Comparison of endoscopic variceal ligation and nadolol plus isosorbide-5-mononitrate in the prevention of first variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients

Improving primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding by adapting therapy to the clinical stage of cirrhosis. A competing-risk meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Non-selective β-blockers (NSBBs) and endoscopic variceal-ligation (EVL) have similar efficacy preventing first variceal bleeding. Compensated and decompensated cirrhosis are markedly different stages, which may impact treatment outcomes. We aimed to assess the efficacy of NSBBs vs EVL on survival in patients with high-risk varices without previous bleeding, stratifying risk according to compensated/decompensated stage of cirrhosis.

METHODS

By systematic review, we identified RCTs comparing NSBBs vs EVL, in monotherapy or combined, for primary bleeding prevention. We performed a competing-risk, time-to-event meta-analysis, using individual patient data (IPD) obtained from principal investigators of RCTs. Analyses were stratified according to previous decompensation of cirrhosis.

RESULTS

Of 25 RCTs eligible, 14 failed to provide IPD and 11 were included, comprising 1400 patients (656 compensated, 744 decompensated), treated with NSBBs (N = 625), EVL (N = 546) or NSBB+EVL (N = 229). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Overall, mortality risk was similar with EVL vs. NSBBs (subdistribution hazard-ratio (sHR) = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.75-1.49) and with EVL + NSBBs vs either monotherapy, with low heterogeneity (I2  = 28.7%). In compensated patients, mortality risk was higher with EVL vs NSBBs (sHR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.11-2.77) and not significantly lower with NSBBs+EVL vs NSBBs, without heterogeneity (I2  = 0%). In decompensated patients, mortality risk was similar with EVL vs. NSBBs and with NSBBs+EVL vs. either monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with compensated cirrhosis and high-risk varices on primary prophylaxis, NSBBs significantly improved survival vs EVL, with no additional benefit noted adding EVL to NSBBs. In decompensated patients, survival was similar with both therapies. The study suggests that NSBBs are preferable when advising preventive therapy in compensated patients.

Primary prevention of variceal bleeding in people with oesophageal varices due to liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years. There are several different treatments to prevent bleeding, including: beta-blockers, endoscopic sclerotherapy, and variceal band ligation. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different treatments for prevention of first variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for prevention of first variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices 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 to December 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previous bleeding from oesophageal varices and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation or previously received prophylactic treatment for oesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR), and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. We performed the direct comparisons from randomised clinical trials using the same codes and the same technical details.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 66 randomised clinical trials (6653 participants) in the review. Sixty trials (6212 participants) provided data for one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those at high risk of bleeding from oesophageal varices. The follow-up in the trials that reported outcomes ranged from 6 months to 60 months. All but one of the trials were at high risk of bias. The interventions compared included beta-blockers, no active intervention, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates, nitrates, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, and portocaval shunt. Overall, 21.2% of participants who received non-selective beta-blockers ('beta-blockers') - the reference treatment (chosen because this was the most common treatment compared in the trials) - died during 8-month to 60-month follow-up. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates all had lower mortality versus no active intervention (beta-blockers: HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.67; direct comparison HR: 0.59, 95% CrI 0.42 to 0.83; 10 trials, 1200 participants; variceal band ligation: HR 0.51, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.74; direct comparison HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.12 to 2.14; 3 trials, 355 participants; sclerotherapy: HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.51 to 0.85; direct comparison HR 0.61, 95% CrI 0.41 to 0.90; 18 trials, 1666 participants; beta-blockers plus nitrates: HR 0.41, 95% CrI 0.20 to 0.85; no direct comparison). No trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation had a higher number of serious adverse events (number of events) than beta-blockers (rate ratio 10.49, 95% CrI 2.83 to 60.64; 1 trial, 168 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers plus nitrates had a higher number of 'any adverse events (number of participants)' than beta-blockers alone (OR 3.41, 95% CrI 1.11 to 11.28; 1 trial, 57 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, adverse events (number of events) were higher in sclerotherapy than in beta-blockers (rate ratio 2.49, 95% CrI 1.53 to 4.22; direct comparison rate ratio 2.47, 95% CrI 1.27 to 5.06; 2 trials, 90 participants), and in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison rate ratio 1.72, 95% CrI 1.08 to 2.76; 1 trial, 140 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was lower in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.04 to 0.71; 1 trial, 173 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was higher in nitrates than beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 6.40, 95% CrI 1.58 to 47.42; 1 trial, 52 participants). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates may decrease mortality compared to no intervention in people with high-risk oesophageal varices in people with cirrhosis and no previous history of bleeding. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in a higher number of serious adverse events than beta-blockers. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of beta-blockers versus variceal band ligation on variceal bleeding. The evidence also indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in most of the remaining comparisons.

Comparison of Therapies for Primary Prevention of Esophageal Variceal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

We performed a systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy of different approaches in primary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding and overall survival in patients with cirrhosis with large varices. Thirty-two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with 3,362 adults with cirrhosis with large esophageal varices and no prior history of bleeding, with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up, were included. Nonselective beta-blockers (NSBB), isosorbide-mononitrate (ISMN), carvedilol, and variceal band ligation (VBL), alone or in combination, were compared with each other or placebo. Primary outcomes were reduction of all-cause mortality and prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding. Random-effects NMA was performed and summary estimates were expressed as odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals (OR; CI). Quality of evidence was critically appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Moderate quality evidence supports NSBB monotherapy (0.70; 0.49-1.00) or in combination with VBL (0.49; 0.23-1.02) or ISMN (0.44; 0.21-0.93) for decreasing mortality in patients with cirrhosis with large esophageal varices and no prior history of bleeding. Moderate-quality evidence supports carvedilol (0.21; 0.08-0.56) and VBL monotherapy (0.33; 0.19-0.55) or in combination with NSBB (0.34; 0.14-0.86), and low-quality evidence supports NSBB monotherapy (0.64; 0.38-1.07) for primary prevention of variceal bleeding. VBL carries a higher risk of serious adverse events compared with NSBB. Conclusion: NSBB monotherapy may decrease all-cause mortality and the risk of first variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis with large esophageal varices. Additionally, NSBB carries a lower risk of serious complications compared with VBL. Therefore, NSBB may be the preferred initial approach for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for liver cirrhosis 2015

The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology revised the evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for liver cirrhosis in 2015. Eighty-three clinical questions were selected, and a literature search was performed for the clinical questions with use of the MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases for the period between 1983 and June 2012. Manual searching of the latest important literature was added until August 2015. The guidelines were developed with use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. This digest version in English introduces selected clinical questions and statements related to the management of liver cirrhosis and its complications. Branched-chain amino acids relieve hypoalbuminemia and hepatic encephalopathy and improve quality of life. Nucleoside analogues and peginterferon plus ribavirin combination therapy improve the prognosis of patients with hepatitis B virus related liver cirrhosis and hepatitis C related compensated liver cirrhosis, respectively, although the latter therapy may be replaced by direct-acting antivirals. For liver cirrhosis caused by primary biliary cirrhosis and active autoimmune hepatitis, urosodeoxycholic acid and steroid are recommended, respectively. The most adequate modalities for the management of variceal bleeding are the endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for esophageal varices and the balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration following endoscopic obturation with cyanoacrylate for gastric varices. Beta-blockers are useful for primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding. The V2 receptor antagonist tolvaptan is a useful add-on therapy in careful diuretic therapy for ascites. Albumin infusion is useful for the prevention of paracentesis-induced circulatory disturbance and renal failure. In addition to disaccharides, the nonabsorbable antibiotic rifaximin is useful for the management of encephalopathy. Anticoagulation therapy is proposed for patients with acute-onset or progressive portal vein thrombosis.

Combined therapies versus monotherapies for the first variceal bleeding in patients with high-risk varices: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The effect of combined therapies (among non-selected beta-blockers [NSBB], endoscopic therapy, and other treatments) on the first variceal bleeding has been evaluated in several randomized controlled trials previously, and the results were controversial. We performed this meta-analysis to assess the effect of combined therapies in patients with high-risk varices without previous variceal bleeding.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched for eligible trials. Manual searches were also performed for additional studies. Upper gastrointestinal bleeding, variceal bleeding, mortality, and adverse events were evaluated as end-points by meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twelve randomized controlled trials with 1571 patients were included. Compared with the NSBB (propranolol or nadolol) or endoscopic therapy alone, all of the combined therapies did not demonstrate significant improvements in variceal bleeding, total upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and mortality. Only the combinations of isosorbide-mononitrate or spironolactone with NSBB tended to decrease the risk of variceal bleeding when compared with the use of NSBB alone (isosorbide-mononitrate plus NSBB vs NSBB: odds ratio = 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.40-1.13, P = 0.13; spironolactone plus NSBB vs NSBB: odds ratio = 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.10-1.69, P = 0.22). Adverse events were more frequently observed in the combined therapy groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidences, no combined therapy can be recommended as the first-line treatment for the primary prevention of variceal bleeding currently. Further studies with large sample sizes and long-term follow up are warranted.

Management of varices in cirrhosis

INTRODUCTION

Acute variceal bleeding is a medical emergency and one of the main causes of mortality in patients with cirrhosis. Timely and effective treatment of the acute bleeding episode results in increased survival, and appropriate prophylactic treatment can prevent bleeding or rebleeding from varices.

AREAS COVERED

We discuss the prevention of development and growth of varices, the primary and secondary prophylaxis of bleeding, the treatment of acute bleeding, and the management of gastric varices. We systematically reviewed studies, without time limits, identified through Medline and searches of reference lists, and provide an overview of the evidence underlying the -treatment options in the management of varices in cirrhosis.

EXPERT OPINION

The management of variceal hemorrhage relies on nonspecific interventions (e.g., adequate fluid resuscitation, airway protection) and on specific interventions. These are routine prophylactic antibiotics, vasoactive drugs and endoscopic treatment. Procedures such as the placement of a Sengstaken-Blakemore tube or a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) can be lifesaving. The primary and secondary prophylaxis of bleeding is based on nonselective beta-blockers and endoscopy, even though TIPS or, less frequently, surgery have a role in selected cases.

Primary prevention of variceal hemorrhage

Variceal hemorrhage is one of the leading causes of death in patients with cirrhosis, with the 6-week mortality after each episode ranging from 15% to 20%. The two main strategies for primary prevention of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis and varices are the administration of nonselective β-blockers or the obliteration of varices with use of endoscopic band ligation. In this review, we present and critically review the latest data on primary prevention of variceal hemorrhage. We advocate that nonselective β-blockers should be the first line therapy, and band ligation should be offered only in cases of intolerance or side effects. We also explore potential future therapies based on preliminary experimental and clinical data.

Meta-analysis: isosorbide-mononitrate alone or with either beta-blockers or endoscopic therapy for the management of oesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

The evidence concerning the use of isosorbide-mononitrate (IsMn) for oesophageal varices is equivocal.

AIM

To assess the effects of IsMn for patients with oesophageal varices and no previous bleeding (primary prevention) or previous variceal bleeding (secondary prevention).

METHODS

Systematic review with meta-analyses of randomized trials on IsMn alone or with beta-blockers or endoscopic therapy for oesophageal varices. Electronic and manual searches were combined. Randomized trials on primary and secondary prevention were included. The primary outcome measure was mortality. Intention-to-treat random effects meta-analyses were performed. The robustness of the results was assessed in trial sequential analyses.

RESULTS

Ten randomized trials on primary and 17 on secondary prevention were included. Evidence of bias was identified. No apparent effect of IsMn on mortality compared with placebo or beta-blockers or IsMn plus beta-blockers vs. beta-blockers was identified. Compared with endoscopic therapy, IsMn plus beta-blockers had no apparent effect on bleeding, but did seem to reduce mortality in secondary prevention (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.59-0.89), but not in primary prevention. The effect of IsMn plus beta-blockers on mortality in secondary prevention was not confirmed in trial sequential analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Isosorbide-mononitrate used alone or in combination with beta blockers does not seem to offer any reduction in bleeding in the primary or secondary prevention of oesophageal varices. Compared with endoscopic therapy, there may be a survival advantage in using IsMn and beta-blockers, but additional large multicentre trials are needed to verify this finding.