Prevention of hepatic encephalopathy recurrence

Prophylaxis of hepatic encephalopathy: current and future drug targets

Hepatic encephalopathy is described by a broad spectrum of neurological and psychiatric aberrations resulting due to advanced liver dysfunction. It is a neurological disorder due to hepatic insufficiency and/or portosystemic shunts. Its clinical presentation includes neuropsychiatric dysfunction ranging from subclinical changes to comatose state. It is a sign of poor prognosis in cirrhotics with a high 1-year mortality. Each episode of hepatic encephalopathy leads to high hospitalization rate, poor prognosis and raised burden of healthcare. Primary prophylaxis is prevention of initial occurrence and secondary prophylaxis is prevention of reappearance of hepatic encephalopathy in subjects who had prior history. Early detection and management of triggers is very important in the treatment of hepatic encephalopathy. The initial choice of treatment is still lactulose, as it is effective in minimal, overt, and recurrent hepatic encephalopathy. Rifaximin is equally effective as lactulose in managing hepatic encephalopathy and is better tolerated. Branch chain amino acids are beneficial in subjects who are protein intolerant. L-ornithine L-aspartate and probiotics are also useful in the management of hepatic encephalopathy. Rifaximin along with lactulose is effective in managing overt and recurrent hepatic encephalopathy. Large portosystemic shunts embolization and liver transplant is efficacious in certain group of patients. Nutritional therapy and fecal microbiota transplantation are newer therapies for hepatic encephalopathy but the evidences are limited, more research is required to prove their efficacy. Involvement of hospital pharmacists, telemedicine, and providing education are also beneficial in managing hepatic encephalopathy.

Recurrence of Hepatic Encephalopathy after TIPS: Effective Prophylaxis with Combination of Lactulose and Rifaximin

BACKGROUND

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) implantation is an established procedure to treat portal hypertension with hepatic encephalopathy (HE) as a common complication. There is lack of evidence concerning HE prophylaxis after TIPS.

METHODS

N = 233 patients receiving TIPS between 2011 and 2018 at a German tertiary care center were included. Of them, 21% (n = 49) had a history of HE. The follow-up period was 12 months. The risk factors of post-TIPS HE were analyzed via multivariate analysis. The efficacy of prophylactic medication regimens was studied. The results show that 35.6% (n = 83) received no medication (NM), 36.5% (n = 85) received lactulose monoprophylaxis (LM), 2.6% (n = 6) rifaximin monoprophylaxis (RM) and 25.3% (n = 59) lactulose and rifaximin (LR) of which 64.4% received l-ornithin-l-aspartate (LOLA) additionally (LR + LOLA) and 36.6% did not (LRonly).

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis revealed higher age (p = 0.003) and HE episodes prior to TIPS (p = 0.004) as risk factors for HE after TIPS. LM has no prophylactic effect. LR prevents HE recurrence at 1, 3 and 12 months after TIPS (p = 0.003, p = 0.003, p = 0.006) but does not prevent HE in patients with no history of HE (p = 0.234, p = 0.483, p = 0.121). LR prevents HE recurrence compared with LM/NM (25.0% vs. 64.7%, p = 0.007) within 12 months after TIPS, whereas de novo occurrence is unaffected (p = 0.098). The additional administration of LOLA to LR has no benefit (LRonly: 25.0%, LR + LOLA: 29.7%, p = 0.780).

CONCLUSIONS

Higher age and previous HE are risk factors post-TIPS HE. In patients with HE prior to TIPS, effective prophylaxis of HE is feasible via combination of lactulose and rifaximin with no additional benefit from LOLA.

Role of circadian rhythm and autonomic nervous system in liver function: a hypothetical basis for improving the management of hepatic encephalopathy

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a common, incapacitating complication of cirrhosis that affects many patients with cirrhosis. Although several therapies have proven effective in the treatment and prevention of this condition, several patients continue to suffer from covert disease or episodes of relapse. The circadian rhythm has been demonstrated to be pivotal for many body functions, including those of the liver. Here, we explore the impact of circadian rhythm-dependent signaling on the liver and discuss the evidence of its impact on liver pathology and metabolism. We describe the various pathways through which circadian influences are mediated. Finally, we introduce a novel method for improving patient response to drugs aimed at treating HE by utilizing the circadian rhythm. A digital system that introduces a customization-based technique for improving the response to therapies is presented as a hypothetical approach for improving the effectiveness of current medications used for the treatment of recurrent and persistent hepatic encephalopathy.

Nursing Management of Hepatic Encephalopathy

This article provides a background of hepatic encephalopathy, its relation to liver disease as well as its prevalence in the United States. A literature review provides an overview of HE discussing the pathophysiology, evidence-based diagnosis, and grading of the disease severity as well as treatment options and interventions. A large emphasis of the article is placed on nursing's role of identifying and managing hepatic encephalopathy. The authors hope to provide clinical nurses with the tools and information needed to provide evidence-based care to this patient population. Pharmacologic therapies, as well as nutrition for these patients, are other topics reviewed. Education for nurses on the management of hepatic encephalopathy is important, as well as education needed for patients and families to support them through the treatment and follow-up care needed to manage hepatic encephalopathy. The authors also hope to provide nurses with education tips to provide the patients and families they care for during their hospitalization with HE, as well as on discharge from the hospital to prevent reoccurrence of symptoms.

Probiotics for people with hepatic encephalopathy

BACKGROUND

Hepatic encephalopathy is a disorder of brain function as a result of liver failure or portosystemic shunt or both. Both hepatic encephalopathy (clinically overt) and minimal hepatic encephalopathy (not clinically overt) significantly impair patient's quality of life and daily functioning, and represent a significant burden on healthcare resources. Probiotics are live micro-organisms, which when administered in adequate amounts, may confer a health benefit on the host.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of probiotics in any dosage, compared with placebo or no intervention, or with any other treatment for people with any grade of acute or chronic hepatic encephalopathy. This review did not consider the primary prophylaxis of hepatic encephalopathy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, conference proceedings, reference lists of included trials, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform until June 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials that compared probiotics in any dosage with placebo or no intervention, or with any other treatment in people with hepatic encephalopathy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We conducted random-effects model meta-analysis due to obvious heterogeneity of participants and interventions. We defined a P value of 0.05 or less as significant. We expressed dichotomous outcomes as risk ratio (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 trials with 1420 participants, of these, 14 were new trials. Fourteen trials compared a probiotic with placebo or no treatment, and seven trials compared a probiotic with lactulose. The trials used a variety of probiotics; the most commonly used group of probiotic was VSL#3, a proprietary name for a group of eight probiotics. Duration of administration ranged from 10 days to 180 days. Eight trials declared their funding source, of which six were independently funded and two were industry funded. The remaining 13 trials did not disclose their funding source. We classified 19 of the 21 trials at high risk of bias.We found no effect on all-cause mortality when probiotics were compared with placebo or no treatment (7 trials; 404 participants; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.44; low-quality evidence). No-recovery (as measured by incomplete resolution of symptoms) was lower for participants treated with probiotic (10 trials; 574 participants; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.79; moderate-quality evidence). Adverse events were lower for participants treated with probiotic than with no intervention when considering the development of overt hepatic encephalopathy (10 trials; 585 participants; RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.51; low-quality evidence), but effects on hospitalisation and change of/or withdrawal from treatment were uncertain (hospitalisation: 3 trials, 163 participants; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.11 to 4.00; very low-quality evidence; change of/or withdrawal from treatment: 9 trials, 551 participants; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.07; very low-quality evidence). Probiotics may slightly improve quality of life compared with no intervention (3 trials; 115 participants; results not meta-analysed; low-quality evidence). Plasma ammonia concentration was lower for participants treated with probiotic (10 trials; 705 participants; MD -8.29 μmol/L, 95% CI -13.17 to -3.41; low-quality evidence). There were no reports of septicaemia attributable to probiotic in any trial.When probiotics were compared with lactulose, the effects on all-cause mortality were uncertain (2 trials; 200 participants; RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 102.00; very low-quality evidence); lack of recovery (7 trials; 430 participants; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.21; very low-quality evidence); adverse events considering the development of overt hepatic encephalopathy (6 trials; 420 participants; RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.17; very low-quality evidence); hospitalisation (1 trial; 80 participants; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.07; very low-quality evidence); intolerance leading to discontinuation (3 trials; 220 participants; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.43; very low-quality evidence); change of/or withdrawal from treatment (7 trials; 490 participants; RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.82; very low-quality evidence); quality of life (results not meta-analysed; 1 trial; 69 participants); and plasma ammonia concentration overall (6 trials; 325 participants; MD -2.93 μmol/L, 95% CI -9.36 to 3.50; very low-quality evidence). There were no reports of septicaemia attributable to probiotic in any trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The majority of included trials suffered from a high risk of systematic error ('bias') and a high risk of random error ('play of chance'). Accordingly, we consider the evidence to be of low quality. Compared with placebo or no intervention, probiotics probably improve recovery and may lead to improvements in the development of overt hepatic encephalopathy, quality of life, and plasma ammonia concentrations, but probiotics may lead to little or no difference in mortality. Whether probiotics are better than lactulose for hepatic encephalopathy is uncertain because the quality of the available evidence is very low. High-quality randomised clinical trials with standardised outcome collection and data reporting are needed to further clarify the true efficacy of probiotics.