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

Treatment engagement in comorbid alcohol use disorder and alcohol-related liver disease: A qualitative exploration of barriers and facilitators with service users

BACKGROUND

Effective interventions to improve patient outcomes in comorbid alcohol use disorder (AUD) and alcohol-related liver disease (ARLD) remain a clinical unmet need. While the choice of abstinence is the cornerstone for the prevention of disease progression and mortality, evidence suggests a suboptimal engagement with treatment supporting recovery. This qualitative investigation aims to understand barriers and facilitators to treatment as experienced by this clinical population by applying a multidimensional adherence model proposed by the World Health Organization.

METHODS

Twenty-four participants with comorbid AUD and ARLD were recruited from an inpatient clinical setting. Data for this study were collected through semistructured, in-depth interviews. Deductive analysis was organized by the Framework method, and theory-driven themes were identified according to the multidimensional adherence model. This included factors across the social and economic, patient, condition, treatment, and healthcare system levels.

RESULTS

The findings in this study indicate systematic challenges in maintaining continuity between primary, secondary, and community care. Aspects related to social and economic context, treatment, and healthcare systems were found to hinder engagement. Identified facilitators to engagement included the participatory role of family, shared lived experience of addiction/recovery, and therapeutic alliance with healthcare providers.

CONCLUSION

The understanding of these barriers and facilitators from a service user's perspective can bridge the treatment gap for this clinical population. This can provide an opportunity for the implementation of effective interventions and inform the development of policies promoting accessible care. Government and public health bodies have fundamental roles in shifting treatment paradigms in comorbid AUD and ARLD.

Antioxidation and Hepatoprotection of Selenium Mycelium Polysaccharides Against Alcoholic Liver Diseases from the Cultivated Morel Mushroom Morchella esculenta (Ascomycota)

The liver was regarded as the most important metabolic and detoxification organ in vivo, and Morchella esculenta had been reported as the admittedly rare edible fungus belonging to Ascomycetes contributing to the abundant bioactivities. The objective of this study aimed to confirm the potential antioxidant activities of selenium mycelium polysaccharides (Se-MIP) from M. esculenta against alcoholic liver diseases (ALD) in mice. The results indicated that a selenium concentration of 25 μg/mL exhibited potential in vitro antioxidant capacities of Se-MIP. The in vivo mice results demonstrated that Se-MIP showed potential anti-ALD effects by improving the antioxidant activities and alleviating the hepatic dysfunctions. The present conclusions suggested that Se-MIP could be used as a candidate on improving ALD and its complications for further clinical investigations.

Multivariate meta-analysis of multiple outcomes: characteristics and predictors of borrowing of strength from Cochrane reviews

OBJECTIVES

Multivariate meta-analysis allows the joint synthesis of multiple outcomes accounting for their correlation. This enables borrowing of strength (BoS) across outcomes, which may lead to greater efficiency and even different conclusions compared to separate univariate meta-analyses. However, multivariate meta-analysis is complex to apply, so guidance is needed to flag (in advance of analysis) when the approach is most useful.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We use 43 Cochrane intervention reviews to empirically investigate the characteristics of meta-analysis datasets that are associated with a larger BoS statistic (from 0 to 100%) when applying a bivariate meta-analysis of binary outcomes.

RESULTS

Four characteristics were identified as strongly associated with BoS: the total number of studies, the number of studies with the outcome of interest, the percentage of studies missing the outcome of interest, and the largest absolute within-study correlation. Using these characteristics, we then develop a model for predicting BoS in a new dataset, which is shown to have good performance (an adjusted R² of 50%). Applied examples are used to illustrate the use of the BoS prediction model.

CONCLUSIONS

Cochrane reviewers mainly use univariate meta-analysis methods, but the identified characteristics associated with BoS and our subsequent prediction model for BoS help to flag when a multivariate meta-analysis may also be beneficial in Cochrane reviews with multiple binary outcomes. Extension to non-Cochrane reviews and other outcome types is still required.

Bile Acid-Mediated Activation of Brown Fat Protects From Alcohol-Induced Steatosis and Liver Injury in Mice

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Alcohol-associated liver disease (AALD) is one of the most common causes of liver injury and failure. Limited knowledge of the mechanisms underlying AALD impedes the development of efficacious therapies. Bile acid (BA) signaling was shown to participate in the progression of AALD. However, the mechanisms remain poorly understood.

METHODS

C57BL/6J wild-type (WT), Takeda G-protein-coupled bile acid receptor 5 (TGR5) knockout (KO) and brown adipose tissue (BAT)-specific TGR5 knockdown mice were subjected to ethanol feeding-induced AALD. Liver samples from alcoholic hepatitis patients were used to examine the BA circulation signaling. Human Embryonic Kidney Cells 293 were used for the TGR5 reporter assay. 23(S)-methyl-lithocholic acid was used as a molecular tool to confirm the regulatory functions of BAT in the AALD mouse model.

RESULTS

Ethanol feeding increased the expression of the thermogenesis genes downstream of TGR5 in BAT of WT, but not TGR5 KO, mice. TGR5 deficiency significantly blocked BAT activity and energy expenditure in mice after ethanol feeding. Alcohol increased serum BA levels in mice and human beings through altering BA transportation, and the altered BAs activated TGR5 signaling to regulate metabolism. Compared with ethanol-fed WT mice, ethanol-fed TGR5 KO mice showed less free fatty acid (FFA) β-oxidation in BAT, leading to higher levels of FFA in the circulation, increased liver uptake of FFAs, and exacerbated AALD. BAT-specific TGR5 knockdown mice showed similar results with TGR5 KO mice in AALD. Agonist treatment significantly activated TGR5 signaling in BAT, increased thermogenesis, reduced serum FFA level, and ameliorated hepatic steatosis and injury in AALD mice, while these effects were lost in TGR5 KO mice.

CONCLUSIONS

BA signaling plays a protective role in AALD by enhancing BAT thermogenesis. Targeting TGR5 in BAT may be a promising approach for the treatment of AALD.

Drug targeting CYP2E1 for the treatment of early-stage alcoholic steatohepatitis

Background and aims

Alcoholic steatohepatitis (ASH)—the inflammation of fatty liver—is caused by chronic alcohol consumption and represents one of the leading chronic liver diseases in Western Countries. ASH can lead to organ dysfunction or progress to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Long-term alcohol abstinence reduces this probability and is the prerequisite for liver transplantation—the only effective therapy option at present. Elevated enzymatic activity of cytochrome P450 2E1 (CYP2E1) is known to be critically responsible for the development of ASH due to excessively high levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS) during metabolization of ethanol. Up to now, no rational drug discovery process was successfully initiated to target CYP2E1 for the treatment of ASH.

Methods

In this study, we applied a rational drug design concept to develop drug candidates (NCE) including preclinical studies.

Results

A new class of drug candidates was generated successfully. Two of the most promising small compounds named 12-Imidazolyl-1-dodecanol (abbr.: I-ol) and 1-Imidazolyldodecane (abbr.: I-an) were selected at the end of this process of drug discovery and developability. These new ω-imidazolyl-alkyl derivatives act as strong chimeric CYP2E1 inhibitors at a nanomolar range. They restore redox balance, reduce inflammation process as well as the fat content in the liver and rescue the physiological liver architecture of rats consuming continuously a high amount of alcohol.

Conclusions

Due to its oral application and therapeutic superiority over an off-label use of the hepatoprotector ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), this new class of inhibitors marks the first rational, pharmaceutical concept in long-term treatment of ASH.

Hepatoprotective Activity of BV-7310, a Proprietary Herbal Formulation of Phyllanthus niruri, Tephrosia purpurea, Boerhavia diffusa, and Andrographis paniculata, in Alcohol-Induced HepG2 Cells and Alcohol plus a Haloalkane, CCl4, Induced Liver Damage in Rats

Excessive alcohol consumption is a worldwide threat with severe morbidity and mortality. Other than abstinence, there is still no FDA-approved drug for alcoholic liver disease (ALD). Liver is the primary site of ethanol metabolism and hence gets the most damage from excessive drinking. It triggers multiple signalling events including inflammation, leading to an array of hepatic lesions like steatosis, hepatitis, fibrosis, and cirrhosis. Similarly, when medications or xenobiotic compounds are ingested orally, the liver gets the highest exposure of those metabolites, which in turn can cause severe liver toxicity. BV-7310 is a standardized mixture of four Ayurvedic plants, namely, Phyllanthus niruri, Tephrosia purpurea, Boerhavia diffusa, and Andrographis paniculata. In different systems of traditional medicine, each of these plants has been known to have use in gastrointestinal disorders. We wanted to assess the combined effect of these plant extracts on alcohol-induced liver damage. First, we investigated the hepatoprotective activity of BV-7310 against alcohol-induced toxicity in human liver HepG2 cells. Ethanol treatment (120 mM for 48 hours) significantly showed toxicity (around 42%) in these cells, and coincubation with BV-7310 prevented ethanol-induced cell death in a dose-dependent manner. Interestingly, the formulation BV-7310 showed synergistic activity than any individual extract tested in this assay. BV-7310 also showed potent antioxidant activity in 2,2-diphenyl-1-picryl-hydrazyl (DPPH) assay. Next, we induced hepatitis in Sprague–Dawley (SD) rats using repeated alcohol (40%) dosing, and carbon tetrachloride (CCl₄) 24 hours before termination. Both oral doses of BV-7310 (250 and 500 mg/kg body weight) protected the alcohol-induced body weight loss and significantly improved the elevated levels of liver enzymes compared to the vehicle treated group. Thus, BV-7310 prevents alcohol-induced toxicity in both in-vitro and in-vivo models and could be beneficial for the treatment of ALD or other conditions, which may cause liver toxicity.

Glucocorticosteroids for people with alcoholic hepatitis

BACKGROUND

Alcoholic hepatitis is a form of alcoholic liver disease characterised by steatosis, necroinflammation, fibrosis, and complications to the liver. Typically, alcoholic hepatitis presents in people between 40 and 50 years of age. Alcoholic hepatitis can be resolved if people abstain from drinking, but the risk of death will depend on the severity of the liver damage and abstinence from alcohol. Glucocorticosteroids have been studied extensively in randomised clinical trials to assess their benefits and harms. However, the results have been contradictory.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of glucocorticosteroids in people with alcoholic hepatitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials through electronic searches in Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's (CHB) Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index Expanded. We looked for ongoing or unpublished trials in clinical trials registers and pharmaceutical company sources. We also scanned reference lists of the studies retrieved. The last search was 18 January 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials assessing glucocorticosteroids versus placebo or no intervention in people with alcoholic hepatitis, irrespective of year, language of publication, or format. We considered trials with adults diagnosed with alcoholic hepatitis, which could have been established through clinical or biochemical diagnostic criteria or both. We defined alcoholic hepatitis as mild (Maddrey's score less than 32) and severe (Maddrey's score 32 or more). We allowed cointerventions in the trial groups, provided they were similar.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed Cochrane methodology, performing the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We presented the results of dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and of continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models for meta-analyses. Whenever there were significant discrepancies in the results, we reported the more conservative point estimate of the two. We considered a P value of 0.01 or less, two-tailed, as statistically significant if the required information size was reached for our three primary outcomes (all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, and serious adverse events during treatment) and our post hoc decision to include analyses of mortality at more time points. We presented heterogeneity using the I² statistic. If trialists used intention-to-treat analysis to deal with missing data, we used these data in our primary analysis; otherwise, we used the available data. We assessed the bias risk of the trials using bias risk domains and the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. All trials but one were at overall high risk of bias. Fifteen trials (one of which was an abstract) provided data for analysis (927 participants received glucocorticosteroids and 934 participants received placebo or no intervention). Glucocorticosteroids were administered orally or parenterally for a median 28 days (range 3 days to 12 weeks). The participants were between 25 and 70 years old, had different stages of alcoholic liver disease, and 65% were men. Follow-up, when reported, was up to the moment of discharge from the hospital, until they died (median of 63 days), or for at least one year. There was no evidence of effect of glucocorticosteroids on all-cause mortality up to three months following randomisation (random-effects RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.15; participants = 1861; trials = 15; very low-certainty evidence) or on health-related quality of life up to three months, measured with the European Quality of Life - 5 Dimensions - 3 Levels scale (MD -0.04 points, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.03; participants = 377; trial = 1; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of effect on the occurrence of serious adverse events during treatment (random-effects RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.29; participants = 1861; trials = 15; very low-certainty evidence), liver-related mortality up to three months following randomisation (random-effects RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.14; participants = 1861; trials = 15; very low-certainty evidence), number of participants with any complications up to three months following randomisation (random-effects RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27; participants = 1861; very low-certainty evidence), and number of participants of non-serious adverse events up to three months' follow-up after end of treatment (random-effects RR 1.99, 95% CI 0.72 to 5.48; participants = 160; trials = 4; very low-certainty evidence). Based on the information that we collected from the published trial reports, only one of the trials seems not to be industry-funded, and the remaining 15 trials did not report clearly whether they were partly or completely funded by the industry.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are very uncertain about the effect estimate of no difference between glucocorticosteroids and placebo or no intervention on all-cause mortality and serious adverse events during treatment because the certainty of evidence was very low, and low for health-related quality of life. Due to inadequate reporting, we cannot exclude increases in adverse events. As the CIs were wide, we cannot rule out significant benefits or harms of glucocorticosteroids. Therefore, we need placebo-controlled randomised clinical trials, designed according to the SPIRIT guidelines and reported according to the CONSORT guidelines. Future trials ought to report depersonalised individual participant data, so that proper individual participant data meta-analyses of the effects of glucocorticosteroids in subgroups can be conducted.

Glucocorticosteroids for people with alcoholic hepatitis

BACKGROUND

Alcoholic hepatitis is a form of alcoholic liver disease, characterised by steatosis, necroinflammation, fibrosis, and potential complications to the liver disease. Typically, alcoholic hepatitis presents in people between 40 and 50 years of age. Alcoholic hepatitis can be resolved if people abstain from drinking, but the risk of death will depend on the severity of the liver damage and abstinence from alcohol. Glucocorticosteroids are used as anti-inflammatory drugs for people with alcoholic hepatitis. Glucocorticosteroids have been studied extensively in randomised clinical trials in order to assess their benefits and harms. However, the results have been contradictory.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of glucocorticosteroids in people with alcoholic hepatitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials through electronic searches in Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's (CHB) Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index Expanded. We looked for ongoing or unpublished trials in clinical trials registers and pharmaceutical company sources. We also scanned reference lists of the studies retrieved. The last search was 20 October 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials assessing glucocorticosteroids versus placebo or no intervention in people with alcoholic hepatitis, irrespective of year, language of publication, or format. We considered trials with adult participants diagnosed with alcoholic hepatitis, which could have been established through clinical or biochemical diagnostic criteria or both. We defined alcoholic hepatitis as mild (Maddrey's score less than 32) and severe (Maddrey's score 32 or more). We allowed co-interventions in the trial groups, provided they were similar.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed Cochrane and CHB methodology, performing the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5 and Trial Sequential Analysis. We presented the results of dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and those of the continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD). We applied both the fixed-effect model and the random-effects model meta-analyses. Whenever there were significant discrepancies in the results, we reported the more conservative point estimate of the two. We considered a P value of 0.01 or less, two-tailed, as statistically significant if the required information size was reached due to our three primary outcomes (all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, and serious adverse events during treatment) and our post hoc decision to include analyses of mortality at more time points. We presented heterogeneity using the I² statistic. If trialists used intention-to-treat analysis to deal with missing data, we used these data in our primary analysis; otherwise, we used the available data. We assessed the bias risk of the trials using bias risk domains and the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All trials were at high risk of bias. Fifteen trials provided data for analysis (927 participants received glucocorticosteroids and 934 participants received placebo or no intervention). The glucocorticosteroids were administered orally or parenterally for a median of 28 days (range 3 days to 12 weeks). The participants were between 25 and 70 years old, had different stages of alcoholic liver disease, and 65% were men. The follow-up of trial participants, when it was reported, was up to the moment of discharge from the hospital, until they died (a median of 63 days), or for at least a year. There was no evidence of effect of glucocorticosteroids on all-cause mortality up to three months following randomisation neither with traditional meta-analysis (random-effects RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.15; participants = 1861; trials = 15; I² = 45% (moderate heterogeneity) nor with Trial Sequential Analysis. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of effect on health-related quality of life up to three months (MD -0.04 points; 95% CI -0.11 to 0.03; participants = 377; trial = 1; low-quality evidence), measured with the European Quality of Life - 5 Dimensions-3 Levels (EQ- 5D-3L) scale. There was no evidence of effect on the occurrence of serious adverse events during treatment, neither with traditional meta-analysis (random-effects RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.29; participants = 1861; trials = 15; I² = 36% (moderate heterogeneity), liver-related mortality up to three months following randomisation (random-effects RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.14; participants = 1861; trials = 15; I² = 46% (moderate heterogeneity), frequency of any complications up to three months following randomisation (random-effects RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27; participants = 1861; I² = 42% (moderate heterogeneity), and frequency of non-serious adverse events up to three months' follow-up after end of treatment (random-effects RR 1.99, 95% CI 0.72 to 5.48; participants = 160; trials = 4; I² = 0% (no heterogeneity) nor with Trial Sequential Analysis. Nine of the trials were industry-funded.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence of a difference between glucocorticosteroids and placebo or no intervention on all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, and serious adverse events during treatment. The risk of bias was high and the quality of evidence was very low or low. Therefore, we are very uncertain about this effect estimate. Due to inadequate reporting, we cannot exclude increases in adverse events. As the confidence intervals were wide, we cannot rule out significant benefits and harms of glucocorticosteroids. Therefore, we need placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trials, designed according to the SPIRIT guidelines and reported according to the CONSORT guidelines. Future trials ought to report depersonalised individual participant data, so that proper individual participant data meta-analyses of the effects of glucocorticosteroids in subgroups can be conducted.

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.

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.