Long-term Outcomes with Carvedilol versus Propranolol in Patients with Index Variceal Bleed: 6-year Follow-up Study

Carvedilol and traditional nonselective beta blockers for the secondary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage and portal hypertension related complications among patients with decompensated cirrhosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Carvedilol has limited research on decompensated cirrhosis. This study compared the effects of carvedilol, traditional nonselective beta blockers (NSBBs), including propranolol and nadolol, and other interventions in patients using carvedilol or traditional NSBBs for secondary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage (VH) and portal hypertension (PH)-related complications.

METHODS

A systematic search of databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus, was conducted through October 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating carvedilol or traditional NSBBs for secondary prophylaxis of VH were included. The outcomes were the occurrence of VH and portal PH-related complications, including new or worsening ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, and hepatorenal syndrome. A network meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 60 RCTs involving 5,600 patients with a median Child Pugh score of 8.0 (range 6.8-10) were included. The risk of carvedilol plus variceal band ligation (VBL) on VH was lower than placebo (relative risk (RR) 0.24; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.10-0.57), and the risk of carvedilol on new or worsening ascites was lower than placebo (RR = 0.10, 95%CI; 0.01-0.93). Traditional NSBBs plus VBL also had preventive effects on VH compared to placebo (RR = 0.31, 95%CI; 0.18-0.54). However, there were no differences between carvedilol and traditional NSBBs in other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Carvedilol can prevent PH-related complications, including VH and new or worsening ascites, in cirrhosis patients with a history of VH. No significant differences were observed between the effects of carvedilol and traditional NSBBs, both combined with VBL.

Long-Term Outcomes of Carvedilol Plus Endoscopic Variceal Ligation in Secondary Prophylaxis of Variceal Bleeding

BACKGROUND

Carvedilol is key for primary prophylaxis of high-risk variceal bleeding but is less studied for secondary prophylaxis with EVL. This study compares the long-term outcomes of carvedilol plus EVL versus propranolol plus EVL in secondary prophylaxis.

METHODS

The long-term follow-up data regarding rebleeding, ascites recurrence, and survival of patients who were treated with EVL plus carvedilol (n = 147) or propranolol (n = 53) for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding were compared.

RESULTS

Patients in the carvedilol group (n = 147) exhibited lower rebleeding rates (23.8% vs. 47.2%; hazard ratio(HR): 1.844; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.099-3.096; p = 0.019) and ascites rates (7.5% vs. 30.2%; HR: 2.975; 95% CI 1.349-6.557; p = 0.003) compared to the propranolol group (n = 53). Cumulative mortality rates were similar between groups (12.2% vs. 30.2%; HR: 1.292; 95% CI 0.632-2.642; p = 0.48). In patients with viral cirrhosis, carvedilol resulted in lower rebleeding rates (HR: 2.236; 95% CI 1.188-4.208; p = 0.013) and improved ascites control (HR: 3.698; 95% CI 1.363-10.032; p = 0.010). Adjusted survival curves and 1:1 propensity score matching analyses confirmed these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that carvedilol combined with EVL may reduce rebleeding and ascites recurrence compared to propranolol in patients with cirrhosis, particularly those with viral etiologies. However, the lack of mortality benefit and limited generalizability to non-viral cirrhosis necessitate further validation in prospective trials.

Carvedilol vs. propranolol for the prevention of decompensation and mortality in patients with compensated and decompensated cirrhosis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Data on the effectiveness of classical non-selective beta-blockers (cNSBBs, i.e., propranolol and nadolol) vs. carvedilol in patients with cirrhosis are scarce. In the present study, we aimed to compare their potential for preventing decompensation and mortality in patients with compensated and decompensated cirrhosis.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter retrospective study including patients with compensated and decompensated cirrhosis with clinically significant portal hypertension, undergoing measurement of hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) to assess acute hemodynamic response to intravenous propranolol (i.e., HVPG decrease ≥10% from baseline value) prior to primary prophylaxis for variceal bleeding. Outcomes were adjusted using inverse probability of treatment weighting in a competitive risk framework.

RESULTS

A total of 540 patients were included, 256 with compensated (cNSBBs n = 111; carvedilol n = 145) and 284 with decompensated (cNSBBs n = 134; carvedilol n = 150) cirrhosis. Median follow-up was 36.3 (IQR 16.9-61.0) and 30.7 (IQR 13.1-52.2) months, respectively. After covariate balancing, compared to cNSBBs, carvedilol significantly reduced the risk of a first decompensation in compensated patients (subdistribution hazard ratio 0.61; 95% CI 0.41-0.92; p = 0.019) and a combined endpoint of further decompensation/death in decompensated patients (subdistribution hazard ratio 0.57; 95% CI 0.42-0.77; p <0.0001). A second HVPG was conducted on 176 (68.8%, compensated) and 177 (62.3%, decompensated) patients. Acute non-responders, both compensated (11.1% vs. 29.4%; p = 0.422) and decompensated (16.0% vs. 43.6%: p = 0.0247) patients, showed a higher likelihood of achieving a chronic hemodynamic response with carvedilol. The safety profile of each type of NSBB was comparable in both cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data endorse the current recommendation favoring the use of carvedilol for the prevention of a first decompensation of cirrhosis and suggest extending the recommendation to patients with decompensated cirrhosis without recurrent or refractory ascites.

IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS

This study addresses a gap in the comparative effectiveness of classical non-selective beta-blockers (e.g., propranolol and nadolol) vs. carvedilol in managing cirrhosis in both compensated and decompensated stages. Our results support the preferential use of carvedilol in both settings due to its superior efficacy in reducing first and further decompensation. However, owing to the retrospective nature of the study and inherent selection biases, we advise against broadly applying these findings to patients with decompensated cirrhosis who exhibit signs of circulatory dysfunction or recurrent/refractory ascites.

Comparison of Carvedilol and Propranolol in Reducing the Portal Vein Pressure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The portal vein pressure higher than 10 mm Hg in patients with hepatic cirrhosis is more likely to have serious complications and poor prognosis. Nonselective receptor blockers (NSBBs) can reduce the portal vein pressure; however, the efficacy and safety of different NSBBs in reducing portal vein pressure were unconsistent. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of carvedilol versus propranolol in reducing portal vein pressure in this study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We assessed Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through PubMed, Web of science, Embase, and Cochrane library up to January 2024. Data from eligible studies were pooled in fixed-effect or random-effect meta-analysis models, using RevMan software. Two researchers screened articles, extracted data, and assessed the study quality independently according to the PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes were the reduction of hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG), the hemodynamic response rate, and the incidence of adverse events. Secondary outcomes were mean artery pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR).

RESULTS

A total of 7 RCTs, including 351 patients, were included in our meta-analysis. The results indicated that the magnitude of reduction in HVPG was greater in carvedilol compared with propranolol (MD: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.61 to 1.54; I2=0%, P<0.00001) in short-term follow-up. Carvedilol's hemodynamic response rate was higher than that of propranolol (OR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.72; I2=0%, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis indicated that compared with propranolol, carvedilol was better in lowering portal hypertensive and had higher response rate in patients with hepatic cirrhosis. There was no obvious difference in safety between the 2 medications.

The Efficacy of Carvedilol in Comparison to Propranolol in Reducing the Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient and Decreasing the Risk of Variceal Bleeding in Adult Cirrhotic Patients: A Systematic Review

The most common cause of portal hypertension is liver cirrhosis. Portal hypertension causes many complications in cirrhotic patients; a significant complication is the formation of varices and the subsequent life-threatening variceal bleeding due to elevated portal venous pressures. Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is the gold standard for measuring portal hypertension and guides management. Pharmacological treatments lower the HVPG, preventing the progression of varices and subsequent variceal bleeding. The pharmacological treatments frequently used in primary and secondary prophylaxis of a variceal bleed are nonselective beta (β)-adrenergic blockers. Propranolol was the first nonselective β-adrenergic blocker used for lowering HVPG and has been well studied. However, in the past decade, clinical trials have shown that carvedilol has been more effective. This study aims to establish whether carvedilol is more effective than propranolol in reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient and decreasing the risk of variceal bleeding in adult cirrhotic patients. A systematic review has been conducted to gather relevant clinical trials comparing drugs and their effects on HVPG. Four databases: PubMed (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE)), Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect, were analyzed, and records from January 1, 1999, to January 1, 2023, were chosen. There were a total of 1,235 potentially eligible records across the four databases. Using the eligibility criteria for this systematic review, seven studies of 533 patients were included. Across all seven clinical trials, it was found that carvedilol reduced HVPG more than propranolol and decreased the risk of variceal bleeding in adult cirrhotic patients.

Acute-on-chronic liver failure is independently associated with higher mortality for cirrhotic patients with acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage: Retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage (AEVH) is a common complication of cirrhosis and might precipitate multi-organ failure, causing acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF).

AIM

To analyze if the presence and grading of ACLF as defined by European Society for the Study of the Liver-Chronic Liver Failure (EASL-CLIF) is able to predict mortality in cirrhotic patients presenting AEVH.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study executed in Hospital Geral de Caxias do Sul. Data from medical records from 2010 to 2016 were obtained by searching the hospital electronic database for patients who received terlipressin. Medical records were reviewed in order to determine the diagnosis of cirrhosis and AEVH, including 97 patients. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used for univariate analysis and a stepwise approach to the Cox regression for multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

All- cause mortality for AEVH patients was 36%, 40.2% and 49.4% for 30-, 90- and 365-day, respectively. The prevalence of ACLF was 41.3%. Of these, 35% grade 1, 50% grade 2 and 15% grade 3. In multivariate analysis, the non-use of non-selective beta-blockers, presence and higher grading of ACLF and higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores were independently associated with higher mortality for 30-day with the addition of higher Child-Pugh scores for 90-day period.

CONCLUSION

Presence and grading of ACLF according to the EASL-CLIF criteria was independently associated with higher 30- and 90-day mortality in cirrhotic patients admitted due to AEVH.

Carvedilol versus endoscopic band ligation for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding-long-term follow-up of a randomised control trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Carvedilol reduces rates of variceal bleeding and rebleeding by lowering portal pressure. However, an associated pleiotropic survival benefit has been proposed. We aimed to assess long-term survival in a cohort of patients previously randomised to receive either carvedilol or endoscopic band ligation (EBL) following oesophageal variceal bleeding (OVB).

METHODS

The index study randomised 64 cirrhotic patients with OVB between 2006 and 2011 to receive either carvedilol or EBL. Follow-up was undertaken to April 2020 by review of electronic patient records. The primary outcome was survival. Other outcomes including variceal rebleeding and liver decompensation events were compared.

RESULTS

26 out of 33 participants received carvedilol in the follow-up period and 28 out of 31 attended regular EBL sessions. The median number of follow-up days for all patients recruited was 1459 (SE = 281.74). On the intention to treat analysis, there was a trend towards improved survival in the carvedilol group (p = 0.09). On per-protocol analysis, carvedilol use was associated with improved long-term survival (p = 0.005, HR 3.083, 95% CI 1.397-6.809), fewer liver-related deaths (0% vs 22.57%, p = 0.013, OR ∞, 95%CI 1.565-∞) and fewer admissions with decompensated liver disease (12% vs 64.29%, p = 0.0002, OR 13.2, 95% CI 3.026-47.23) compared to the EBL group. There was no statistically significant difference in variceal rebleeding rates.

CONCLUSION

Following OVB in cirrhotic patients, carvedilol use is associated with survival benefit, fewer liver-related deaths and fewer hospital admissions with decompensated liver disease. Further studies are needed to validate this finding.

Overview of Complications in Cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Cirrhosis is the outcome of chronic liver disease of any etiology due to progressive liver injury and fibrosis. Consequently, cirrhosis leads to portal hypertension and liver dysfunction, progressing to complications like ascites, variceal bleeding, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatorenal syndrome, hepatopulmonary syndrome, cirrhotic cardiomyopathy, sarcopenia, hepatocellular carcinoma, and coagulation disorders. End-stage liver disease leads to an impaired quality of life, loss of social and economic productivity, and reduced survival.

METHODS

This narrative review explains the pathophysiology of complications of cirrhosis, the diagnostic approach and innovative management, with focus on data from India. A comprehensive literature search of the published data was performed in regard with the spectrum, diagnosis, and management of cirrhosis and its complications.

RESULTS

There is a change in the epidemiology of metabolic syndrome, lifestyle diseases, alcohol consumption and the spectrum of etiological diagnosis in patients with cirrhosis. With the advent of universal vaccination and efficacious long-term viral suppression agents for chronic hepatitis B, availability of direct-acting antiviral agents for chronic hepatitis C, and a booming liver transplantation programme across the country, the management of complications is essential. There are several updates in the standard of care in the management of complications of cirrhosis, such as hepatorenal syndrome, hepatocellular carcinoma, and hepatic encephalopathy, and new therapies that address supportive and palliative care in advanced cirrhosis.

CONCLUSION

Prevention, early diagnosis, appropriate management of complications, timely transplantation are cornerstones in the management protocol of cirrhosis and portal hypertension. India needs improved access to care, outreach of public health programmes for viral hepatitis care, health infrastructure, and disease registries for improved healthcare outcomes. Low-cost initiatives like immunization, alcohol cessation, awareness about liver diseases, viral hepatitis elimination, and patient focused decision-making algorithms are essential to manage liver disease in India.

Development and Evaluation of a Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Drug-Disease Model of Propranolol for Suggesting Model Informed Dosing in Liver Cirrhosis Patients

AIM

The study was aimed to understand the underlying causes for the differences in propranolol pharmacokinetics (PK) between healthy and cirrhosis populations by using a systematic whole-body physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model-building approach for suggesting model informed propranolol dosing in liver cirrhosis patients with different stages of disease severity.

METHODS

A whole-body PBPK model was developed by using population simulator PK-Sim® by using reported physicochemical and clinical data for propranolol in healthy and liver cirrhosis populations. The model evaluation was done by visual verification and comparison of PK parameters using their observed/predicted ratios (Robs/pred).

RESULTS

The developed model has effectively described the disposition of propranolol after intravenous and oral application in healthy and liver cirrhosis populations. All the model predictions were comparable to the observed clinical data and the Robs/pred for all the PK parameters were within a 2-fold range. A significant increase in plasma concentration of propranolol and decrease in drug clearance was observed in progressive stages of liver cirrhosis. The developed model after evaluation with the reported clinical PK data was used for suggesting model informed propranolol dosing in different stages of liver cirrhosis based on systemic unbound drug concentration.

CONCLUSION

The developed PBPK model has successfully described propranolol PK in healthy and cirrhosis populations after IV and oral administration. The evaluated PBPK propranolol-cirrhosis model can have many implications in predicting propranolol dosing in liver cirrhosis patients with different stages of disease severity.