Nutrition in Chronic Liver Disease: Consensus Statement of the Indian National Association for Study of the Liver.

Malnutrition and sarcopenia are common in patients with chronic liver disease and are associated with increased risk of decompensation, infections, wait-list mortality and poorer outcomes after liver transplantation. Assessment of nutritional status and management of malnutrition are therefore essential to improve outcomes in patients with chronic liver disease. This consensus statement of the Indian National Association for Study of the Liver provides a comprehensive review of nutrition in chronic liver disease and gives recommendations for nutritional screening and treatment in specific clinical scenarios of malnutrition in cirrhosis in adults as well as children with chronic liver disease and metabolic disorders.

L-ornithine L-aspartate for prevention and treatment of hepatic encephalopathy in people with cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic encephalopathy is a common complication of cirrhosis and has high associated morbidity and mortality. The condition is classified as overt if it is clinically apparent or minimal if only evident though psychometric testing. The exact pathogenesis of this syndrome is unknown although ammonia is thought to play a key role. L-ornithine L-aspartate has ammonia-lowering properties and may, therefore, benefit people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of L-ornithine L-aspartate versus placebo, no intervention, or other active interventions in people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy. SEARCH METHODS: We undertook electronic searches of The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and Science Citation Index Expanded to December 2017 and manual searches of meetings and conference proceedings; checks of bibliographies; and corresponded with investigators and pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials, irrespective of publication status, language, or blinding. We included participants with cirrhosis who had minimal or overt hepatic encephalopathy or who were at risk for developing hepatic encephalopathy. We compared: L-ornithine L-aspartate versus placebo or no intervention; and L-ornithine L-aspartate versus other active agents such as non-absorbable disaccharides, antibiotics, probiotics, or branched-chain amino acids. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors, working independently, retrieved data from published reports and correspondence with investigators and pharmaceutical companies. The primary outcomes were mortality, hepatic encephalopathy, and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented the results as risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group domains; we evaluated the risk of publication bias and other small trial effects in regression analyses; conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses; and performed Trial Sequential Analyses. We determined the quality of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 36 randomised clinical trials, involving at least 2377 registered participants, which fulfilled our inclusion criteria including 10 unpublished randomised clinical trials. However, we were only able to access outcome data from 29 trials involving 1891 participants. Five of the included trials assessed prevention, while 31 trials assessed treatment. Five trials were at low risk of bias in the overall assessment of mortality; one trial was at low risk of bias in the assessment of the remaining outcomes.L-ornithine L-aspartate had a beneficial effect on mortality compared with placebo or no intervention when including all trials (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.72; I2 = 0%; 19 trials; 1489 participants; very low quality evidence), but not when the analysis was restricted to the trials at low risk of bias (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.06 to 3.58; 4 trials; 244 participants). It had a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy compared with placebo or no intervention when including all trials (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.83; 22 trials; 1375 participants; I2 = 62%; very low quality evidence), but not in the one trial at low risk of bias (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07; 63 participants). The analysis of serious adverse events showed a potential benefit of L-ornithine L-aspartate when including all randomised clinical trials (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.90; 1 trial; 1489 participants; I2 = 0%; very low quality evidence), but not in the one trial at low risk of bias for this outcome (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.15 to 4.65; 63 participants). The Trial Sequential Analyses of mortality, hepatic encephalopathy, and serious adverse events found insufficient evidence to support or refute beneficial effects. Subgroup analyses showed no difference in outcomes in the trials evaluating evaluating the prevention or treatment of either overt or minimal hepatic encephalopathy or trials evaluating oral versus intravenous administration We were unable to undertake a meta-analysis of the three trials involving 288 participants evaluating health-related quality of life. Overall, we found no difference between L-ornithine L-aspartate and placebo or no intervention in non-serious adverse events (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.77; 14 trials; 1076 participants; I2 = 40%). In comparison with lactulose, L-ornithine L-aspartate had no effect on mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.11 to 4.17; 4 trials; 175 participants; I2 = 0%); hepatic encephalopathy (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.57); serious adverse events (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.11); or non-serious adverse events (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.18). In comparison with probiotics, L-ornithine L-aspartate had no effect on mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.51); serious adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.23 to 4.88); or changes in blood ammonia concentrations from baseline (RR -2.30 95% CI -6.08 to 1.48), but it had a possible beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.90). Finally, in comparison with rifaximin, L-ornithine L-aspartate had no effect on mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.03; 2 trials; 105 participants); hepatic encephalopathy (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.96); serious adverse events (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.42), or non-serious adverse events (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.42). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review suggest a possible beneficial effect of L-ornithine L-aspartate on mortality, hepatic encephalopathy, and serious adverse events in comparisons with placebo or no-intervention, but, because the quality of the evidence is very low, we are very uncertain about these findings. There was very low quality evidence of a possible beneficial effect of L-ornithine L-aspartate on hepatic encephalopathy, when compared with probiotics, but no other benefits were demonstrated in comparison with other active agents. Additional access to data from completed, but unpublished trials, and new randomised placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials are needed.

Minimal Hepatic Encephalopathy in Cirrhosis- How Long to Treat?

Abstract: Introduction. Minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) can reverse after short-term treatment. However, relapse rate of MHE after stopping treatment has not been studied so far. We aimed to evaluate long-term (9 months) efficacy of a short-term (3 months) treatment of MHE with lactulose/rifaximin, for maintenance of remission from MHE. Material and methods. In this prospective study, consecutive patients with cirrhosis and MHE were treated with lactulose/rifaximin for 3 months. After treatment, they were followed up for 6 months. Psychometric testing for diagnosis of MHE was performed at baseline, 3 months and 9 months. Results. Of the 527 patients screened, 351 were found eligible and tested for MHE. Out of these, 112 (31.9%) patients had MHE (mean age 55.3 years; 75% males). They were randomized to receive Rifaximin (n = 57; 1,200 mg/day) or Lactulose (n = 55; 30-120 mL/day) for three months. At 3 months, 73.7% (42/57) patients in Rifaximin group experienced MHE reversal compared to 69.1% (38/55) in Lactulose group (p = 0.677). Six months after stopping treatment, 47.6% (20/42) in rifaximin group and 42.1% (16/38) patients in lactulose group experienced MHE relapse (p = 0.274). The overt hepatic encephalopathy development rate (7.1% vs. 7.9%) and mortality rate (0.23% vs. 0%) were similar in both groups. The Child-Turcotte-Pugh score and model for end stage liver disease (MELD) scores of patients who had MHE relapse were higher compared to those who didn’t. On multivariate regression analysis, MELD score was an independent predictor of MHE relapse. Conclusion. Of the patients who became MHE negative after short-term (3 months) treatment with rifaximin/lactulose, almost 50% had a relapse of MHE at 6 months follow-up.

Minimal hepatic encephalopathy in cirrhosis- how long to treat?

INTRODUCTION: Minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) can reverse after short-term treatment. However, relapse rate of MHE after stopping treatment has not been studied so far. We aimed to evaluate long-term (9 months) efficacy of a short-term (3 months) treatment of MHE with lactulose/rifaximin, for maintenance of remission from MHE. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this prospective study, consecutive patients with cirrhosis and MHE were treated with lactulose/rifaximin for 3 months. After treatment, they were followed up for 6 months. Psychometric testing for diagnosis of MHE was performed at baseline, 3 months and 9 months. RESULTS: Of the 527 patients screened, 351 were found eligible and tested for MHE. Out of these, 112 (31.9%) patients had MHE (mean age 55.3 years; 75% males). They were randomized to receive Rifaximin (n = 57; 1,200 mg/day) or Lactulose (n = 55; 30-120 mL/day) for three months. At 3 months, 73.7% (42/57) patients in Rifaximin group experienced MHE reversal compared to 69.1% (38/55) in Lactulose group (p = 0.677). Six months after stopping treatment, 47.6% (20/42) in rifaximin group and 42.1% (16/38) patients in lactulose group experienced MHE relapse (p = 0.274). The overt hepatic encephalopathy development rate (7.1% vs. 7.9%) and mortality rate (0.23% vs. 0%) were similar in both groups. The Child-Turcotte-Pugh score and model for end stage liver disease (MELD) scores of patients who had MHE relapse were higher compared to those who didn't. On multivariate regression analysis, MELD score was an independent predictor of MHE relapse. CONCLUSION: Of the patients who became MHE negative after short-term (3 months) treatment with rifaximin/lactulose, almost 50% had a relapse of MHE at 6 months follow-up.

Rifaximin vs. lactulose in treatment of minimal hepatic encephalopathy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Lactulose and rifaximin have already been shown to improve both cognitive functions and health related quality of life (HRQOL) in MHE patients. We aimed to compare the efficacy of rifaximin with lactulose in reversal of MHE and improvement in HRQOL in cirrhotic patients with MHE. METHOD: This prospective, randomized, open label, non-inferiority trial, was conducted at the Gastroenterology department of a tertiary care institute in Northern India. MHE was diagnosed if any two of the five neuro-psychometric (NP) tests were positive. HRQOL was assessed using the sickness impact profile (SIP) questionnaire (John Hopkins University, USA). RESULTS: Of 527 cirrhotics screened, 351 were found eligible and tested for MHE. A total of 112 (31.9%) patients were found to have MHE and then randomized into two groups group A (lactulose; 30-120 ml/day) and B (Tablet. rifaximin; 400 mg thrice a day). Based on the intention-to-treat population, the proportion of patients with MHE reversal at 3 months was 73.7% (42/57) in the rifaximin arm and 69.1% (38/55) in the lactulose arm [4.6% difference (90% CI -9.3% to 18.4%)]. However, non-inferiority of rifaximin over lactulose could not be established as the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (-5%) lies within the two-sided 90% confidence interval of the difference. HRQOL was significantly improved in both groups (P = 0.20). However, the proportion of patients with flatulence (P = 0.004) and diarrhoea (P = 0.0002) was significantly higher in patients who took lactulose. CONCLUSION: Non-inferiority of rifaximin over lactulose for MHE reversal was not established.