Nutritional supplementation for nonalcohol-related fatty liver disease: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of non-alcohol-related fatty liver disease (NAFLD) varies between 19% and 33% in different populations. NAFLD decreases life expectancy and increases risks of liver cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and the requirement for liver transplantation. Uncertainty surrounds relative benefits and harms of various nutritional supplements in NAFLD. Currently no nutritional supplement is recommended for people with NAFLD. OBJECTIVES: • To assess the benefits and harms of different nutritional supplements for treatment of NAFLD through a network meta-analysis • To generate rankings of different nutritional supplements according to their safety and efficacy SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until February 2021 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with NAFLD. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) for people with NAFLD, irrespective of method of diagnosis, age and diabetic status of participants, or presence of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). 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 whenever possible and calculated differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HRs), odds ratios (ORs), and rate ratios 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 in the review a total of 202 randomised clinical trials (14,200 participants). Nineteen trials were at low risk of bias. A total of 32 different interventions were compared in these trials. A total of 115 trials (7732 participants) were included in one or more comparisons. The remaining trials did not report any of the outcomes of interest for this review. Follow-up ranged from 1 month to 28 months. The follow-up period in trials that reported clinical outcomes was 2 months to 28 months. During this follow-up period, clinical events related to NAFLD such as mortality, liver cirrhosis, liver decompensation, liver transplantation, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related mortality were sparse. We did not calculate effect estimates for mortality because of sparse data (zero events for at least one of the groups in the trial). None of the trials reported that they measured overall health-related quality of life using a validated scale. The evidence is very uncertain about effects of interventions on serious adverse events (number of people or number of events). We are very uncertain about effects on adverse events of most of the supplements that we investigated, as the evidence is of very low certainty. However, people taking PUFA (polyunsaturated fatty acid) may be more likely to experience an adverse event than those not receiving an active intervention (network meta-analysis results: OR 4.44, 95% CrI 2.40 to 8.48; low-certainty evidence; 4 trials, 203 participants; direct evidence: OR 4.43, 95% CrI 2.43 to 8.42). People who take other supplements (a category that includes nutritional supplements other than vitamins, fatty acids, phospholipids, and antioxidants) had higher numbers of adverse events than those not receiving an active intervention (network meta-analysis: rate ratio 1.73, 95% CrI 1.26 to 2.41; 6 trials, 291 participants; direct evidence: rate ratio 1.72, 95% CrI 1.25 to 2.40; low-certainty evidence). Data were sparse (zero events in all groups in the trial) for liver transplantation, liver decompensation, and hepatocellular carcinoma. So, we did not perform formal analysis for these outcomes. The evidence is very uncertain about effects of other antioxidants (antioxidants other than vitamins) compared to no active intervention on liver cirrhosis (HR 1.68, 95% CrI 0.23 to 15.10; 1 trial, 99 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about effects of interventions in any of the remaining comparisons, or data were sparse (with zero events in at least one of the groups), precluding formal calculations of effect estimates. Data were probably because of the very short follow-up period (2 months to 28 months). It takes follow-up of 8 to 28 years to detect differences in mortality between people with NAFLD and the general population. Therefore, it is unlikely that differences in clinical outcomes are noted in trials providing less than 5 to 10 years of follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about effects of nutritional supplementation compared to no additional intervention on all clinical outcomes for people with non-alcohol-related fatty liver disease. Accordingly, high-quality randomised comparative clinical trials with adequate follow-up are needed. We propose registry-based randomised clinical trials or cohort multiple randomised clinical trials (study design in which multiple interventions are trialed within large longitudinal cohorts of patients to gain efficiencies and align trials more closely to standard clinical practice) comparing interventions such as vitamin E, prebiotics/probiotics/synbiotics, PUFAs, and no nutritional supplementation. The reason for the choice of interventions is the impact of these interventions on indirect outcomes, which may translate to clinical benefit. Outcomes in such trials should be mortality, health-related quality of life, decompensated liver cirrhosis, liver transplantation, and resource utilisation measures including costs of intervention and decreased healthcare utilisation after minimum follow-up of 8 years (to find meaningful differences in clinically important outcomes).

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.

Obstructive Sleep Apnoea Screening Preoperatively with the Epworth Questionnaire: Is It Worth It ?

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) in the bariatric population has been reported to be as high as 60-83%. The Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) is a validated, self-administrated eight-item questionnaire that measures subjective daytime sleepiness and thus helps to identify high-risk for OSA. OBJECTIVES: To find the prevalence of OSA in patients undergoing bariatric surgery who do not routinely undergo polysomnography (PSG) and are screened by the ESS. METHODS: All consecutive 425 patients who underwent bariatric surgery in our tercier referral centre from January 2012 to June 2017 were included in this prospective study. Patient demographics and ESS score were recorded prior to the bariatric surgery and patients were divided into low-risk (ESS < 11), high-risk (≥ 11) and "known-OSA" groups. RESULTS: The community-based OSA prevalence was 14% (59 patients). ESS-positive predictive value was 60%. There was no significant difference in BMI and excess body-weight, but patients with OSA were older and had a lower female ratio (75% vs 42%). The unplanned ICU admission rate was comparable amongst the low- and high-ESS group (2.2% and 2.1%, respectively); similarly, the respiratory and chest complication rate were similar. The median hospital stay for patients diagnosed with OSA was a half day longer; the high-score patients stayed significantly longer than the low-score patients (p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: In our study, the OSA prevalence was low (20%). We think that the ESS does not have significant predicting value before bariatric surgery and overall the OSA is "overhyped" in the bariatric pathway.

Serum C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and lactate dehydrogenase for the diagnosis of pancreatic necrosis.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of people with pancreatic necrosis differs from that of people with oedematous pancreatitis. It is important to know the diagnostic accuracy of serum C-reactive protein (CRP), serum procalcitonin, and serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) as a triage test for the detection of pancreatic necrosis in people with acute pancreatitis, so that an informed decision can be made as to whether the person with pancreatic necrosis needs further investigations such as computed tomography (CT) scan or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan and treatment for pancreatic necrosis started. There is currently no standard clinical practice, although CRP, particularly an increasing trend of CRP, is often used as a triage test to determine whether the person requires further imaging. There is also currently no systematic review of the diagnostic test accuracy of CRP, procalcitonin, and LDH for the diagnosis of pancreatic necrosis in people with acute pancreatitis. OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of CRP, procalcitonin, or LDH (index test), either alone or in combination, in the diagnosis of necrotising pancreatitis in people with acute pancreatitis and without organ failure. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR HTA and DARE), and other databases until March 2017. We searched the references of the included studies to identify additional studies. We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively. We also performed a 'related search' and 'citing reference' search in MEDLINE and Embase. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all studies that evaluated the diagnostic test accuracy of CRP, procalcitonin, and LDH for the diagnosis of pancreatic necrosis in people with acute pancreatitis using the following reference standards, either alone or in combination: radiological features of pancreatic necrosis (contrast-enhanced CT or MRI), surgeon's judgement of pancreatic necrosis during surgery, or histological confirmation of pancreatic necrosis. Had we found case-control studies, we planned to exclude them because they are prone to bias; however, we did not locate any. Two review authors independently identified the relevant studies from the retrieved references. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data, including methodological quality assessment, from the included studies. As the included studies reported CRP, procalcitonin, and LDH on different days of admission and measured at different cut-off levels, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis using the bivariate model as planned. We have reported the sensitivity, specificity, post-test probability of a positive and negative index test along with 95% confidence interval (CI) on each of the different days of admission and measured at different cut-off levels. MAIN RESULTS: A total of three studies including 242 participants met the inclusion criteria for this review. One study reported the diagnostic performance of CRP for two threshold levels (> 200 mg/L and > 279 mg/L) without stating the day on which the CRP was measured. One study reported the diagnostic performance of procalcitonin on day 1 (1 day after admission) using a threshold level of 0.5 ng/mL. One study reported the diagnostic performance of CRP on day 3 (3 days after admission) using a threshold level of 140 mg/L and LDH on day 5 (5 days after admission) using a threshold level of 290 U/L. The sensitivities and specificities varied: the point estimate of the sensitivities ranged from 0.72 to 0.88, while the point estimate of the specificities ranged from 0.75 to 1.00 for the different index tests on different days of hospital admission. However, the confidence intervals were wide: confidence intervals of sensitivities ranged from 0.51 to 0.97, while those of specificities ranged from 0.18 to 1.00 for the different tests on different days of hospital admission. Overall, none of the tests assessed in this review were sufficiently accurate to suggest that they could be useful in clinical practice. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The paucity of data and methodological deficiencies in the studies meant that it was not possible to arrive at any conclusions regarding the diagnostic test accuracy of the index test because of the uncertainty of the results. Further well-designed diagnostic test accuracy studies with prespecified index test thresholds of CRP, procalcitonin, LDH; appropriate follow-up (for at least two weeks to ensure that the person does not have pancreatic necrosis, as early scans may not indicate pancreatic necrosis); and clearly defined reference standards (of surgical or radiological confirmation of pancreatic necrosis) are important to reliably determine the diagnostic accuracy of CRP, procalcitonin, and LDH.

Serum amylase and lipase and urinary trypsinogen and amylase for diagnosis of acute pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of people with acute abdominal pain differs if they have acute pancreatitis. It is important to know the diagnostic accuracy of serum amylase, serum lipase, urinary trypsinogen-2, and urinary amylase for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis, so that an informed decision can be made as to whether the person with abdominal pain has acute pancreatitis. There is currently no Cochrane review of the diagnostic test accuracy of serum amylase, serum lipase, urinary trypsinogen-2, and urinary amylase for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis. OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of serum amylase, serum lipase, urinary trypsinogen-2, and urinary amylase, either alone or in combination, in the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis in people with acute onset of a persistent, severe epigastric pain or diffuse abdominal pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR HTA and DARE), and other databases until March 2017. We searched the references of the included studies to identify additional studies. We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively. We also performed a 'related search' and 'citing reference' search in MEDLINE and Embase. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all studies that evaluated the diagnostic test accuracy of serum amylase, serum lipase, urinary trypsinogen-2, and urinary amylase for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis. We excluded case-control studies because these studies are prone to bias. We accepted any of the following reference standards: biopsy, consensus conference definition, radiological features of acute pancreatitis, diagnosis of acute pancreatitis during laparotomy or autopsy, and organ failure. At least two review authors independently searched and screened the references located by the search to identify relevant studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies. The thresholds used for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis varied in the trials, resulting in sparse data for each index test. Because of sparse data, we used -2 log likelihood values to determine which model to use for meta-analysis. We calculated and reported the sensitivity, specificity, post-test probability of a positive and negative index test along with 95% confidence interval (CI) for each cutoff, but have reported only the results of the recommended cutoff of three times normal for serum amylase and serum lipase, and the manufacturer-recommended cutoff of 50 mg/mL for urinary trypsinogen-2 in the abstract. MAIN RESULTS: Ten studies including 5056 participants met the inclusion criteria for this review and assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the index tests in people presenting to the emergency department with acute abdominal pain. The risk of bias was unclear or high for all of the included studies. The study that contributed approximately two-thirds of the participants included in this review was excluded from the results of the analysis presented below due to major concerns about the participants included in the study. We have presented only the results where at least two studies were included in the analysis.Serum amylase, serum lipase, and urinary trypsinogen-2 at the standard threshold levels of more than three times normal for serum amylase and serum lipase, and a threshold of 50 ng/mL for urinary trypsinogen-2 appear to have similar sensitivities (0.72 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.82); 0.79 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.92); and 0.72 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.84), respectively) and specificities (0.93 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.99); 0.89 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.99); and 0.90 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.93), respectively). At the median prevalence of 22.6% of acute pancreatitis in the studies, out of 100 people with positive test, serum amylase (more than three times normal), serum lipase (more than three times normal), and urinary trypsinogen (more than 50 ng/mL), 74 (95% CI 33 to 94); 68 (95% CI 21 to 94); and 67 (95% CI 57 to 76) people have acute pancreatitis, respectively; out of 100 people with negative test, serum amylase (more than three times normal), serum lipase (more than three times normal), and urinary trypsinogen (more than 50 ng/mL), 8 (95% CI 5 to 12); 7 (95% CI 3 to 15); and 8 (95% CI 5 to 13) people have acute pancreatitis, respectively. We were not able to compare these tests formally because of sparse data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: As about a quarter of people with acute pancreatitis fail to be diagnosed as having acute pancreatitis with the evaluated tests, one should have a low threshold to admit the patient and treat them for acute pancreatitis if the symptoms are suggestive of acute pancreatitis, even if these tests are normal. About 1 in 10 patients without acute pancreatitis may be wrongly diagnosed as having acute pancreatitis with these tests, therefore it is important to consider other conditions that require urgent surgical intervention, such as perforated viscus, even if these tests are abnormal.The diagnostic performance of these tests decreases even further with the progression of time, and one should have an even lower threshold to perform additional investigations if the symptoms are suggestive of acute pancreatitis.