Industry sponsorship and research outcome

Pharmacological interventions for alcoholic liver disease (alcohol-related liver disease): an attempted network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Alcohol-related liver disease is due to excessive alcohol consumption. It includes a spectrum of liver diseases such as alcohol-related fatty liver, alcoholic hepatitis, and alcoholic cirrhosis. Mortality associated with alcoholic hepatitis is high. The optimal pharmacological treatment of alcoholic hepatitis and other alcohol-related liver disease remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different pharmacological interventions in the management of alcohol-related liver disease through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available pharmacological interventions according to their safety and efficacy in order to identify potential treatments. However, even in the subgroup of participants when the potential effect modifiers appeared reasonably similar across comparisons, there was evidence of inconsistency by one or more methods of assessment of inconsistency. Therefore, we did not report the results of the network meta-analysis and reported the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions using standard Cochrane methodology.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and randomised controlled trials registers until February 2017 to identify randomised clinical trials on pharmacological treatments for alcohol-related liver diseases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) including participants with alcohol-related liver disease. We excluded trials that included participants who had previously undergone liver transplantation and those with co-existing chronic viral diseases. We considered any of the various pharmacological interventions compared with each other or with placebo or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials and independently extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on available-participant analysis with Review Manager. We assessed risk of bias according to Cochrane, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified a total of 81 randomised clinical trials. All the trials were at high risk of bias, and the overall quality of the evidence was low or very low for all outcomes. Alcoholic hepatitisFifty randomised clinical trials included 4484 participants with alcoholic hepatitis. The period of follow-up ranged from one to 12 months. Because of concerns about transitivity assumption, we did not perform the network meta-analysis. None of the active interventions showed any improvement in any of the clinical outcomes reported in the trials, which includes mortality (at various time points), cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, liver transplantation. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life or incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma. Severe alcoholic hepatitisOf the trials on alcoholic hepatitis, 19 trials (2545 participants) included exclusively participants with severe alcoholic hepatitis (Maddrey Discriminat Function > 32). The period of follow-up ranged from one to 12 months. There was no alteration in the conclusions when only people with severe alcoholic hepatitis were included in the analysis.

SOURCE OF FUNDING

Eleven trials were funded by parties with vested interest in the results. Sixteen trials were funded by parties without vested interest in the results. The source of funding was not reported in 23 trials. Other alcohol-related liver diseasesThirty-one randomised clinical trials included 3695 participants with other alcohol-related liver diseases (with a wide spectrum of alcohol-related liver diseases). The period of follow-up ranged from one to 48 months. The mortality at maximal follow-up was lower in the propylthiouracil group versus the no intervention group (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78; 423 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence). However, this result is based on two small trials at high risk of bias and further confirmation in larger trials of low risk of bias is necessary to recommend propylthiouracil routinely in people with other alcohol-related liver diseases. The mortality at maximal follow-up was higher in the ursodeoxycholic acid group versus the no intervention group (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.90; 226 participants; 1 trial; low-quality evidence).

SOURCE OF FUNDING

Twelve trials were funded by parties with vested interest in the results. Three trials were funded by parties without vested interest in the results. The source of funding was not reported in 16 trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Because of very low-quality evidence, there is uncertainty in the effectiveness of any pharmacological intervention versus no intervention in people with alcoholic hepatitis or severe alcoholic hepatitis. Based on low-quality evidence, propylthiouracil may decrease mortality in people with other alcohol-related liver diseases. However, these results must be confirmed by adequately powered trials with low risk of bias before propylthiouracil can be considered effective.Future randomised clinical trials should be conducted with approximately 200 participants in each group and follow-up of one to two years in order to compare the benefits and harms of different treatments in people with alcoholic hepatitis. Randomised clinical trials should include health-related quality of life and report serious adverse events separately from adverse events. Future randomised clinical trials should have a low risk of bias and low risk of random errors.

Maintenance immunosuppression for adults undergoing liver transplantation: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As part of liver transplantation, immunosuppression (suppressing the host immunity) is given to prevent graft rejections resulting from the immune response of the body against transplanted organ or tissues from a different person whose tissue antigens are not compatible with those of the recipient. The optimal maintenance immunosuppressive regimen after liver transplantation remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different maintenance immunosuppressive regimens in adults undergoing liver transplantation through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different immunosuppressive regimens according to their safety and efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until October 2016 to identify randomised clinical trials on immunosuppression for liver transplantation.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in adult participants undergoing liver transplantation (or liver retransplantation) for any reason. We excluded trials in which participants had undergone multivisceral transplantation or participants with established graft rejections. We considered any of the various maintenance immunosuppressive regimens compared with each other.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the odds ratio, rate ratio, and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 26 trials (3842 participants) in the review, and 23 trials (3693 participants) were included in one or more outcomes in the review. The vast majority of the participants underwent primary liver transplantation. All of the trials were at high risk of bias, and all of the evidence was of low or very low quality. In addition, because of sparse data involving trials at high risk of bias, it is not possible to entirely rely on the results of the network meta-analysis. The trials included mainly participants undergoing primary liver transplantation of varied aetiologies. The follow-up in the trials ranged from 3 to 144 months. The most common maintenance immunosuppression used as a control was tacrolimus. There was no evidence of difference in mortality (21 trials; 3492 participants) or graft loss (15 trials; 2961 participants) at maximal follow-up between the different maintenance immunosuppressive regimens based on the network meta-analysis. In the direct comparison, based on a single trial including 222 participants, tacrolimus plus sirolimus had increased mortality (HR 2.76, 95% CrI 1.30 to 6.69) and graft loss (HR 2.34, 95% CrI 1.28 to 4.61) at maximal follow-up compared with tacrolimus. There was no evidence of differences in the proportion of people with serious adverse events (1 trial; 719 participants), proportion of people with any adverse events (2 trials; 940 participants), renal impairment (8 trials; 2233 participants), chronic kidney disease (1 trial; 100 participants), graft rejections (any) (16 trials; 2726 participants), and graft rejections requiring treatment (5 trials; 1025 participants) between the different immunosuppressive regimens. The network meta-analysis showed that the number of adverse events was lower with cyclosporine A than with many other immunosuppressive regimens (12 trials; 1748 participants), and the risk of retransplantation (13 trials; 1994 participants) was higher with cyclosporine A than with tacrolimus (HR 3.08, 95% CrI 1.13 to 9.90). None of the trials reported number of serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, or costs.

FUNDING

14 trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies who would benefit from the results of the trial; two trials were funded by parties who had no vested interest in the results of the trial; and 10 trials did not report the source of funding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low-quality evidence from a single small trial from direct comparison, tacrolimus plus sirolimus increases mortality and graft loss at maximal follow-up compared with tacrolimus. Based on very low-quality evidence from network meta-analysis, we found no evidence of difference between different immunosuppressive regimens. We found very low-quality evidence from network meta-analysis and low-quality evidence from direct comparison that cyclosporine A causes more retransplantation compared with tacrolimus. Future randomised clinical trials should be adequately powered; performed in people who are generally seen in the clinic rather than in highly selected participants; employ blinding; avoid postrandomisation dropouts or planned cross-overs; and use clinically important outcomes such as mortality, graft loss, renal impairment, chronic kidney disease, and retransplantation. Such trials should use tacrolimus as one of the control groups. Moreover, such trials ought to be designed in such a way as to ensure low risk of bias and low risks of random errors.

Pharmacological interventions for non-alcohol related fatty liver disease (NAFLD): an attempted network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-alcohol related fatty liver disease (commonly called non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)) is liver steatosis in the absence of significant alcohol consumption, use of hepatotoxic medication, or other disorders affecting the liver such as hepatitis C virus infection, Wilson's disease, and starvation. NAFLD embraces the full spectrum of disease from pure steatosis (i.e. uncomplicated fatty liver) to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), via NASH-cirrhosis to cirrhosis. The optimal pharmacological treatment for people with NAFLD remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different pharmacological interventions in the treatment of NAFLD through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available pharmacological treatments according to their safety and efficacy. However, it was not possible to assess whether the potential effect modifiers were similar across different comparisons. Therefore, we did not perform the network meta-analysis, and instead, assessed the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions using standard Cochrane methodology.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.com to August 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in participants with NAFLD. We excluded trials which included participants who had previously undergone liver transplantation. We considered any of the various pharmacological interventions compared with each other or with placebo or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on an available participant analysis with Review Manager. We assessed risk of bias according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 77 trials including 6287 participants that met the inclusion criteria of this review. Forty-one trials (3829 participants) provided information for one or more outcomes. Only one trial was at low risk of bias in all domains. All other trials were at high risk of bias in one or more domains. Overall, all the evidence was very low quality. Thirty-five trials included only participants with non-alcohol related steatohepatitis (NASH) (based on biopsy confirmation). Five trials included only participants with diabetes mellitus; 14 trials included only participants without diabetes mellitus. The follow-up in the trials ranged from one month to 24 months.We present here only the comparisons of active intervention versus no intervention in which two or more trials reported at least one of the following outcomes: mortality at maximal follow-up, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life, the outcomes that determine whether a treatment should be used. Antioxidants versus no interventionThere was no mortality in either group (87 participants; 1 trial; very low quality evidence). None of the participants developed serious adverse events in the trial which reported the proportion of people with serious adverse events (87 participants; 1 trial; very low quality evidence). There was no evidence of difference in the number of serious adverse events between antioxidants and no intervention (rate ratio 0.89, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.19; 254 participants; 2 trials; very low quality evidence). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Bile acids versus no interventionThere was no evidence of difference in mortality at maximal follow-up (OR 5.11, 95% CI 0.24 to 107.34; 659 participants; 4 trials; very low quality evidence), proportion of people with serious adverse events (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.88; 404 participants; 3 trials; very low quality evidence), or the number of serious adverse events (rate ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.54; 404 participants; 3 trials; very low quality evidence) between bile acids and no intervention. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Thiazolidinediones versus no interventionThere was no mortality in either group (74 participants; 1 trial; very low quality evidence). None of the participants developed serious adverse events in the two trials which reported the proportion of people with serious adverse events (194 participants; 2 trials; very low quality evidence). There was no evidence of difference in the number of serious adverse events between thiazolidinediones and no intervention (rate ratio 0.25, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.05; 357 participants; 3 trials; very low quality evidence). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Source of fundingTwenty-six trials were partially- or fully-funded by pharmaceutical companies that would benefit, based on the results of the trial. Twelve trials did not receive any additional funding or were funded by parties with no vested interest in the results. The source of funding was not provided in 39 trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the very low quality evidence, we are very uncertain about the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for people with NAFLD including those with steatohepatitis. Further well-designed randomised clinical trials with sufficiently large sample sizes are necessary.

Pharmacological interventions for primary sclerosing cholangitis: an attempted network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Primary sclerosing cholangitis is a chronic cholestatic liver disease that is associated with both hepatobiliary and colorectal malignancies, which can result in liver cirrhosis and its complications. The optimal pharmacological treatment for patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different pharmacological interventions in people with primary sclerosing cholangitis by performing a network meta-analysis, and to generate rankings of available pharmacological interventions according to their safety and efficacy. Given that it was not possible to assess whether potential effect modifiers were similar across comparisons, we did not perform the network meta-analysis but instead used standard Cochrane methods.When trials begin to provide an adequate description of potential effect modifiers, we will attempt to conduct network meta-analysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index - Expanded, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and randomised controlled trials registers until February 2017 to identify randomised clinical trials (RCT) on pharmacological interventions for primary sclerosing cholangitis.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only RCTs, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status, in which participants were given a diagnosis of primary sclerosing cholangitis. We excluded trials that included previously liver-transplanted participants. We considered any of various pharmacological interventions compared with one other or with placebo. We excluded trials that compared different doses of various pharmacological interventions or that reported different treatment durations, except for ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA). As UDCA is the drug most commonly investigated for primary sclerosing cholangitis, we performed a second analysis in which we stratified the dose of UDCA.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We calculated the odds ratio and the rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on available-participant analysis with Review Manager. We assessed risk of bias according to Cochrane, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 22 RCTs in which 1211 participants were randomised to 13 different interventions. Most were placebo-controlled trials. Trials had few restrictions apart from an established diagnosis of primary sclerosing cholangitis, evidence of cholestasis, absence of decompensated liver disease, and absence of malignancy. However, some trials included symptomatic participants only, and others included both symptomatic and asymptomatic participants. A total of 11 RCTs (706 participants) provided data for one or more outcomes. The period of follow-up ranged from three months to three years in most trials. Only three trials reported follow-up longer than three years. Investigators found no evidence of differences in important clinical benefits such as reduction in mortality at maximal follow-up and improvement in health-related quality of life. Primary outcomes Mortality: Effect estimates: colchicine versus placebo: odds ratio 0.44, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.07, participants = 84, one trial; penicillamine versus placebo: odds ratio 1.18, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.58, participants = 70, one trial; steroids versus placebo: odds ratio 3.00, 95% CI 0.10 to 90.96, participants = 11, one trial; ursodeoxycholic acid versus placebo: odds ratio 1.51, 95% CI 0.63 to 3.63, participants = 348, two trials, I² = 0%; vancomycin versus placebo: not estimable because no events in either group, participants = 29, one trial. Serious adverse events (proportion): Effect estimates: infliximab versus placebo: odds ratio not estimable (because of zero events in both arms), participants = 7, one trial; steroids versus placebo: odds ratio 20.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 429.90, participants = 11, one trial; vancomycin versus placebo: not estimable because no events in either group, participants = 29, one trial. Serious adverse events (number): Effect estimates: infliximab versus placebo: rate ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.02 to 40.44, participants = 7, one trial; penicillamine versus placebo: rate ratio 13.60, 95% CI 0.78 to 237.83, participants = 70, one trial; steroids versus placebo: rate ratio 3.32, 95% CI 0.71 to 15.62, participants = 11, one trial. Adverse events (proportion): Effect estimates: steroids versus placebo: odds ratio 20.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 429.90, participants = 11, one trial; ursodeoxycholic acid versus placebo: odds ratio 1.22, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.17, participants = 198, one trial; vancomycin versus placebo: not estimable because no events in either group, participants = 29, one trial. Adverse events (number): Effect estimates: cyclosporin versus placebo: rate ratio 2.64, 95% CI 0.99 to 7.03, participants = 26, one trial; steroids versus placebo: rate ratio 3.32, 95% CI 0.71 to 15.62, participants = 11, one trial; ursodeoxycholic acid plus metronidazole versus ursodeoxycholic acid: rate ratio 2.36, 95% CI 0.98 to 5.71, participants = 71, one trial. Health-related quality of life: ursodeoxycholic acid versus placebo: mean difference 1.30, 95% CI -5.61 to 8.21, participants = 198, one trial (Short Form (SF)-36 General Health Scale). Secondary outcomes Studies provided no evidence of differences in clinical benefits such as a reduction in the requirement for liver transplantation or a reduction in the incidence proportion of cholangiocarcinoma. One small trial (29 participants) comparing vancomycin versus placebo reported no malignancies, no liver decompensation, and no liver transplantation in either group after a very short follow-up period of 12 weeks after treatment. None of the remaining trials clearly reported other clinical benefits such as decreased development of all malignancies, colorectal cancer, liver decompensation, time to liver decompensation, time to liver transplantation, or requirement for cholecystectomy to allow comparisons between different interventions.

SOURCE OF FUNDING

Fifteen trials reported the source of funding; three were funded by parties without vested interest in results of the trial, and 12 were funded in part or in full by drug companies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is currently insufficient to show differences in effectiveness measures such as mortality, health-related quality of life, cirrhosis, or liver transplantation between any active pharmacological intervention and no intervention. However, trials were at high risk of bias and included small numbers of participants, had short follow-up periods, and reported few clinical outcomes. An urgent need exists to identify an effective medical treatment for primary sclerosing cholangitis through well-designed RCTs with adequate follow-up that aim to identify differences in outcomes important to people with primary sclerosing cholangitis.

Pharmacological interventions for primary biliary cholangitis: an attempted network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Primary biliary cholangitis (previously primary biliary cirrhosis) is a chronic liver disease caused by the destruction of small intra-hepatic bile ducts resulting in stasis of bile (cholestasis), liver fibrosis, and liver cirrhosis. The optimal pharmacological treatment of primary biliary cholangitis remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different pharmacological interventions in the treatment of primary biliary cholangitis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available pharmacological interventions according to their safety and efficacy. However, it was not possible to assess whether the potential effect modifiers were similar across different comparisons. Therefore, we did not perform the network meta-analysis, and instead, assessed the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions using standard Cochrane methodology.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and randomised controlled trials registers to February 2017 to identify randomised clinical trials on pharmacological interventions for primary biliary cholangitis.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in participants with primary biliary cholangitis. We excluded trials which included participants who had previously undergone liver transplantation. We considered any of the various pharmacological interventions compared with each other or with placebo or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on available-participant analysis with Review Manager 5. We assessed risk of bias according to Cochrane, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 74 trials including 5902 participants that met the inclusion criteria of this review. A total of 46 trials (4274 participants) provided information for one or more outcomes. All the trials were at high risk of bias in one or more domains. Overall, all the evidence was low or very low quality. The proportion of participants with symptoms varied from 19.9% to 100% in the trials that reported this information. The proportion of participants who were antimitochondrial antibody (AMA) positive ranged from 80.8% to 100% in the trials that reported this information. It appeared that most trials included participants who had not received previous treatments or included participants regardless of the previous treatments received. The follow-up in the trials ranged from 1 to 96 months.The proportion of people with mortality (maximal follow-up) was higher in the methotrexate group versus the no intervention group (OR 8.83, 95% CI 1.01 to 76.96; 60 participants; 1 trial; low quality evidence). The proportion of people with mortality (maximal follow-up) was lower in the azathioprine group versus the no intervention group (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.98; 224 participants; 2 trials; I² = 0%; low quality evidence). However, it has to be noted that a large proportion of participants (25%) was excluded from the trial that contributed most participants to this analysis and the results were not reliable. There was no evidence of a difference in any of the remaining comparisons. The proportion of people with serious adverse events was higher in the D-penicillamine versus no intervention group (OR 28.77, 95% CI 1.57 to 526.67; 52 participants; 1 trial; low quality evidence). The proportion of people with serious adverse events was higher in the obeticholic acid plus ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) group versus the UDCA group (OR 3.58, 95% CI 1.02 to 12.51; 216 participants; 1 trial; low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in any of the remaining comparisons for serious adverse events (proportion) or serious adverse events (number of events). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life at any time point.

FUNDING

nine trials had no special funding or were funded by hospital or charities; 31 trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies; and 34 trials provided no information on source of funding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on very low quality evidence, there is currently no evidence that any intervention is beneficial for primary biliary cholangitis. However, the follow-up periods in the trials were short and there is significant uncertainty in this issue. Further well-designed randomised clinical trials are necessary. Future randomised clinical trials ought to be adequately powered; performed in people who are generally seen in the clinic rather than in highly selected participants; employ blinding; avoid post-randomisation dropouts or planned cross-overs; should have sufficient follow-up period (e.g. five or 10 years or more); and use clinically important outcomes such as mortality, health-related quality of life, cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, and liver transplantation. Alternatively, very large groups of participants should be randomised to facilitate shorter trial duration.

Management of people with early- or very early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: an attempted network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (primary liver cancer) is classified in many ways. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) group staging classifies the cancer based on patient's life expectancy. People with very early- or early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma have single tumour or three tumours of maximum diameter of 3 cm or less, Child-Pugh status A to B, and performance status 0 (fully functional). Management of hepatocellular carcinoma is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions used in the treatment of early or very early hepatocellular carcinoma through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available interventions according to their safety and efficacy. However, it was not possible to assess whether the potential effect modifiers were similar across different comparisons. Therefore, we did not perform the network meta-analysis and instead assessed the benefits and harms of different interventions versus each other or versus sham or no intervention using standard Cochrane methodology.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers to September 2016 to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) on hepatocellular carcinoma.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only RCTs, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status, in participants with very early- or early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma, irrespective of the presence of cirrhosis, portal hypertension, aetiology of hepatocellular carcinoma, size and number of the tumours, and future remnant liver volume. We excluded trials including participants who were previously liver transplanted. We considered interventions compared with each other, sham, or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We calculated the odds ratio, mean difference, rate ratio, or hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on available-participant analysis with Review Manager 5. We assessed the risk of bias according to Cochrane, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis using Stata, and the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen trials met the inclusion criteria for this review. Four trials (593 participants; 574 participants included for one or more analyses) compared surgery versus radiofrequency ablation in people with early hepatocellular carcinoma, eligible to undergo surgery. Fourteen trials (2533 participants; 2494 participants included for various analyses) compared different non-surgical interventions in people with early hepatocellular carcinoma, not eligible to undergo surgery. Overall, the quality of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes for both comparisons. Surgery versus radiofrequency ablationThe majority of participants had cirrhotic livers, and the hepatocellular carcinoma was of viral aetiology. The trials did not report the participants' portal hypertension status or whether they received adjuvant antiviral treatment or adjuvant immunotherapy. The average follow-up ranged from 29 months to 42 months (3 trials).There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality at maximal follow-up for surgery versus radiofrequency ablation (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.08; 574 participants; 4 trials; I² = 68). Cancer-related mortality was lower in the surgery group (20/115 (17.4%)) than in the radiofrequency ablation group (43/115 (37.4%)) (odds ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.65; 230 participants; 1 trial). Serious adverse events (number of participants) was higher in the surgery group (14/60 (23.3%)) than in the radiofrequency ablation group (1/60 (1.7%)) (odds ratio 17.96, 95% CI 2.28 to 141.60; 120 participants; 1 trial). The number of serious adverse events was higher in the surgery group (adjusted rate 11.3 events per 100 participants) than in the radiofrequency ablation group (3/186 (1.6 events per 100 participants)) (rate ratio 7.02, 95% CI 2.29 to 21.46; 391 participants; 2 trials; I² = 0%). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. One trial was funded by a party with vested interests; three trials were funded by parties without any vested. Non-surgical interventionsThe majority of participants had cirrhotic livers, and the hepatocellular carcinoma was of viral aetiology. Most trials did not report the portal hypertension status of the participants, and none of the trials reported whether the participants received adjuvant antiviral treatment or adjuvant immunotherapy. The average follow-up ranged from 6 months to 37 months (11 trials). Trial participants, who were not eligible for surgery, were treated with radiofrequency ablation, laser ablation, microwave ablation, percutaneous acetic acid injection, percutaneous alcohol injection, a combination of radiofrequency ablation with systemic chemotherapy, a combination of radiofrequency ablation with percutaneous alcohol injection, a combination of transarterial chemoembolisation with percutaneous alcohol injection, or a combination of transarterial chemoembolisation with radiofrequency ablation.The mortality at maximal follow-up was higher in the percutaneous acetic acid injection (hazard ratio 1.77, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.79; 125 participants; 1 trial) and percutaneous alcohol injection (hazard ratio 1.49, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.88; 882 participants; 5 trials; I² = 57%) groups compared with the radiofrequency ablation group. There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality at maximal follow-up for any of the other comparisons. The proportion of people with cancer-related mortality at maximal follow-up was higher in the percutaneous alcohol injection group (adjusted proportion 16.8%) compared with the radiofrequency ablation group (20/232 (8.6%)) (odds ratio 2.18, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.89; 458 participants; 3 trials; I² = 0%). There was no evidence of a difference in any of the comparisons that reported serious adverse events (number of participants or number of events). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Five trials were funded by parties without any vested interest; the source of funding was not available in the remaining trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence was of low or very low quality. There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality at maximal follow-up between surgery and radiofrequency ablation in people eligible for surgery. All-cause mortality at maximal follow-up was higher with percutaneous acetic acid injection and percutaneous alcohol injection than with radiofrequency ablation in people not eligible for surgery. There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality at maximal follow-up for the other comparisons. High-quality RCTs designed to assess clinically important differences in all-cause mortality and health-related quality of life, and having an adequate follow-up period (approximately five years) are needed.

Pharmacological interventions for acute hepatitis B infection: an attempted network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Infection with hepatitis B virus (HBV) can be symptomatic or asymptomatic. Apart from chronic HBV infection, the complications related to acute HBV infection are severe acute viral hepatitis and fulminant hepatitis characterised by liver failure. The optimal pharmacological treatment of acute HBV infection remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions in the treatment of acute HBV infection through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available treatments according to their safety and efficacy. As it was not possible to assess whether the potential effect modifiers were similar across different comparisons, we did not perform the network meta-analysis, and instead, assessed the benefits and harms of different interventions using standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and randomised clinical trials (RCTs) registers to August 2016 to identify RCTs on pharmacological interventions for acute HBV infection.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status in participants with acute HBV infection. We excluded trials if participants had previously undergone liver transplantation and had other coexisting viral diseases such as hepatitis C virus and HIV. We considered any of the various pharmacological interventions compared with each other or with placebo, or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on available-participant analysis with Review Manager 5. We assessed risk of bias, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven trials (597 participants) met our review inclusion criteria. All trials provided information for one or more outcomes; however, five participants were excluded from analysis by study authors. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Overall, all the evidence was low or very low quality evidence because of risk of bias (downgraded one level for risk of bias), small sample size (downgraded one level for imprecision), and wide CIs (downgraded one more level for imprecision in some comparisons). Of the seven trials, six were two-armed trials, while one trial was a three-armed trial. The comparisons included hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) versus placebo (one trial; 55 participants); interferon versus placebo (two trials; 200 participants); lamivudine versus placebo or no intervention (four trials; 316 participants); lamivudine versus entecavir (one trial; 90 participants); and entecavir versus no intervention (one trial; 131 participants). One trial included only people with acute HBV with hepatic encephalopathy (i.e. people with fulminant liver failure); one trial included only people with severe acute HBV, but it did not state whether any of the people also had fulminant HBV infection; three trials excluded fulminant HBV infection; and two trials did not report the severity of acute HBV infection. The mean or median follow-up period in the trials ranged from three to 12 months in the trials that provided this information.There was no evidence of any differences in short-term mortality (less than one year) in any of the comparisons: HBIG versus placebo (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.54; participants = 55; 1 trial), lamivudine versus placebo or no intervention (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.99; participants = 250; 2 trials); lamivudine versus entecavir (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.13 to 11.65; participants = 90; 1 trial), or entecavir versus no intervention (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.12 to 9.47; participants = 131; 1 trial). The proportion of people who progressed to chronic HBV infection was higher in the lamivudine group than the placebo or no intervention group (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.77; participants = 285; 3 trials) and in the lamivudine group versus entecavir group (OR 3.64, 95% CI 1.31 to 10.13; participants = 90; 1 trial). There was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of people who progressed to chronic HBV infection between the entecavir and the no intervention groups (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.49; participants = 131; 1 trial). None of the trials reported progression to fulminant HBV infection. Three trials with 371 participants reported serious adverse events. There were no serious adverse events in any of the groups (no intervention: 0/183 (0%), interferon: 0/67 (0%), lamivudine: 0/100 (0%), and entecavir: 0/21 (0%)). The proportion of people with adverse events was higher in the interferon group than the placebo group (OR 348.16, 95% CI 45.39 to 2670.26; participants = 200; 2 trials). There was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of people with adverse events between the lamivudine group and the placebo or no intervention group (OR 1.42, 95% CI 0.34 to 5.94; participants = 35; 1 trial) or number of adverse events between the lamivudine group and the placebo or no intervention group (rate ratio 1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.91; participants = 35; 1 trial). One trial with 100 participants reported quality of life at one week. The scale used to report the health-related quality of life was not stated and lacked information on whether higher score meant better or worse, making it difficult to interpret the results. None of the trials reported quality of life beyond one week or other clinical outcomes such as mortality beyond one year, liver transplantation, cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, or hepatocellular carcinoma.Two trials received funding from pharmaceutical companies; three trials were funded by parties without any vested interest in the results or did not receive any special funding; the source of funding was not available in the remaining two trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low or very low quality evidence suggests that progression to chronic HBV infection was higher in people receiving lamivudine compared with placebo, no intervention, or entecavir. Low quality evidence suggests that interferon may increase the adverse events after treatment for acute HBV infection. Based on a very low quality evidence, there is currently no evidence of benefit of any intervention in acute HBV infection. There is significant uncertainty in the results and further RCTs are required.

Pharmacological interventions for acute hepatitis C infection: an attempted network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a single-stranded RNA (ribonucleic acid) virus that has the potential to cause inflammation of the liver. The traditional definition of acute HCV infection is the first six months following infection with the virus. Another commonly used definition of acute HCV infection is the absence of HCV antibody and subsequent seroconversion (presence of HCV antibody in a person who was previously negative for HCV antibody). Approximately 40% to 95% of people with acute HCV infection develop chronic HCV infection, that is, have persistent HCV RNA in their blood. In 2010, an estimated 160 million people worldwide (2% to 3% of the world's population) had chronic HCV infection. The optimal pharmacological treatment of acute HCV remains controversial. Chronic HCV infection can damage the liver.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different pharmacological interventions in the treatment of acute HCV infection through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available pharmacological treatments according to their safety and efficacy. However, it was not possible to assess whether the potential effect modifiers were similar across different comparisons. Therefore, we did not perform the network meta-analysis, and instead, we assessed the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions versus each other or versus no intervention using standard Cochrane methodology.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and randomised controlled trials registers to April 2016 to identify randomised clinical trials on pharmacological interventions for acute HCV infection.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in participants with acute HCV infection. We excluded trials which included previously liver transplanted participants and those with other coexisting viral diseases. We considered any of the various pharmacological interventions compared with placebo or each other.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on the available-participant analysis with Review Manager 5. We assessed risk of bias according to Cochrane, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 randomised clinical trials with 488 randomised participants that met our inclusion criteria. All the trials were at high risk of bias in one or more domains. Overall, the evidence for all the outcomes was very low quality evidence. Nine trials (467 participants) provided information for one or more outcomes. Three trials (99 participants) compared interferon-alpha versus no intervention. Three trials (90 participants) compared interferon-beta versus no intervention. One trial (21 participants) compared pegylated interferon-alpha versus no intervention, but it did not provide any data for analysis. One trial (41 participants) compared MTH-68/B vaccine versus no intervention. Two trials (237 participants) compared pegylated interferon-alpha versus pegylated interferon-alpha plus ribavirin. None of the trials compared direct-acting antivirals versus placebo or other interventions. The mean or median follow-up period in the trials ranged from six to 36 months.There was no short-term mortality (less than one year) in any group in any trial except for one trial where one participant died in the pegylated interferon-alpha plus ribavirin group (1/95: 1.1%). In the trials that reported follow-up beyond one year, there were no further deaths. The number of serious adverse events was higher with pegylated interferon-alpha plus ribavirin than with pegylated interferon-alpha (rate ratio 2.74, 95% CI 1.40 to 5.33; participants = 237; trials = 2; I2 = 0%). The proportion of people with any adverse events was higher with interferon-alpha and interferon-beta compared with no intervention (OR 203.00, 95% CI 9.01 to 4574.81; participants = 33; trials = 1 and OR 27.88, 95% CI 1.48 to 526.12; participants = 40; trials = 1). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life, liver transplantation, decompensated liver disease, cirrhosis, or hepatocellular carcinoma. The proportion of people with chronic HCV infection as indicated by the lack of sustained virological response was lower in the interferon-alpha group versus no intervention (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.76; participants = 99; trials = 3; I2 = 0%). The differences between the groups were imprecise or not estimable (because neither group had any events) for all the remaining comparisons.Four of the 10 trials (40%) received financial or other assistance from pharmaceutical companies who would benefit from the findings of the research; the source of funding was not available in five trials (50%), and one trial (10%) was funded by a hospital.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low quality evidence suggests that interferon-alpha may decrease the incidence of chronic HCV infection as measured by sustained virological response. However, the clinical impact such as improvement in health-related quality of life, reduction in cirrhosis, decompensated liver disease, and liver transplantation has not been reported. It is also not clear whether this finding is applicable in the current clinical setting dominated by the use of pegylated interferons and direct-acting antivirals, although we found no evidence to support that pegylated interferons or ribavirin or both are effective in people with acute HCV infection. We could find no randomised trials comparing direct-acting antivirals with placebo or other interventions for acute HCV infection. There is significant uncertainty in the benefits and harms of the interventions, and high-quality randomised clinical trials are required.

Management of people with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: an attempted network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is significant uncertainty in the treatment of intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma which is defined by the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) as hepatocellular carcinoma stage B with large, multi-nodular, Child-Pugh status A to B, performance status 0 to 2, and without vascular occlusion or extrahepatic disease.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions used in the treatment of intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (BCLC stage B) through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available interventions according to their safety and efficacy. However, we found only one comparison. Therefore, we did not perform the network meta-analysis, and we assessed the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions versus each other, or versus placebo, sham, or no intervention (supportive treatment only) using standard Cochrane methodology.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and randomised clinical trials registers to September 2016 to identify randomised clinical trials on hepatocellular carcinoma.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status, in participants with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma, irrespective of the presence of cirrhosis, size, or number of the tumours (provided they met the criteria of intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma), of presence or absence of portal hypertension, of aetiology of hepatocellular carcinoma, and of the future remnant liver volume. We excluded trials which included participants who had previously undergone liver transplantation. We considered any of the various interventions compared with each other or with no active intervention (supportive treatment only). We excluded trials which compared variations of the same intervention: for example, different methods of performing transarterial chemoembolisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We calculated the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on available-participant analysis with Review Manager. We assessed risk of bias according to Cochrane, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis using Stata, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Three randomised clinical trials, including 430 participants, met the inclusion criteria for this review; however, data from two trials with 412 participants could be included in only one primary outcome (i.e. mortality). All three trials were at high risk of bias. All three trials included supportive care as cointervention. The comparisons included in the two trials reporting on mortality were: systemic chemotherapy with sorafenib versus no active intervention; and transarterial chemoembolisation plus systemic chemotherapy with sorafenib versus transarterial chemoembolisation alone. The trials did not report the duration of follow-up; however, it appeared that the participants were followed up for a period of about 18 to 30 months. The majority of the participants in the trials had cirrhotic livers. The trials included participants with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma arising from viral and non-viral aetiologies. The trials did not report the portal hypertension status of the participants. The mortality was 50% to 70% over a median follow-up period of 18 to 30 months. There was no evidence of difference in mortality at maximal follow-up between systemic chemotherapy versus no chemotherapy (hazard ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.18; participants = 412; studies = 2; I² = 0%; very low quality evidence). A subgroup analysis performed by stratifying the analysis by the presence or absence of transarterial chemoembolisation as cointervention did not alter the results. None of the trials reported on serious adverse events other than mortality, health-related quality of life, recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma, or length of hospital stay. One of the trials providing data was funded by the pharmaceutical industry, the other did not report the source of funding, and the trial with no data for the review was also funded by the pharmaceutical industry. We found two ongoing trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is no evidence from randomised clinical trials that people with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma would benefit from systemic chemotherapy with sorafenib either alone or when transarterial chemoembolisation was used as a cointervention (very low quality evidence). We need high-quality randomised clinical trials designed to measure differences in clinically important outcomes (e.g. all-cause mortality or health-related quality of life).

Interventions for hereditary haemochromatosis: an attempted network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hereditary haemochromatosis is a genetic disorder related to proteins involved in iron transport, resulting in iron load and deposition of iron in various tissues of the body. This iron overload leads to complications including liver cirrhosis (and related complications such as liver failure and hepatocellular carcinoma), cardiac failure, cardiac arrhythmias, impotence, diabetes, arthritis, and skin pigmentation. Phlebotomy (venesection or 'blood letting') is the currently recommended treatment for hereditary haemochromatosis. The optimal treatment of hereditary haemochromatosis remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions in the treatment of hereditary haemochromatosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available treatments according to their safety and efficacy. However, we found only one comparison. Therefore, we did not perform the network meta-analysis and we assessed the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions using standard Cochrane methodology.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and randomised clinical trials registers to March 2016 to identify randomised clinical trials on treatments for hereditary haemochromatosis.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in participants with hereditary haemochromatosis. We excluded trials which included participants who had previously undergone liver transplantation. We considered any of the various interventions compared with each other or with inactive treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models with RevMan 5 based on available-participant analysis. We assessed risk of bias according to Cochrane, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials with 146 participants met the inclusion criteria of this review. Two parallel group trials with 100 participants provided information on one or more outcomes. The remaining trial was a cross-over trial, with no usable data for analysis. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Overall, all the evidence was of very low quality. All three trials compared erythrocytapheresis (removal of red cells only, instead of whole blood) versus phlebotomy. Two of the trials shared the same first author. The mean or median age in the three trials ranged from 42 to 55 years. None of the trials reported whether the included participants were symptomatic or asymptomatic or a mixture of both. Two trials were conducted in people who were haemochromatosis treatment-naive. The trial that provided most data for this review excluded people with malignancy, heart failure, and serious cardiac arrhythmias. We found no trials assessing iron-chelating agents.Only one of the trials with 38 participants reported no short-term mortality and no serious adverse events at the end of the short-term follow-up (eight months). Two trials reported the proportion of people with adverse events: 10/49 (20.4%) in the erythrocytapheresis group versus 11/51 (21.6%) in the phlebotomy group. One of these two trials provided data on adverse event rates (42.1 events per 100 participants with erythrocytapheresis versus 52.6 events per 100 participants with phlebotomy). There was no evidence of differences in the proportion of people with adverse events and the number of adverse events (serious and non-serious) between the groups (proportion of people with adverse events: OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.43; participants = 100; trials = 2; number of adverse events: rate ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.03; participants = 38; trial = 1). There was no difference between the groups regarding short-term health-related quality of life (mean difference (MD) 1.00, 95% CI -10.80 to 12.80; participants = 38; trials = 1). This outcome was measured using EQ-VAS (range: 0 to 100 where a higher score indicates better health-related quality of life). None of the trials reported mortality beyond one year, health-related quality of life beyond one year, liver transplantation, decompensated liver disease, cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, diabetes, or cardiovascular complications during the long-term follow-up.The two trials that provided data for this review were funded by parties with no vested interest in the results; the source of funding of the third trial was not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently insufficient evidence to determine whether erythrocytapheresis is beneficial or harmful compared with phlebotomy. Phlebotomy has less equipment requirements and remains the treatment of choice in people with hereditary haemochromatosis who require blood letting in some form. However, it should be noted that there is no evidence from randomised clinical trials that blood letting in any form is beneficial in people with hereditary haemochromatosis. Having said this, a trial including no treatment is unlikely to be conducted. Future trials should compare different frequencies of phlebotomy and erythrocytapheresis versus phlebotomy with and without different iron-chelating agents compared with each other, and with placebo. Such trials should include long-term follow-up of participants (e.g. using national record linkage databases) to determine whether treatments are beneficial or harmful in terms of clinical outcomes such as deaths, health-related quality of life, liver damage and its consequences, heart damage and its consequences, and other outcomes that are of importance to people with hereditary haemochromatosis.

External beam radiotherapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common liver neoplasm, the sixth most common cancer worldwide, and the third most common cause of cancer mortality. Moreover, its incidence has increased dramatically in the past decade. While surgical resection and liver transplantation are the main curative treatments, only around 20% of people with early hepatocellular carcinoma may benefit from these therapies. Current treatment options for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma include various ablative and transarterial therapies in addition to the drug sorafenib.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of external beam radiotherapy in the management of localised unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), and clinicaltrials.gov registry. We also checked reference lists of primary original studies and review articles manually for further related articles (cross-references) up to October 6, 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies included all randomised clinical trials comparing external beam radiotherapy either as a monotherapy or in combination with other systemic or locoregional therapies versus placebo, no treatment, or other systemic or locoregional therapies for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used a random-effects model as well as a fixed-effect model meta-analysis but in case of discrepancy between the two models (e.g. one giving a significant intervention effect, the other no significant intervention effect), we reported both results; otherwise, we reported only the results from the fixed-effect model meta-analysis. We assessed risk of bias of the included trials using predefined risk of bias domains; assessed risks of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis; and presented the review results incorporating the methodological quality of the trials using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine randomised clinical trials with 879 participants fulfilled our inclusion criteria. All trials were at high risk of bias, and we rated the evidence as low to very low quality. All of the included trials compared combined external beam radiotherapy plus chemoembolisation versus chemoembolisation alone in people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma; moreover, three of the trials compared external beam radiotherapy alone versus chemoembolisation alone. All trials were conducted in China. The median age in most of the included trials was around 52 years, and most trial participants were male. The median follow-up duration ranged from one to three years. None of the trials reported data on cancer-related mortality, quality of life, serious adverse events, or time to progression of the tumour. For the comparison of radiotherapy plus chemoembolisation versus chemoembolisation alone, the risk ratio for one-year all-cause mortality was 0.51 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 0.62; P < 0.001; 9 trials; low-quality evidence); for complete response rate was 2.14 (95% CI 1.47 to 3.13; P < 0.001; 7 trials; low-quality evidence); and for overall response rate defined as complete response plus partial response was 1.58 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.78; P < 0.001; 7 trials; low-quality evidence), all in favour of combined treatment with external beam radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolisation and seemingly supported by our Trial Sequential Analysis. Additionally, the combined treatment was associated with a higher risk of elevated total bilirubin and elevated alanine aminotransferase. The risk ratio for the risk of elevated alanine aminotransferase was 1.41 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.84; P = 0.01; very low-quality evidence), while for elevated total bilirubin it was 2.69 (95% CI 1.34 to 5.40; P = 0.005; very low-quality evidence). For the comparison of radiotherapy versus chemoembolisation, the risk ratio for one-year all-cause mortality was 1.21 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.50; 3 trials; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence) which was not supported by our Trial Sequential Analysis.In addition, we found seven ongoing randomised clinical trials evaluating different external beam radiotherapy techniques for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low- and low-quality evidence suggesting that combined external beam radiotherapy and chemoembolisation may be associated with lower mortality and increased complete and overall response rates, despite an increased toxicity as expressed by a higher rise of bilirubin and alanine aminotransferase. A high risk of systematic errors (bias) as well as imprecision and inconsistency suggest that these findings should be considered cautiously and that high-quality trials are needed to assess further the role of external beam radiotherapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.