibiotics) in the review. Ten trials (893 participants) were included in one or more outcomes in the review. The trials that provided the information included patients having cirrhosis with or without other features of decompensation of varied aetiologies. The follow-up in the trials ranged from one week to three months. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Only one trial was included under each comparison for most of the outcomes. Because of these reasons, there is very low certainty in all the results. The majority of the randomised clinical trials used third-generation cephalosporins, such as intravenous ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, or ciprofloxacin as one of the interventions.Overall, approximately 75% of trial participants recovered from SBP and 25% of people died within three months. There was no evidence of difference in any of the outcomes for which network meta-analysis was possible: mortality (9 trials; 653 participants), proportion of people with any adverse events (5 trials; 297 participants), resolution of SBP (as per standard definition, 9 trials; 873 participants), or other features of decompensation (6 trials; 535 participants). The effect estimates in the direct comparisons (when available) were very similar to those of network meta-analysis. For the comparisons where network meta-analysis was not possible, there was no evidence of difference in any of the outcomes (proportion of participants with serious adverse events, number of adverse events, and proportion of participants requiring liver transplantation). Due to the wide CrIs and the very low-certainty evidence for all the outcomes, significant benefits or harms of antibiotics are possible.None of the trials reported health-related quality of life, number of serious adverse events, or symptomatic recovery from SBP. FUNDING: the source of funding for two trials were industrial organisations who would benefit from the results of the trial; the source of funding for the remaining 10 trials was unclear. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Short-term mortality after SBP is about 25%. There is significant uncertainty about which antibiotic therapy is better in people with SBP.We need adequately powered randomised clinical trials, with adequate blinding, avoiding post-randomisation dropouts (or performing intention-to-treat analysis), and using clinically important outcomes, such as mortality, health-related quality of life, and adverse events.

Treatment for hepatorenal syndrome in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hepatorenal syndrome is defined as renal failure in people with cirrhosis in the absence of other causes. In addition to supportive treatment such as albumin to restore fluid balance, the other potential treatments include systemic vasoconstrictor drugs (such as vasopressin analogues or noradrenaline), renal vasodilator drugs (such as dopamine), transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and liver support with molecular adsorbent recirculating system (MARS). There is uncertainty over the best treatment regimen for hepatorenal syndrome. OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits and harms of different treatments for hepatorenal syndrome in people with decompensated liver cirrhosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trial registers until December 2018 to identify randomised clinical trials on hepatorenal syndrome in people with cirrhosis. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in adults with cirrhosis and hepatorenal syndrome. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previously undergone liver transplantation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently identified eligible trials and collected data. The outcomes for this review included mortality, serious adverse events, any adverse events, resolution of hepatorenal syndrome, liver transplantation, and other decompensation events. We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the odds ratio (OR), rate ratio, hazard ratio (HR), and mean difference (MD) with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 25 trials (1263 participants; 12 interventions) in the review. Twenty-three trials (1185 participants) were included in one or more outcomes. All the trials were at high risk of bias, and all the evidence was of low or very low certainty. The trials included participants with liver cirrhosis of varied aetiologies as well as a mixture of type I hepatorenal syndrome only, type II hepatorenal syndrome only, or people with both type I and type II hepatorenal syndrome. Participant age ranged from 42 to 60 years, and the proportion of females ranged from 5.8% to 61.5% in the trials that reported this information. The follow-up in the trials ranged from one week to six months. Overall, 59% of participants died during this period and about 35% of participants recovered from hepatorenal syndrome. The most common interventions compared were albumin plus terlipressin, albumin plus noradrenaline, and albumin alone.There was no evidence of a difference in mortality (22 trials; 1153 participants) at maximal follow-up between the different interventions. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. There was no evidence of differences in the proportion of people with serious adverse events (three trials; 428 participants), number of participants with serious adverse events per participant (two trials; 166 participants), proportion of participants with any adverse events (four trials; 402 participants), the proportion of people who underwent liver transplantation at maximal follow-up (four trials; 342 participants), or other features of decompensation at maximal follow-up (one trial; 466 participants). Five trials (293 participants) reported number of any adverse events, and five trials (219 participants) reported treatment costs. Albumin plus noradrenaline had fewer numbers of adverse events per participant (rate ratio 0.51, 95% CrI 0.28 to 0.87). Eighteen trials (1047 participants) reported recovery from hepatorenal syndrome (as per definition of hepatorenal syndrome). In terms of recovery from hepatorenal syndrome, in the direct comparisons, albumin plus midodrine plus octreotide and albumin plus octreotide had lower recovery from hepatorenal syndrome than albumin plus terlipressin (HR 0.04; 95% CrI 0.00 to 0.25 and HR 0.26, 95% CrI 0.07 to 0.80 respectively). There was no evidence of differences between the groups in any of the other direct comparisons. In the network meta-analysis, albumin and albumin plus midodrine plus octreotide had lower recovery from hepatorenal syndrome compared with albumin plus terlipressin. FUNDING: two trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies; five trials were funded by parties who had no vested interest in the results of the trial; and 18 trials did not report the source of funding. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on very low-certainty evidence, there is no evidence of benefit or harm of any of the interventions for hepatorenal syndrome with regards to the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, serious adverse events (proportion), number of serious adverse events per participant, any adverse events (proportion), liver transplantation, or other decompensation events. Low-certainty evidence suggests that albumin plus noradrenaline had fewer 'any adverse events per participant' than albumin plus terlipressin. Low- or very low-certainty evidence also found that albumin plus midodrine plus octreotide and albumin alone had lower recovery from hepatorenal syndrome compared with albumin plus terlipressin.Future randomised clinical trials should be adequately powered; employ blinding, avoid post-randomisation dropouts or planned cross-overs (or perform an intention-to-treat analysis); and report clinically important outcomes such as mortality, health-related quality of life, adverse events, and recovery from hepatorenal syndrome. Albumin plus noradrenaline and albumin plus terlipressin appear to be the interventions that should be compared in future trials.

Top research priorities in liver and gallbladder disorders in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: There is a mismatch between research questions considered important by patients, carers and healthcare professionals and the research performed in many fields of medicine. The non-alcohol-related liver and gallbladder disorders priority setting partnership was established to identify the top research priorities in the prevention, diagnostic and treatment of gallbladder disorders and liver disorders not covered by the James-Lind Alliance (JLA) alcohol-related liver disease priority setting partnership. DESIGN: The methods broadly followed the principles of the JLA guidebook. The one major deviation from the JLA methodology was the final step of identifying priorities: instead of prioritisation by group discussions at a consensus workshop involving stakeholders, the prioritisation was achieved by a modified Delphi consensus process. RESULTS: A total of 428 unique valid diagnostic or treatment research questions were identified. A literature review established that none of these questions were considered 'answered' that is, high-quality systematic reviews suggest that further research is not required on the topic. The Delphi panel achieved consensus (at least 80% Delphi panel members agreed) that a research question was a top research priority for six questions. Four additional research questions with highest proportion of Delphi panel members ranking the question as highly important were added to constitute the top 10 research priorities. CONCLUSIONS: A priority setting process involving patients, carers and healthcare professionals has been used to identify the top 10priority areas for research related to liver and gallbladder disorders. Basic, translational, clinical and public health research are required to address these uncertainties.