Nonabsorbable Disaccharides Research Articles

Updates on the pathophysiology and therapeutic targets for hepatic encephalopathy.

Hepatic encephalopathy is one of the most debilitating clinical manifestations of cirrhosis and associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Treatment modalities available include the nonabsorbable disaccharides (lactulose) and the nonabsorbable antibiotics (rifaximin). Newer therapeutic targets under evaluation include ammonia scavengers (ornithine phenylacetate) and modulation of gut microbiota (fecal microbiota transplantation). This review will focus on the pathophysiology of hepatic encephalopathy along with an update on therapeutic targets under investigation.

L-Ornithine L-Aspartate (LOLA) for Hepatic Encephalopathy in Cirrhosis: Results of Randomized Controlled Trials and Meta-Analyses.

This manuscript represents an appraisal of the evidence in support of l-ornithine-l-aspartate (LOLA) for the management and treatment of hepatic encephalopathy (HE) in cirrhosis. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted over the last two decades generally reveal evidence of benefit of LOLA in a range of clinical presentations. This included improvement of mental state grade in overt HE (OHE) assessed by West Haven criteria as well as in minimal HE (MHE) assessed by psychometric testing where the oral formulation of LOLA was determined to be particularly effective. However, concerns over study quality were noted in one meta-analysis. Nevertheless, the concomitant lowering of fasting blood ammonia was reported in all RCTs using this endpoint. Network meta-analyses showed that LOLA appears to be comparable (or superior) in efficacy to non-absorbable disaccharides or probiotics. Emerging evidence from single RCTs show efficacy of LOLA for the treatment of post-transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPSS) HE as well as for secondary HE prophylaxis. These findings provide support for the use of LOLA in the treatment of HE and future trials should focus on the use of LOLA for prophylaxis.

Lactulose Management of Minimal Hepatic Encephalopathy

Minimal hepatic encephalopathy has been shown to increase risk of involvement in road traffic accidents and alter quality of life. This systematic review focused on the role of nonabsorbable disaccharides for the management of minimal hepatic encephalopathy. Randomized clinical trials that evaluated medical management of minimal hepatic encephalopathy were considered for inclusion. Individual studies compared lactulose with usual care and lactulose with probiotics and L-ornithine-L-aspartate. The outcome for examination was the neuropsychiatric test for cognitive function. Search strategies outlined by the Johanna Briggs Institute were used, and articles and references of selected articles were reviewed according to that methodology. Meta-analyses and narrative synthesis of the included studies were undertaken. Treatment of minimal hepatic encephalopathy with lactulose, probiotics, or L-ornithine-L-aspartate was seen to be equally effective in reducing abnormal tests at 1, 3, and 12 months post-treatment. All patients with minimal hepatic encephalopathy should be screened using a neuropsychiatric test and receive treatment as needed. Treatment can delay or eliminate risky automobile accidents and harm to self. Lactulose, probiotics, and L-ornithine-L-aspartate are a low-cost alternative compared with antibiotic treatment.

Quality of life in patients with minimal hepatic encephalopathy.

Minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) represents the mildest type of hepatic encephalopathy (HE). This condition alters the performance of psychometric tests by impairing attention, working memory, psychomotor speed, and visuospatial ability, as well as electrophysiological and other functional brain measures. MHE is a frequent complication of liver disease, affecting up to 80% of tested patients, depending of the diagnostic tools used for the diagnosis. MHE is related to falls, to an impairment in fitness to drive and the development of overt HE, MHE severely affects the lives of patients and caregivers by altering their quality of life (QoL) and their socioeconomic status. MHE is detected in clinically asymptomatic patients through appropriate psychometric tests and neurophysiological methods which highlight neuropsychological alterations such as video-spatial orientation deficits, attention disorders, memory, reaction times, electroencephalogram slowing, prolongation of latency evoked cognitive potentials and reduction in the critical flicker frequency. Several treatments have been proposed for MHE treatment such as non-absorbable disaccharides, poorly absorbable antibiotics such rifaximin, probiotics and branched chain amino acids. However, because of the multiple diagnosis methods, the various endpoints of treatment trials and the variety of agents used in trials, to date the treatment of MHE is not routinely recommended apart from on a case-by-case basis. Aim of this review is analyze the burden of MHE on QoL of patients and provide a brief summary of therapeutic approaches.

Effects of rifaximin versus nonabsorbable disaccharides in hepatic encephalopathy

Effects of rifaximin versus nonabsorbable disaccharides in hepatic encephalopathy

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

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

The burden of minimal hepatic encephalopathy: from diagnosis to therapeutic strategies.

Minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) is the mildest form of hepatic encephalopathy (HE). It affects the performance of psychometric tests focused on attention, working memory, psychomotor speed, and visuospatial ability, as well as electrophysiological and other functional brain measures. MHE is a frequent complication of liver disease, affecting up to 80% of tested patients. By being related to falls, an impairment in fitness to drive and the development of overt HE, MHE severely affects the lives of patients and caregivers by altering their quality of life and their socioeconomic status. MHE is detected in clinically asymptomatic patients using appropriate psychometric tests and neurophysiological methods that highlight neuropsychological alterations, such as video-spatial orientation deficits, attention disorders, memory, reaction times, electroencephalogram slowing, prolongation of latency-evoked cognitive potentials, and reduction in the critical flicker frequency. Several treatments have been proposed for MHE treatment, including non-absorbable disaccharides, poorly absorbable antibiotics such as rifaximin, probiotics and branched-chain amino acids. However, because of the multiple diagnosis methods, the various endpoints of treatment trials and the variety of agents used in trials, the treatment of MHE is not currently recommended as routine, but only on a case-by-case basis.

Managing Encephalopathy in the Outpatient Setting.

In cirrhosis of liver, hepatic encephalopathy (HE) has an important impact on health-related quality of life. It is important to define whether HE is episodic, recurrent, or persistent; types A, B, or C; overt HE or covert HE; and spontaneous or precipitated. The overt HE is clinically evident and needs hospitalization. Nonabsorbable disaccharides, rifaximin, and probiotics are proven to be useful in the treatment of overt HE. Covert HE includes both minimal HE and grade I HE. It is not apparent on routine clinical examination. Presence of poor work productivity, increased accidental injuries on complex machinery and driving, etc., raise the suspicion of cognitive dysfunction. Specialized neurocognitive testing like psychometric HE, computerized tests like critical flicker frequency tests, inhibitory control tests, Stroop encephalopathy tests, and electroencephalography are needed to diagnose overt HE. Various studies have shown lactulose and rifaximin to be useful in overt HE. However, presence of persistent and recurrent HE in cirrhosis is an indication for liver transplant. Lactulose is effective both in improving reversal of minimal HE and in reducing the risk of development of overt HE.How to cite this article: Gupta T, Rathi S, Dhiman RK. Managing Encephalopathy in the Outpatient Setting. Euroasian J Hepato-Gastroenterol 2017;7(1):48-54.

Branched-chain amino acids for people with hepatic encephalopathy.

Hepatic encephalopathy is a brain dysfunction with neurological and psychiatric changes associated with liver insufficiency or portal-systemic shunting. The severity ranges from minor symptoms to coma. A Cochrane systematic review including 11 randomised clinical trials on branched-chain amino acids (BCAA) versus control interventions has evaluated if BCAA may benefit people with hepatic encephalopathy. To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of BCAA versus any control intervention for people with hepatic encephalopathy. We identified trials through manual and electronic searches in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, and LILACS (May 2017). We included randomised clinical trials, irrespective of the bias control, language, or publication status. The authors independently extracted data based on published reports and collected data from the primary investigators. We changed our primary outcomes in this update of the review to include mortality (all cause), hepatic encephalopathy (number of people without improved manifestations of hepatic encephalopathy), and adverse events. The analyses included random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses. We performed subgroup, sensitivity, regression, and trial sequential analyses to evaluate sources of heterogeneity (including intervention, and participant and trial characteristics), bias (using The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group method), small-study effects, and the robustness of the results after adjusting for sparse data and multiplicity. We graded the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We found 16 randomised clinical trials including 827 participants with hepatic encephalopathy classed as overt (12 trials) or minimal (four trials). Eight trials assessed oral BCAA supplements and seven trials assessed intravenous BCAA. The control groups received placebo/no intervention (two trials), diets (10 trials), lactulose (two trials), or neomycin (two trials). In 15 trials, all participants had cirrhosis. We classed seven trials as low risk of bias and nine trials as high risk of bias (mainly due to lack of blinding or for-profit funding). In a random-effects meta-analysis of mortality, we found no difference between BCAA and controls (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.11; 760 participants; 15 trials; moderate quality of evidence). We found no evidence of small-study effects. Sensitivity analyses of trials with a low risk of bias found no beneficial or detrimental effect of BCAA on mortality. Trial sequential analysis showed that the required information size was not reached, suggesting that additional evidence was needed. BCAA had a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.88; 827 participants; 16 trials; high quality of evidence). We found no small-study effects and confirmed the beneficial effect of BCAA in a sensitivity analysis that only included trials with a low risk of bias (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96). The trial sequential analysis showed that firm evidence was reached. In a fixed-effect meta-analysis, we found that BCAA increased the risk of nausea and vomiting (RR 5.56; 2.93 to 10.55; moderate quality of evidence). We found no beneficial or detrimental effects of BCAA on nausea or vomiting in a random-effects meta-analysis or on quality of life or nutritional parameters. We did not identify predictors of the intervention effect in the subgroup, sensitivity, or meta-regression analyses. In sensitivity analyses that excluded trials with a lactulose or neomycin control, BCAA had a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.92). Additional sensitivity analyses found no difference between BCAA and lactulose or neomycin (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.30). In this updated review, we included five additional trials. The analyses showed that BCAA had a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy. We found no effect on mortality, quality of life, or nutritional parameters, but we need additional trials to evaluate these outcomes. Likewise, we need additional randomised clinical trials to determine the effect of BCAA compared with interventions such as non-absorbable disaccharides, rifaximin, or other antibiotics.

Rifaximin for the Prevention and Treatment of Hepatic Encephalopathy: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials

Background: The main licensed indication for rifaximin is the prevention of recurrent hepatic encephalopathy (HE) after an index event although many early trials showed it was an efficacious treatment for both acute and chronic HE. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of rifaximin in patients with cirrhosis by undertaking meta-analyses of RCTs comparing rifaximin vs. placebo/no intervention or vs. non-absorbable disaccharides (NADs). Methods: Electronic and manual searches of the literature were undertaken; further information was obtained from trialists and pharmaceutical companies. Meta-analyses were conducted and results presented as relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Sources of heterogeneity and the influence of random and systematic errors were evaluated in subgroup and trial sequential analyses. Results: A total of 21 RCTs involving 2258 patients were included. Individual patient data were obtained from five trials and unpublished information from 10 trials. Rifaximin showed a beneficial effect on mortality compared with placebo/no intervention when including all 11 RCTs (RR 0.58, 0.44–0.77; participants = 1129). Subgroup analyses showed that rifaximin reduced mortality in overt HE (0.50, 0.36–0.71), but not in minimal HE (0.50, 0.20–1.22), or in the prevention trials (1.01, 0.54–1.88) or when excluding the five RCTs in which NADs were used as co-intervention (0.74, 0.31–1.77) (Figure 1). Additional analyses showed a beneficial effect of rifaximin on overt HE (0.62, 0.41–0.93) and minimal HE (0.43, 0.30–0.62), but not in the prevention of HE (0.80, 0.45–1.42) or in an analysis that excluded RCTs in which NADs were used as co-invention (0.64, 0.39–1.04). Rifaximin reduced the risk of serious adverse events (SAE) (0.65, 0.51–0.84) and had a potential beneficial effect on Quality of Life (MD −2.05, −2.78 to −1.32). In meta-analyses of six RCTs comparing rifaximin vs. NADs, it had no effect on mortality (0.86, 0.42–1.77; participants = 447); it had a beneficial effect on overt HE (0.64, 0.43–0.93), but not minimal HE (0.85, 0.47–1.53) or in the prevention trials (0.89, 0.51–1.57); it did not reduce the risk of SAEs (RR 0.89, 0.56–1.42). Conclusion: There is moderate to low quality evidence that rifaximin combined with NADs is a safe and effective intervention for patients with cirrhosis and overt or minimal HE and for the prevention of recurrent HE after an index event. Disclosures/Financial Association: Nina Kimer has received rifaximin and placebo tablets, and an unrestricted grant from Norgine for a clinical trial. The authors have none to declare.

Current state of knowledge of hepatic encephalopathy (part III): non-absorbable disaccharides.

Nonabsorbable disaccharides have been the mainstay of treatment for hepatic encephalopathy since introduced into clinical practice in 1966. Their beneficial effects reflect their ability to reduce the intestinal production/absorption of ammonia. A recent Cochrane review confirmed the efficacy and safety of nonabsorbable disaccharides for the treatment and prevention of hepatic encephalopathy in patients with cirrhosis. The findings were robust and support the use of nonabsorbable disaccharides as a first line treatment for hepatic encephalopathy, in this patient population, and for its prevention.

Evaluation and Management of Hepatic Encephalopathy: Current Status and Future Directions.

Hepatic encephalopathy is a spectrum of neurocognitive manifestations often seen in patients with liver injury or rarely in patients with portosystemic shunting without liver injury. It can be divided into minimal (covert) hepatic encephalopathy and overt hepatic encephalopathy, depending on the severity. Patients with hepatic encephalopathy have compromised clinical outcomes, decreased quality of life, and increased healthcare utilization, often resulting in a heavy financial and personal burden on caregivers. The diagnosis remains largely clinical, with the exclusion of possible other causes for the altered mental status. Current treatment strategies include nonabsorbable disaccharides and antibiotics. This review will focus on the diagnosis, management and clinical impact of hepatic encephalopathy.

Hepatic encephalopathy

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a common complication of liver cirrhosis and it can manifest with a broad spectrum of neuropsychiatric abnormalities of varying severity, acuity and time course with important clinical implications. According to recent guidelines, HE has been classified into different types, depending on the severity of hepatic dysfunction, the presence of porto-systemic shunts and the number of previous episodes or persistent manifestations. From a clinical point of view, HE can be recognized as unimpaired, covert (that deals with minimal and grade 1 according to the grading of mental state), and overt (that is categorized from grade 2 to grade 4). Different and only partially known pathogenic mechanisms have been identified, comprising ammonia, inflammatory cytokines, benzodiazepine-like compounds and manganese deposition. Different therapeutic strategies are available for treating HE, in particular the overt HE, since covert HE needs to be managed case by case. Recognition and treatment of precipitating factors represent fundamental part of the management. The more effective treatments, which can be performed separately or combined, are represented by non-absorbable disaccharides (lactulose and lactitol) and the topic antibiotic rifaximin; other possible therapies, mainly used in patients non responders to previous treatments, are represented by branched chain amino acids and metabolic ammonia scavengers.

Nonabsorbable disaccharides for hepatic encephalopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Nonabsorbable disaccharides (NADs) have been used to treat hepatic encephalopathy (HE) since 1966. However, a Cochrane Review, published in 2004, found insufficient evidence to recommend their use in this context. This updated systematic review evaluates the effects of the NADs, lactulose and lactitol, for the treatment and prevention of HE in patients with cirrhosis. Thirty-eight randomized controlled trials, involving 1,828 patients, were identified through electronic and manual searches; 31 randomized controlled trials looked at the treatment of HE, while seven looked at its primary/secondary prevention. Random-effects meta-analyses showed that, compared to placebo/no intervention, NADs had a beneficial effect on HE (relative risk [RR] = 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.74, number needed to treat [NNT] = 4) and serious liver-related adverse events such as liver failure, variceal bleeding, serious infections, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, and hepatorenal syndrome (RR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.26-0.69, NNT = 50). Treatment was also associated with a reduction in mortality in patients with overt HE (RR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.14-0.94, NNT = 20), although not in patients with minimal HE. Meta-analyses of the prevention randomized controlled trials showed that NADs prevented the development of HE (RR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.33-0.68, NNT = 6), the risk of developing serious liver-related adverse events (RR = 0.48, 95% CI 0.33-0.70, NNT = 6), and reduced mortality (RR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.40-0.98, NNT = 20). Use of NADs was associated with nonserious gastrointestinal adverse events. There were no differences in the efficacy or safety of lactulose and lactitol. NADs have beneficial effects in the treatment and prevention of HE; their use, in this context, confers additional benefits including a reduction in serious liver-related morbidities and all-cause mortality. (Hepatology 2016;64:908-922).

Non-absorbable disaccharides versus placebo/no intervention and lactulose versus lactitol for the prevention and treatment of hepatic encephalopathy in people with cirrhosis.

Non-absorbable disaccharides (lactulose and lactitol) are recommended as first-line treatment for hepatic encephalopathy. The previous (second) version of this review included 10 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating non-absorbable disaccharides versus placebo/no intervention and eight RCTs evaluating lactulose versus lactitol for people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy. The review found no evidence to either support or refute the use of the non-absorbable disaccharides and no differences between lactulose versus lactitol. To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of i) non-absorbable disaccharides versus placebo/no intervention and ii) lactulose versus lactitol in people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy. We carried out electronic searches of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 10), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to 19 October 2015; manual searches of meetings and conference proceedings; checks of bibliographies; and correspondence with investigators and pharmaceutical companies. We included RCTs, irrespective of publication status, language, or blinding. Two review authors, working independently, retrieved data from published reports and correspondence with investigators. The primary outcomes were mortality, hepatic encephalopathy, and serious adverse events. We presented the results of meta-analyses as risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the quality of the evidence using 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation' (GRADE) and bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group domains. Our analyses included regression analyses of publication bias and other small study effects, Trial Sequential Analyses to detect type 1 and type 2 errors, and subgroup and sensitivity analyses. We included 38 RCTs with a total of 1828 participants. Eight RCTs had a low risk of bias in the assessment of mortality. All trials had a high risk of bias in the assessment of the remaining outcomes. Random-effects meta-analysis showed a beneficial effect of non-absorbable disaccharides versus placebo/no intervention on mortality when including all RCTs with extractable data (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.87; 1487 participants; 24 RCTs; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence) and in the eight RCTs with a low risk of bias (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.97; 705 participants). The Trial Sequential Analysis with the relative risk reduction (RRR) reduced to 30% confirmed the findings when including all RCTs, but not when including only RCTs with a low risk of bias or when we reduced the RRR to 22%. Compared with placebo/no intervention, the non-absorbable disaccharides were associated with beneficial effects on hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.69; 1415 participants; 22 RCTs; I(2) = 32%; moderate quality evidence). Additional analyses showed that non-absorbable disaccharides can help to reduce serious adverse events associated with the underlying liver disease including liver failure, hepatorenal syndrome, and variceal bleeding (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.60; 1487 participants; 24 RCTs; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence). We confirmed the results in Trial Sequential Analysis. Tests for subgroup differences showed no statistical differences between RCTs evaluating prevention, overt, or minimal hepatic encephalopathy. The evaluation of secondary outcomes showed a potential beneficial effect of the non-absorbable disaccharides on quality of life, but we were not able to include the data in an overall meta-analysis (very low quality evidence). Non-absorbable disaccharides were associated with non-serious (mainly gastrointestinal) adverse events (very low quality evidence). None of the RCTs comparing lactulose versus lactitol evaluated quality of life. The review found no differences between lactulose and lactitol for the remaining outcomes (very low quality evidence). This review includes a large number of RCTs evaluating the prevention or treatment of hepatic encephalopathy. The analyses found evidence that non-absorbable disaccharides may be associated with a beneficial effect on clinically relevant outcomes compared with placebo/no intervention.

Ascitis, insuficiencia renal aguda y encefalopatía hepática

AscitesAscites is the most common complication of cirrhosis after hepatocarcinoma. The treatment of uncomplicated ascites focuses on increasing the renal excretion of sodium with diuretics. Refractory ascites requires periodic evacuative paracentesis with albumin replenishment. Percutaneous intrahepatic portosystemic shunts can be appropriate in properly selected cases. Hepatorenal syndromeThe diagnosis of hepatorenal syndrome has been recently reviewed, eliminating the previously established cut-off points, which helps treat patients earlier. Hepatic encephalopathyHepatic encephalopathy is a neuropsychiatric syndrome that occurs in patients with highly diverse hepatic disorders. Its diagnosis is based on suggestive clinical manifestations, the demonstration of underlying liver disease and the ruling out of other causes. Its management requires the systematic search and correction of triggers and the use of hypoammonaemic measures, with nonabsorbable disaccharides the drugs of choice. Liver transplantationPatients with these complications of cirrhosis have a poor prognosis and should therefore be considered for liver transplantation.

Management of Hepatic Encephalopathy: A Primer.

To review the management of hepatic encephalopathy (HE), including lifestyle modifying strategies and pharmacological interventions. A literature search of PubMed through March 2016 was conducted utilizing the keywords hepatic encephalopathy, ammonia, and cirrhosis All published articles evaluating treatments for HE were considered. Available English-language data from reviews, abstracts, presentations, and clinical trials of the treatment of HE in humans were reviewed; relevant clinical data were selected and included. HE is a prevalent complication of portal hypertension and cirrhosis that results in altered mental status and neuropsychiatric impairment. Although the pathogenesis has not been elucidated, numerous treatment options exist. This review will explore the role of dietary interventions and supplements, including use of zinc, acetyl-l-carnitine, and probiotics, in the management of HE. Additionally, the use of various ammonia-lowering agents will be evaluated. The nonabsorbable disaccharides represent first-line therapies for the management and prophylaxis of HE; rifaximin use has been demonstrated to be effective for both treatment and prophylaxis of HE symptoms, with use relegated to those patients who fail to respond to or tolerate the nonabsorbable disaccharides. In light of toxicities associated with the use of neomycin and metronidazole, recent guidelines recommend both as alternatives for the treatment of HE, with the use of vancomycin discouraged. Although numerous treatment options are available, management of HE remains a clinical challenge. Additional research is needed to explore the pathogenesis and better understand the role of pharmacotherapy in managing this condition.

Non-absorbable disaccharides versus placebo/no intervention and lactulose versus lactitol for the prevention and treatment of hepatic encephalopathy in people with cirrhosis.

Non-absorbable disaccharides (lactulose and lactitol) are recommended as first-line treatment for hepatic encephalopathy. The previous (second) version of this review included 10 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating non-absorbable disaccharides versus placebo/no intervention and eight RCTs evaluating lactulose versus lactitol for people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy. The review found no evidence to either support or refute the use of the non-absorbable disaccharides and no differences between lactulose versus lactitol. To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of i) non-absorbable disaccharides versus placebo/no intervention and ii) lactulose versus lactitol in people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy. We carried out electronic searches of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 10), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to 19 October 2015; manual searches of meetings and conference proceedings; checks of bibliographies; and correspondence with investigators and pharmaceutical companies. We included RCTs, irrespective of publication status, language, or blinding. Two review authors, working independently, retrieved data from published reports and correspondence with investigators. The primary outcomes were mortality, hepatic encephalopathy, and serious adverse events. We presented the results of meta-analyses as risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the quality of the evidence using 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation' (GRADE) and bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group domains. Our analyses included regression analyses of publication bias and other small study effects, Trial Sequential Analyses to detect type 1 and type 2 errors, and subgroup and sensitivity analyses. We included 38 RCTs with a total of 1828 participants. Eight RCTs had a low risk of bias in the assessment of mortality. All trials had a high risk of bias in the assessment of the remaining outcomes. Random-effects meta-analysis showed a beneficial effect of non-absorbable disaccharides versus placebo/no intervention on mortality when including all RCTs with extractable data (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.87; 1487 participants; 24 RCTs; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence) and in the eight RCTs with a low risk of bias (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.97; 705 participants). The Trial Sequential Analysis with the relative risk reduction (RRR) reduced to 30% confirmed the findings when including all RCTs, but not when including only RCTs with a low risk of bias or when we reduced the RRR to 22%. Compared with placebo/no intervention, the non-absorbable disaccharides were associated with beneficial effects on hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.69; 1415 participants; 22 RCTs; I(2) = 32%; moderate quality evidence). Additional analyses showed that non-absorbable disaccharides can help to reduce serious adverse events associated with the underlying liver disease including liver failure, hepatorenal syndrome, and variceal bleeding (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.60; 1487 participants; 24 RCTs; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence). We confirmed the results in Trial Sequential Analysis. Tests for subgroup differences showed no statistical differences between RCTs evaluating prevention, overt, or minimal hepatic encephalopathy. The evaluation of secondary outcomes showed a potential beneficial effect of the non-absorbable disaccharides on quality of life, but we were not able to include the data in an overall meta-analysis (very low quality evidence). Non-absorbable disaccharides were associated with non-serious (mainly gastrointestinal) adverse events (very low quality evidence). None of the RCTs comparing lactulose versus lactitol evaluated quality of life. The review found no differences between lactulose and lactitol for the remaining outcomes (very low quality evidence). This review includes a large number of RCTs evaluating the prevention or treatment of hepatic encephalopathy. The analyses found evidence that non-absorbable disaccharides may be associated with a beneficial effect on clinically relevant outcomes compared with placebo/no intervention.

Role of rifaximin in the treatment of hepatic encephalopathy

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a frequent and serious complication of liver cirrhosis. In addition to correction of the precipitating factors, the most commonly used treatments are non-absorbable disaccharides and rifaximin. Many of the recommendations are based on current clinical practice and there are few randomized controlled trials. Currently, rifaximin should be initiated during an episode of EH if, after 24-48 hours of non-absorbable disaccharide therapy, there is no clinical improvement. In recurrent EH, it is advisable to add rifaximin in patients under non-absorbable disaccharide therapy who develop a new episode. Currently, standard treatment with rifaximin for minimal EH is not recommended. Rifaximin is effective in the acute treatment of overt encephalopathy and in preventing recurrence.

Papel de la rifaximina en el tratamiento de la encefalopatía hepática

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a frequent and serious complication of liver cirrhosis.In addition to correction of the precipitating factors, the most commonly used treatments are non-absorbable disaccharides and rifaximin. Many of the recommendations are based on current clinical practice and there are few randomized controlled trials.Currently, rifaximin should be initiated during an episode of EH if, after 24-48 hours of non-absorbable disaccharide therapy, there is no clinical improvement. In recurrent EH, it is advisable to add rifaximin in patients under non-absorbable disaccharide therapy who develop a new episode. Currently, standard treatment with rifaximin for minimal EH is not recommended.Rifaximin is effective in the acute treatment of overt encephalopathy and in preventing recurrence.