PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

C Gluud

Publications and source records attributed to C Gluud.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2003

Branched-chain amino acids for hepatic encephalopathy.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic encephalopathy may be caused by a decreased plasma ratio of branched-chain amino acids (BCAA) to aromatic amino acids. Treatment with BCAA may therefore have a beneficial effect on patients with hepatic encephalopathy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of BCAA for patients with hepatic encephalopathy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We identified trials through The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (September 2002), (Issue 3, 2002), MEDLINE (1966-2002/09) and EMBASE (1980-2002/05), manual searches of bibliographies and journals, authors of trials, and pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing BCAA with any kind of control therapy for hepatic encephalopathy were included, regardless of blinding, language, or publication status. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial inclusion and data extraction were made independently by two reviewers. Our primary outcome was improvement of hepatic encephalopathy. Statistical heterogeneity was tested using random effects and fixed effect models. Binary outcomes are reported as risk ratios (RR) based on a random effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven randomised trials (556 patients) assessing BCAA versus carbohydrates, neomycin/lactulose, or isonitrogenous control were included. The median number of patients in each trial was 55 (range 22 to 75). Follow-up after treatment was reported in four trials (median 17 days (range 6 to 30 days)). Compared to the control regimens, BCAA significantly increased the number of patients improving from hepatic encephalopathy at the end of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.66, nine trials). We found no evidence of an effect of BCAA on survival (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.14, eight trials) or adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.31, three trials). Sensitivity analyses indicated that methodological quality had significant impact on the results. We found no evidence of an effect of BCAA on improvement of hepatic encephalopathy in trials with adequate generation of the allocation sequence (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.23, three trials), adequate allocation concealment (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.33, five trials), or adequate double-blinding (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.73, three trials). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: We did not find convincing evidence that BCAA had a significant beneficial effect on patients with hepatic encephalopathy. The trials performed in this field were small with short follow-up and most had low methodological quality.

Amino Acids, Branched-Chain↗
PubMed2003

Anabolic-androgenic steroids for alcoholic liver disease.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol is one of the most common causes of liver disease in the Western World today. Randomised clinical trials have examined the effects of anabolic-androgenic steroids for alcoholic liver disease. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of anabolic-androgenic steroids for patients with alcoholic liver disease based on the results of randomised clinical trials. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register on The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and full text searches were combined (all searched December 2001). Manufacturers and researchers in the field were also contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised clinical trials studying patients with alcoholic steatosis, alcoholic fibrosis, alcoholic hepatitis, and/or alcoholic cirrhosis were included. Interventions encompassed anabolic-androgenic steroids at any dose or duration versus placebo or no intervention. The trials could be double blind, single blind, or unblinded. The trials could be unpublished or published and no language limitations were applied. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat method. The statistical package (RevMan and MetaView) provided by the Cochrane Collaboration was used. The methodological quality of the randomised clinical trials was evaluated by components of methodological quality. MAIN RESULTS: Combining the results of five randomised clinical trials randomising 499 patients with alcoholic hepatitis and/or cirrhosis demonstrated no significant effects of anabolic-androgenic steroids on mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.28), liver related mortality (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.15), complications of liver disease (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.10), and liver histology. Further, anabolic-androgenic steroids did not significantly affect a number of other outcome measures. Anabolic-androgenic steroids were not associated with a significantly increased risk of non-serious adverse events but with the seldom occurrence of serious adverse events (RR 4.54, 95% CI 0.57 to 36.30). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review could not demonstrate any significant beneficial effects of anabolic-androgenic steroids on any clinically important outcomes (mortality, liver related mortality, liver complications, and histology) of patients with alcoholic liver disease.

Anabolic Agents↗
PubMed2003

Bile acids for viral hepatitis.

BACKGROUND: The viral hepatitides are common causes of liver diseases globally. Trials have assessed bile acids for patients with viral hepatitis, but no consensus was reached regarding their usefulness. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of bile acids for viral hepatitis. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches were performed of the trial registers of The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group (September 2002), The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2002), MEDLINE (September 2002), EMBASE (September 2002), and The Chinese Biomedical Database (April 2001). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing any dose or duration of bile acids versus placebo or no intervention for viral hepatitis were included, irrespective of language, publication status, or blinding. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers extracted the data independently. The methodological quality of the trials was evaluated with respect to generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, double blinding, and follow-up. The outcomes were presented as relative risks (RR) or weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 27 randomised trials of bile acids for hepatitis B or C; none were of high methodological quality. In one trial, ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) versus placebo for acute hepatitis B significantly reduced the risk of hepatitis B surface antigen positivity at the end of treatment and serum HBV DNA level at the end of follow-up. In another trial, UDCA versus no intervention for chronic hepatitis B significantly reduced the risk of having abnormal serum transaminase activities at the end of treatment. Twenty-five trials compared bile acids (21 trials UDCA; four trials tauro-UDCA) versus placebo or no intervention with or without co-interventions for chronic hepatitis C. Bile acids did not significantly reduce the risk of having detectable serum HCV RNA (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.07), cirrhosis, or portal and periportal inflammation score at the end of treatment. Bile acids significantly decreased the risk of having abnormal serum alanine aminotransferase activity at the end of treatment (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.90) and follow-up (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.98). Bile acids significantly increased the Knodell score (WMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.31) at the end of treatment. No severe adverse events were reported. We did not identify trials including patients with hepatitis A, acute C, D, or E. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Bile acids lead to a significant improvement in serum transaminase activities in hepatitis B and C. There is insufficient evidence either to support or to refute effects on viral markers, mortality, incidence of cirrhosis, or liver histology. Trials with high methodological quality are required.

Antiviral Agents↗
PubMed2003

Bile acids for primary sclerosing cholangitis.

BACKGROUND: Bile acids have been used for treating primary sclerosing cholangitis, but their beneficial and harmful effects remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of bile acids for patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group's Trials Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Chinese Biomedical Database generally from inception through to May 2002. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing any dose or duration of bile acids versus placebo, no intervention, or another intervention were included. Trials were included irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers extracted the data. The methodological quality of the trials was evaluated with respect to the generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, double blinding, and follow-up. The results were reported by intention-to-treat analysis. The outcomes were presented as relative risks (RR) or weighted mean differences (WMD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We identified six randomised clinical trials, all with low methodological quality. Patients were treated for three months to six years (median two years). Five trials (183 patients) compared ursodeoxycholic acid versus placebo, and one trial (40 patients) compared ursodeoxycholic acid versus no treatment. Ursodeoxycholic acid did not significantly reduce the risk of death (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.27 to 2.73); treatment failure including liver transplantation, varices, ascites, and encephalopathy (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.42); liver histological deterioration (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.74); or liver cholangiographic deterioration (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.18 to 1.02). Ursodeoxycholic acid significantly improved serum bilirubin (WMD -14.6 micro mol/litre; 95% CI -18.7 to -10.6), alkaline phosphatases (WMD -506 IU/litre; 95% CI -583 to -430), aspartate aminotransferase (WMD -46 IU/litre; 95% CI -77 to -16), and gamma-glutamyltranspeptidase (WMD -260 IU/litre; 95% CI -315 to -205), but not albumin (WMD -0.20 g/litre; 95% CI -1.91 to 1.50). Ursodeoxycholic acid was well tolerated. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Ursodeoxycholic acid leads to a significant improvement in liver biochemistry, but there is insufficient evidence to either support or refute its clinical effects in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Large scale, high-quality randomised clinical trials are needed.

Cholagogues and Choleretics↗
PubMed2002

Sequential combination of glucocorticosteroids and alfa interferon versus alfa interferon alone for HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B.

BACKGROUND: Chronic hepatitis B has serious effects on morbidity and mortality. Alfa interferon has been shown to increase the rates of HBeAg-clearance as well as seroconversion to anti-HBe, but response rates are unsatisfactory. Glucocorticosteroid pretreatment may increase the response to alfa interferon. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to assess the effects of the sequential combination of glucocorticosteroids and alfa interferon versus alfa interferon alone in hepatitis B 'e' antigen positive chronic hepatitis B on mortality, virological response, biochemical response, liver histology, quality of life, and adverse events. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches of the controlled trial registers of The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group and The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, BIOSIS, and EMBASE were combined (May 2000). Reading the bibliography of retrieved articles identified further trials. Alfa interferon-manufacturing companies were approached in order to inquire about any published and unpublished randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: The analyses included randomised trials comparing identical alfa interferon treatment regimens with and without glucocorticosteroid pretreatment for hepatitis B 'e' antigen positive chronic hepatitis. The trials could be open, single blinded, or double blinded. No patient exclusion criteria were applied. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three reviewers independently selected the trials and one extracted the data, which were validated. Assessments of the outcome measures were performed at the end of treatment and at six months and at maximal follow up after the end of treatment with alfa interferon. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 13 randomised trials including 790 patients were included. Loss of hepatitis B 'e' antigen (OR 1.41, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.92, P = 0.03) and hepatitis B virus DNA (OR = 1.51, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 2.05, P = 0.008) were significantly more frequent among patients treated with the sequential combination of glucocorticosteroids and alfa interferon than among patients treated with alfa interferon alone. Glucocorticosteroid pretreatment did not significantly influence seroconversion from hepatitis B 'e' antigen to antibodies to hepatitis B 'e' antigen, loss of hepatitis B surface antigen, normalisation of alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase activities, and severity of adverse events. Glucocorticosteroid pretreatment did not significantly affect mortality and adverse events. The effect of glucocorticosteroid pretreatment on liver histology and quality of life could not be assessed due to insufficient data. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment with glucocorticosteroids before treatment with alfa interferon in patients with hepatitis B 'e' antigen positive chronic hepatitis B may be more effective than treatment with alfa interferon alone with regard to loss of hepatitis B 'e' antigen and hepatitis B virus DNA, but evidence for effect on clinical outcomes is lacking.

Antiviral Agents↗
PubMed2002

Ursodeoxycholic acid for primary biliary cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Primary biliary cirrhosis is a rare autoimmune liver disease and an effective treatment has been difficult to establish. Some randomised clinical trials have found an effect of ursodeoxycholic acid for primary biliary cirrhosis. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the beneficial effects and adverse effects of peroral ursodeoxycholic acid for primary biliary cirrhosis versus placebo or no intervention. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Controlled Trials Register of The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the full text of the identified studies were searched until April 2001. The electronic searches were done by entering the search terms 'ursodeoxycholic acid', 'UDCA', 'primary biliary cirrhosis', and 'PBC'. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials evaluating ursodeoxycholic acid administered perorally at any dose versus placebo or no intervention in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis diagnosed by any method. Only trials using an adequate method for randomisation were included, regardless of blinding and language. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The methodologic quality of the randomised clinical trials was evaluated by components and the Jadad-score. The following outcomes were extracted: mortality, liver transplantation, pruritus, other clinical symptoms (jaundice, portal pressure, (bleeding) oesophageal varices, ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, hepato-renal syndrome, autoimmune conditions), liver biochemistry, liver function, liver biopsy findings, quality of life, and adverse events. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat method. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 16 randomised clinical trials evaluating ursodeoxycholic acid against placebo (n = 15) or no intervention (n = 1) in 1422 patients were identified. The median Jadad-score was 3 (range 1-5). A number of trials described as double blind had problems with the blinding. Neither mortality (odds ratio = 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.48), liver transplantation (odds ratio = 0.83; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.32), mortality or liver transplantation (odds ratio = 0.90; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.26), pruritus, fatigue, autoimmune conditions, quality of life, liver histology, or portal pressure were significantly affected by ursodeoxycholic acid (given in doses of 8-15 mg/kg/day for three months to five years). However, ursodeoxycholic acid significantly (P < 0.05) reduced ascites, jaundice, and biochemical variables such as serum bilirubin and liver enzymes. Ursodeoxycholic acid was not significantly associated with adverse events. Including data after patients had been switched onto open label ursodeoxycholic acid confirmed the findings regarding the lack of a significant effect of ursodeoxycholic acid on mortality and mortality or liver transplantation. A significant (P = 0.04) effect was, however, observed on the incidence of liver transplantation (odds ratio = 0.68; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.98). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Ursodeoxycholic acid has a marginal therapeutic effect for primary biliary cirrhosis. On the positive side, ursodeoxycholic acid has few side effects. The general usage of ursodeoxycholic acid for primary biliary cirrhosis needs reevaluation.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2002

Ribavirin with or without alpha interferon versus no intervention, placebo or alpha interferon for chronic hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C is a major cause of liver-related morbidity and mortality. Ribavirin plus interferon combination therapy is presently considered the optimal treatment of interferon naive patients with chronic hepatitis C, but its role in relapsers and non-responders to previous interferon therapy is not established. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of ribavirin alone or in combination with alpha interferon in interferon naive patients, relapsers, and non-responders with chronic hepatitis C. SEARCH STRATEGY: Eligible trials were identified through electronic databases, manual searches of bibliographies and journals, authors of trials, and pharmaceutical companies producing ribavirin or interferon (August 2001). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised trials comparing ribavirin with or without alpha interferon versus no intervention, placebo, or alpha interferon for chronic hepatitis C. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcome measures were the 'sustained' (six months after treatment) virological response, and morbidity plus mortality. The secondary outcome measures were the 'end of treatment' and 'sustained' biochemical response, the 'end of treatment' virologic response, histology, quality of life, and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight trials in which 271 patients were randomised to ribavirin versus placebo or no intervention and 48 trials in which 6585 patients were randomised to interferon with or without ribavirin. Compared with placebo or no intervention, ribavirin monotherapy had no significant effect on the virological response or histology and only a transient effect on the biochemical response. Compared with interferon, combination therapy reduced the risk of not having a sustained virological response by 26% in naive patients (relative risk (RR) 0.74; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.78), 33% in relapsers (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.57-0.78), and 11% in non-responders (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.83-0.96). There was no significant effect on morbidity plus mortality (Peto odds ratio 0.45; 95% CI 0.19-1.06). Irrespective of previous therapy, combination therapy significantly reduced the risk of not having a sustained biochemical response (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.59-0.84) or improved histology (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.56-0.81). Combination therapy also significantly increased the risk of treatment discontinuation (RR 1.28; 95% CI 1.07-1.52) and several types of adverse events. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy increased the number of naive patients, relapsers, and non-responders with a sustained virological, biochemical, or histological response, but also the occurrence of adverse events.

Antiviral Agents↗
PubMed2002

Propylthiouracil for alcoholic liver disease.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol is the most common cause of liver disease in the Western world today. Randomised clinical trials have addressed the question whether propylthiouracil has any efficacy in patients with alcoholic liver disease. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to assess the efficacy of propylthiouracil on mortality, clinical symptoms and complications, liver biochemistry, and liver histology in patients with alcoholic liver disease. Adverse events were also analysed. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (searched July 2001), The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2001), MEDLINE (January 1966 to July 2001), EMBASE (January 1985 to July 2001) were searched. These electronic searches were combined with full text searches. Manufacturers and researchers in the field were also contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials studying patients with alcoholic steatosis, alcoholic fibrosis, alcoholic hepatitis, and/or alcoholic cirrhosis were included. Interventions encompassed propylthiouracil at any dose versus placebo or no intervention. The trials could be double-blind, single-blind, or unblinded. The trials could be unpublished or published as an article, an abstract, or a letter and no language limitations were applied. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat method. The statistical package (RevMan and MetaView) provided by the Cochrane Collaboration was used. The methodological quality of the randomised clinical trials was evaluated by components of quality and the Jadad-scale. MAIN RESULTS: Combining the results of six randomised clinical trials including 710 patients demonstrated no significant effects of propylthiouracil versus placebo on mortality (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.40), liver related mortality (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.33), complications of the liver disease (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.24), or liver histology. Propylthiouracil was associated with a non significant trend towards an increased risk of non-serious adverse events (OR 1.49, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.99) and with the seldom occurrence of serious adverse events (leukopenia). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review could not demonstrate any significant efficacy of propylthiouracil on any clinically important outcomes (mortality, liver related mortality, liver complications, and liver histology) of patients with alcoholic liver disease and propylthiouracil was associated with adverse events. Accordingly, there is no evidence for using propylthiouracil for alcoholic liver disease outside randomised clinical trials.

Antimetabolites↗
PubMed2002

Interventions for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdoses.

BACKGROUND: Self-poisoning with paracetamol (acetaminophen) is a common cause of hepatotoxicity in the Western World. Interventions for paracetamol poisoning encompass inhibition of absorption, removal from the vascular system, antidotes, and liver transplantation. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of interventions or combination of interventions for paracetamol overdose. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and text searches were combined (until July 2001). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies as well as human volunteer randomised trials were included. The studies could be unpublished or published as an article, an abstract, or a letter and no language limitations were applied. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All the analyses were performed according to the intention to treat. The methodological quality of the included trials was evaluated by components of methodological quality. MAIN RESULTS: Nine RCTs (all small and of low methodological quality), one quasi-randomised trials, 37 observational studies, and nine randomised trials including human volunteers were identified. It was impossible to perform meta-analyses including more than two RCTs. Activated charcoal, gastric lavage, and ipecacuanha are able to reduce the absorption of paracetamol but the clinical benefit is unclear. Of these, activated charcoal seems to have the best risk-benefit ratio. N-acetylcysteine seems preferable to placebo/supportive treatment (relative risk of mortality in patients with fulminant hepatic failure = 0.65; 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.99), dimercaprol, and cysteamine, but N-acetylcysteine's superiority to methionine is unproven. It is not clear which N-acetylcysteine treatment protocol offers the best efficacy. No evidence supports haemoperfusion or cimetidine for paracetamol overdose. Liver transplantation has the potential to be life saving in fulminant hepatic failure, but further refinement of selection criteria for liver transplantation and evaluation of the long-term outcome are required. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: This systematic Review has highlighted a paucity of RCTs on interventions for paracetamol overdose. Activated charcoal seems the best choice to reduce paracetamol absorption. N-acetylcysteine should be given to patients with paracetamol overdose. No N-acetylcysteine regime has been shown to be more effective than any other. It is a delicate balance when to proceed to liver transplantation, which may be life saving in patients with a poor prognosis. Interventions for paracetamol overdose need assessment in high-quality, multi-centre RCTs.

Acetaminophen↗
PubMed2001

Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses.

PURPOSE: To explore whether reported methodologic quality affects estimated intervention effects in randomized trials and contributes to discrepancies between the results of large randomized trials and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: Meta-analyses of randomized trials that included at least one large trial (>/=1000 participants) were included, regardless of the therapeutic area. Eligible meta-analyses were identified through electronic searches and bibliographies of relevant articles. STUDY SELECTION: Full-length randomized trials. DATA EXTRACTION: Methodologic quality was assessed according to reported randomization, double blinding, and follow-up as separate components and by using the Jadad composite scale. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fourteen meta-analyses involving 190 randomized trials from eight therapeutic areas were included. Compared with large trials, intervention effects were exaggerated in small trials with inadequate allocation sequence generation (ratio of odds ratios, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.25 to 0.83]; P = 0.011), inadequate allocation concealment (ratio of odds ratios, 0.49 [CI, 0.27 to 0.86]; P = 0.014), and no double blinding (ratio of odds ratios, 0.52 [CI, 0.28 to 0.96]; P = 0.01). Large trials did not differ significantly from small trials with adequate generation of the allocation sequence, adequate allocation concealment, or adequate double blinding. No association was seen between reported follow-up and intervention effects. The Jadad scale provided no additional information because the scale and the quality components overlapped substantially. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, and double blinding lead to exaggerated estimates of intervention benefit and may contribute to discrepancies between the results of large randomized trials and small randomized trials in meta-analyses.

Double-Blind Method↗
PubMed2001

Interferon alfa with or without ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C: systematic review of randomised trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of interferon alfa with or without ribavirin for treatment of chronic hepatitis C. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised trials on interferon alfa plus ribavirin combination therapy versus interferon alfa. Patients were naive (not previously treated with interferon), relapsers (transient response to previous interferon therapy), or non-responders (no response to previous interferon therapy). STUDIES REVIEWED: Of 1155 references identified, 48 trials with 6585 patients met the inclusion criteria. Patients were followed to the end of treatment in 20 trials and in 28 trials for 12-96 weeks after treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Virological response and morbidity plus mortality. RESULTS: Compared with interferon, combination therapy reduced the risk of not having a sustained virological response for 6 months by 26% in naive patients (relative risk 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 0.78), 33% in relapsers (0.67, 0.57 to 0.78), and 11% in non-responders (0.89, 0.83 to 0.96). Morbidity and mortality showed a non-significant trend in favour of combination therapy (Peto odds ratio 0.45, 0.19 to 1.06). Combination therapy significantly reduced the risk of not having improvement in results of histology by 17% in naive patients (0.83, 0.74 to 0.93) and by 27% in relapsers and non-responders (0.73, 0.66 to 0.82). The risk of treatment discontinuations was significantly higher after combination therapy (1.28, 1.07 to 1.52). CONCLUSION: Treatment with interferon alfa plus ribavirin has a significant beneficial effect on the virological and histological responses of patients with chronic hepatitis C, irrespective of previous treatment. Combination therapy may therefore also be considered appropriate for relapsers and non-responders.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Colchicine for alcoholic and non-alcoholic liver fibrosis and cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: The majority of liver fibrosis and liver cirrhosis cases in the Western World is caused by alcohol and hepatotoxic viruses. Colchicine is an anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrotic medication. Several randomised clinical trials have addressed the question whether colchicine has any efficacy in patients with alcoholic as well as non-alcoholic fibrosis and cirrhosis. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to assess the efficacy of colchicine on mortality, clinical symptoms and complications, liver biochemistry, liver fibrosis markers, liver histology, alcohol consumption, quality of life, and health economics in patients with alcoholic and non-alcoholic fibrosis or cirrhosis, excluding primary biliary cirrhosis and other rarer forms of fibrosis/cirrhosis. Also adverse events were assessed. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and full text searches were combined. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised clinical trials were included studying patients with alcoholic fibrosis, alcoholic hepatitis and/or alcoholic cirrhosis as well as patients with viral induced or cryptogenic fibrosis and/or cirrhosis according to the diagnostic work-up of the individual trial. Interventions encompassed peroral colchicine at any dose versus placebo or no intervention. The trials could be double-blind, single-blind or unblinded. The trials could be unpublished or published and no language limitations were applied. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat method. The statistical package (RevMan and MetaView) provided by the Cochrane Collaboration was used. The methodological quality of the randomised clinical trials was evaluated by the Jadad-scale. MAIN RESULTS: Combining the results of 14 randomised clinical trials including 1150 patients demonstrated no significant effects of colchicine on mortality (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 1.29), liver related mortality (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.80), complications (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.62), liver biochemistry, liver histology, and alcohol consumption (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.79). Colchicine was associated with a significantly increased risk of adverse events (OR 4.92, 95% CI 2.66 to 9.10; P< 0.001). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Colchicine should not be used for alcoholic, viral, or cryptogenic liver fibrosis or liver cirrhosis outside randomised trials.

Colchicine↗
PubMed2001

S-adenosyl-L-methionine for alcoholic liver diseases.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol is a major cause of liver disease in the Western world today. S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAMe) acts as a methyl donor for all known biological methylation reactions and participates in the synthesis of glutathione, the main cellular anti-oxidant. Randomised clinical trials have addressed the question whether SAMe has any efficacy in patients with alcoholic liver diseases. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to assess the efficacy of SAMe on mortality, clinical symptoms, complications, liver biochemistry, and liver histology in patients with alcoholic liver diseases. Adverse events were also analysed. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and full text searches were combined. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials studying patients with alcoholic liver diseases were included. Interventions encompassed peroral or parenteral administration of SAMe at any dose versus placebo or no intervention. The trials could be double blind, single blind, or unblinded. The trials could be unpublished or published as an article, an abstract, or a letter, and no language limitations were applied. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat method. The statistical package (RevMan and MetaView) provided by the Cochrane Collaboration was used. The methodological quality of the randomised clinical trials was evaluated by components of quality and the Jadad-score. MAIN RESULTS: Eight placebo-controlled randomised clinical trials including a heterogeneous sample of 330 patients with alcoholic liver disease were identified. Only one trial including 123 patients with alcoholic cirrhosis used adequate methodology and reported clearly on mortality and liver transplantation. It demonstrated no significant effects of SAMe on mortality (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.29), liver related mortality (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.58), mortality or liver transplantation (OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.09), or patients without complications (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.31). SAMe was not significantly associated with adverse events (OR 3.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 20.24). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review could not demonstrate any significant effect of SAMe on mortality, liver related mortality, mortality or liver transplantation, and liver complications of patients with alcoholic liver disease. SAMe should not be used for alcoholic liver disease outside randomised clinical trials.

Humans↗
PubMed2001

Benzodiazepine receptor antagonists for acute and chronic hepatic encephalopathy.

BACKGROUND: The pathogenesis of hepatic encephalopathy is unknown. It has been suggested that liver failure leads to the accumulation of substances that bind to a receptor-complex in the brain resulting in neural inhibition which may progress to coma. Several trials have assessed benzodiazepine receptor antagonists for hepatic encephalopathy, but the results are conflicting. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of benzodiazepine receptor antagonists for patients with acute or chronic hepatic encephalopathy. SEARCH STRATEGY: Eligible trials were identified through The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, reference lists of relevant articles, authors of trials, and the pharmaceutical company known to produce benzodiazepine receptor antagonists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing any benzodiazepine receptor antagonist versus placebo or no intervention for hepatic encephalopathy were included, regardless of language or publication status. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial inclusion and data extraction were made independently by two contributors. Depending on the presence or absence of significant heterogeneity (P<0.1) a random or fixed effect model was used. Potential causes for heterogeneity were explored by sensitivity analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve randomised trials with 765 patients were included. Eight trials used a crossover design. All trials were double-blind and assessed flumazenil versus placebo. Data on all outcomes could not be extracted from all trials. The included patients had a favourable prognosis (341/370 (92%) survived in the flumazenil group versus 325/356 (91%) in the placebo group). Flumazenil had no significant effect on full recovery (two trials), survival (nine trials), or on the occurrence of adverse events (five trials). However, flumazenil was associated with a significant effect on improvement of hepatic encephalopathy compared to placebo at the end of treatment (103/346 (30%) versus 23/332 (7 %), risk difference 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.28, five trials). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Flumazenil had no significant effect on recovery or survival from hepatic encephalopathy. However, flumazenil had a significant effect on short-term improvement of hepatic encephalopathy in some patients with chronic liver disease and a highly favourable prognosis. Considering the fluctuating nature of hepatic encephalopathy, future trials should use a parallel design and assess if treatment with flumazenil leads to a sustained improvement or increased recovery and survival. Until this has been demonstrated, flumazenil may be considered for patients with chronic liver disease and hepatic encephalopathy, but cannot be recommended for routine clinical use.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2001

Medicinal herbs for hepatitis C virus infection.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a serious health problem world-wide. Medicinal herbs are increasingly being used for hepatitis C. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of medicinal herbs for hepatitis C virus infection. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches were applied to The Controlled Trial Registers of The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group, The Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field, and The Cochrane Library as well as MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, Chinese and Japanese databases. Five Chinese journals and one Japanese journal were handsearched. No language restriction was used. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing medicinal herbs (single herb or compound of herbs) versus placebo, no intervention, general non-specific treatment, other herbal medicine, or interferon and/or ribavirin treatment. Trials of medicinal herbs plus interferon and/or ribavirin versus interferon and/or ribavirin alone were also included. Trials could be double-blind, single-blind, or unblinded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. The methodological quality of the trials was evaluated using the generation of allocation sequence, allocation concealment, double blinding, and the Jadad-scale. The outcomes were presented as relative risk or weighted mean difference, both with 95% confidence interval. MAIN RESULTS: Ten randomised trials, including 517 patients with mainly chronic hepatitis C, evaluated ten different medicinal herbs versus various control interventions (four placebo, four interferon, two other herbs). The methodological quality was considered adequate in four trials and inadequate in six trials. Compared with placebo in four trials, none of the medicinal herbs showed positive effects on clearance of serum HCV RNA or anti-HCV antibody or on serum liver enzymes, except one short-term trial in which a silybin preparation showed a significant effect on reducing serum aspartate aminotransferase and gamma-glutamyltranspeptidase activities. The herbal compound Bing Gan Tang combined with interferon-alpha showed significantly better effects on clearance of serum HCV RNA (relative risk 2.54; 95% confidence interval 1.43 to 4.49) and on normalisation of serum alanine aminotransferase activity (relative risk 2.54; 95% confidence interval 1.43 to 4.49) than interferon-alpha monotherapy. The herbal compound Yi Zhu decoction showed a significant effect on clearance of serum HCV RNA and normalisation of ALT levels compared to glycyrrhizin plus ribavirin. Yi Er Gan Tang showed a significant effect on normalising serum alanine aminotransferase compared to silymarin plus glucurolactone. There was no significant efficacy of the other examined herbs. The herbs were associated with adverse events. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is no firm evidence of efficacy of any medicinal herbs for HCV infection. Medicinal herbs for HCV infection should not be used outside randomised clinical trials.

Hepatitis C, Chronic↗
PubMed2001

Colchicine for alcoholic and non-alcoholic liver fibrosis or cirrhosis.

AIMS/BACKGROUND: Colchicine is an anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrotic drug. Several randomized clinical trials have addressed the question whether colchicine has any efficacy in patients with alcoholic as well as non-alcoholic fibrosis and cirrhosis. The objectives were to assess the efficacy of colchicine evaluated in randomized trials on mortality, liver related mortality, liver related complications, liver fibrosis markers, liver histology, alcohol consumption, quality of life, and health economics in patients with alcoholic and non-alcoholic fibrosis or cirrhosis. METHODS: Interventions encompassed peroral colchicine at any dose versus placebo or no intervention. The trials could be double-blind, single-blind or unblinded. The trials could be unpublished or published as an article, an abstract, or a letter, and no language limitations were applied. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat METHOD: MEDLINE, The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register and full text searches were combined. RESULTS: Combining the results of 14 randomized clinical trials including 1138 patients demonstrated no significant effects of colchicine on mortality (odds ratio (OR): 0.91; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64, 1.31), liver related mortality (OR: 0.98; CI 0.56, 1.74), complications (OR: 1.06; CI 0.65, 1.73), and the other outcomes. Colchicine was associated with a significantly increased risk of adverse events (OR: 4.41; CI 2.24, 8.70; p< 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Colchicine should not be used for liver fibrosis or liver cirrhosis irrespective of etiology. Future trials on colchicine for liver diseases ought to be large.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2001

Meta-analysis of propylthiouracil for alcoholic liver disease--a Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Review.

AIMS/BACKGROUND: The aim of this review was to determine the benefits and adverse effects of propylthiouracil for patients with alcoholic liver disease. METHODS: Systematic Cochrane Review of randomised clinical trials. The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Controlled Clinical Trials Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and full text searches were combined. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat method. Only randomised clinical trials studying patients with alcoholic steatosis, alcoholic fibrosis, alcoholic hepatitis and/or alcoholic cirrhosis were included. Interventions encompassed propylthiouracil at any dose versus placebo or no intervention. The trials could be double-blind, single-blind or unblinded. RESULTS: Six randomised clinical trials randomising 710 patients demonstrated no significant effects of propylthiouracil versus placebo on mortality (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.40), liver-related mortality (OR 0.78, CI 0.45 to 1.33), complications to the liver disease (OR 1.14, CI 0.58 to 2.24), and liver histology. Propylthiouracil was associated with a nonsignificant trend toward an increased risk of nonserious adverse events (OR 1.49, CI 0.74 to 2.99) and with the rare occurrence of serious adverse events (leukopenia). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review could not demonstrate any significant effect of propylthiouracil on any clinically important outcomes (mortality, liver-related mortality, liver complications and liver histology) of patients with alcoholic liver disease.

Antithyroid Agents↗