Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of carvedilol versus variceal band ligation in primary prevention of variceal bleeding in liver cirrhosis (CALIBRE trial)

Preventing the progression of cirrhosis to decompensation and death

Two main stages are differentiated in patients with advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD), one compensated (cACLD) with an excellent prognosis, and the other decompensated (dACLD), defined by the appearance of complications (ascites, variceal bleeding and hepatic encephalopathy) and associated with high mortality. Preventing the progression to dACLD might dramatically improve prognosis and reduce the burden of care associated with ACLD. Portal hypertension is a major driver of the transition from cACLD to dACLD, and a portal pressure of ≥10 mmHg defines clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) as the threshold from which decompensating events may occur. In recent years, innovative studies have provided evidence supporting new strategies to prevent decompensation in cACLD. These studies have yielded major advances, including the development of noninvasive tests (NITs) to identify patients with CSPH with reasonable confidence, the demonstration that aetiological therapies can prevent disease progression and even achieve regression of cirrhosis, and the finding that non-selective β-blockers can effectively prevent decompensation in patients with cACLD and CSPH, mainly by reducing the risk of ascites, the most frequent decompensating event. Here, we review the evidence supporting new strategies to manage cACLD to prevent decompensation and the caveats for their implementation, from patient selection using NITs to ancillary therapies.

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.

The influence of carvedilol posology timing on clinically significant portal hypertension: insights from elastography measurements

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Carvedilol has emerged as the preferred β-blocker for treating portal hypertension. However, there is still a debate in dosing regimen, with a potential lower bioavailability in once-daily regimens. The aim of this study is to assess the acute effects of carvedilol posology in patients with clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH), as a surrogate marker of bioavailability.

METHODS

In this experimental study, 34 patients with CSPH receiving carvedilol twice daily were asked to suppress the night dose of carvedilol, creating a standardized 24-hour dose interval. Spleen stiffness measurement (SSM) and liver stiffness measurement (LSM) by transient elastography (TE) were performed, with the exact interval between the last carvedilol administration and TE measurements consistently maintained at 24 hours and compared with values prior and under treatment.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients were included, predominantly male (82.9%). SSM after suspending carvedilol for 24 hours [mean, 73.9kPa (SD, 17.0)] was significantly higher ( P < 0.001) than under treatment [mean, 56.3kPa (SD, 13.2)] and was not significantly different ( P = 0.908) from SSM prior to introduction of carvedilol [mean, 74.5kPa (SD, 12.4)]. Differences were also found in stratified analysis for carvedilol dosage, D'Amico classification stages, MELDNa scores, MELD3.0 scores, Child-Pugh class A and CSPH due to alcoholic cirrhosis. LSM after suspension was not significantly different from both under treatment and prior to treatment.

CONCLUSION

The differences in SSM after skipping one dose of carvedilol show both the importance of strict adherence to the prescribed dosing regimen to achieve the expected therapeutic benefits and the impact of twice daily prescription in bioavailability throughout the day.

British Society of Gastroenterology Best Practice Guidance: outpatient management of cirrhosis - part 1: compensated cirrhosis

The prevalence of cirrhosis has risen significantly over recent decades and is predicted to rise further. Widespread use of non-invasive testing means cirrhosis is increasingly diagnosed at an earlier stage. Despite this, there are significant variations in outcomes in patients with cirrhosis across the UK, and patients in areas with higher levels of deprivation are more likely to die from their liver disease. This three-part best practice guidance aims to address outpatient management of cirrhosis, in order to standardise care and to reduce the risk of progression, decompensation and mortality from liver disease. Here, in part one, we focus on outpatient management of compensated cirrhosis, encompassing hepatocellular cancer surveillance, screening for varices and osteoporosis, vaccination and lifestyle measures. We also introduce a compensated cirrhosis care bundle for use in the outpatient setting. Part two concentrates on outpatient management of decompensated disease including management of ascites, encephalopathy, varices, nutrition as well as liver transplantation and palliative care. The third part of the guidance covers special circumstances encountered in managing people with cirrhosis: surgery, pregnancy, travel, managing bleeding risk for invasive procedures and portal vein thrombosis.

Pharmacotherapies for Portal Hypertension: Current Status and Expanding Indications

Purpose

Non-selective beta blockers remain pharmacotherapy of choice for prevention of first episode of variceal bleeding (primary prevention) and for prevention of its recurrence after initial hemostasis (secondary prophylaxis). This review will update the current and emerging pharmacological therapies for portal hypertension.

Recent findings

Data have emerged on carvedilol in preventing hepatic decompensation and improving patient survival among patients with clinically significant portal hypertension. Because measurement of WHVP is invasive and not feasible in routine practice, non-invasive tests with liver stiffness measurement in combination with platelet count may be accurate in identifying clinically significant portal hypertension.

Summary

Carvedilol is more effective in reducing portal pressure compared to nadolol or propranolol. Its use has expanded to reduce risk of hepatic decompensation among patients with CSPH, which can be identified non-invasively using liver stiffness and platelet count. Studies are needed on non-invasive biomarkers to guide and optimize pharmacological treatment of portal hypertension.

Use of non-selective B-blockers is safe in hospitalised decompensated cirrhosis patients and exerts a potential anti-inflammatory effect: Data from the ATTIRE trial

BACKGROUND

Nonselective B-blockers (NSBBs) are believed to have pleiotropic effects beyond reducing portal pressure. However, studies also report potential harm in patients hospitalized with cirrhosis and ascites. We therefore investigated whether NSBB use at ATTIRE trial entry (Albumin to prevent infection in chronic liver failure, 2016-19) was associated with increased renal or cardiovascular dysfunction, compared the incidence of infection and plasma markers of systemic inflammation, and examined mortality at 28-days, 3 and 6-months.

METHODS

In ATTIRE patients grouped by NSBB use at trial entry, we studied infection at baseline, hospital acquired infection and organ dysfunction during trial treatment period and mortality, with propensity score matching to account for differences in disease severity.

FINDINGS

There were no differences in renal or cardiovascular dysfunction between patients treated with NSBBs or not, during days 3-15 of hospitalization, despite elevated serum creatinine in NSBB patients at hospitalisation. Use of NSBBs was associated with a significant reduction in infection at hospitalization (p = 0.006), lower white cell counts throughout hospital stay (p < 0.001) and reduced plasma procalcitonin (p = 0.009) and interlukin-8 levels (p = 0.04) at baseline, but markers of bacterial translocation and systemic inflammation were the same in treatment groups. There was no reduction in hospital acquired infections in patients taking NSBBs and no beneficial impact on mortality at 28-days, 3 and 6-months.

INTERPRETATIONS

Our real-world data from a completed randomised trial show that use of NSBBs in decompensated cirrhosis patients is safe during hospitalisation. We also show a potential anti-inflammatory role for NSBBs which may be mediated by a downregulation of IL-8 induced leucocytosis, that was associated with reduced infection at baseline but not a survival benefit.

FUNDING

Wellcome Trust and Department of Health and Social Care.

Primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis: A comparison of different strategies

Patients with cirrhosis and esophageal varices bleed at a yearly rate of 5%-15%, and, when variceal hemorrhage develops, mortality reaches 20%. Patients are deemed at high risk of bleeding when they present with medium or large-sized varices, when they have red signs on varices of any size and when they are classified as Child-Pugh C and have varices of any size. In order to avoid variceal bleeding and death, individuals with cirrhosis at high risk of bleeding must undergo primary prophylaxis, for which currently recommended strategies are the use of traditional non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) (i.e., propranolol or nadolol), carvedilol (a NSBB with additional alpha-adrenergic blocking effect) or endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL). The superiority of one of these alternatives over the others is controversial. While EVL might be superior to pharmacological therapy regarding the prevention of the first bleeding episode, either traditional NSBBs or carvedilol seem to play a more prominent role in mortality reduction, probably due to their capacity of preventing other complications of cirrhosis through the decrease in portal hypertension. A sequential strategy, in which patients unresponsive to pharmacological therapy would be submitted to endoscopic treatment, or the combination of pharmacological and endoscopic strategies might be beneficial and deserve further investigation.

Exploring patients' perceptions and experiences of treatments for the prevention of variceal bleeding: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The most common fatal complication of liver cirrhosis is haemorrhaging caused by variceal rupture. The prevention of the first variceal bleed is, therefore, an important clinical goal. Little is known about patients' experience of treatments geared towards this, or of their perceptions of treatments prior to being exposed to them.

AIMS

To explore the factors impacting patient preference for, and actual experience of carvedilol and variceal band ligation.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 30 patients from across the UK at baseline, prior to random allocation to either carvedilol or variceal band ligation. Twenty patients were interviewed a second time at 6-month follow-up. Five patients who declined the trial were also interviewed. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

There was no clear preference for either treatment pathway at baseline. Key factors reported by patients to influence their treatment preference included: negative experiences with key treatment processes; how long-term or short-term treatment was perceived to be; treatment misconceptions; concerns around polypharmacy and worries around treatment adherence. Patient treatment experience was influenced by their perceptions of treatment effectiveness; clinical surveillance; clinician interaction and communication, or lack thereof. Carvedilol-specific experience was also influenced by the manifestation of side effects and patient dosage routine. Variceal band ligation-specific experience was positively influenced by the use of sedation, and negatively influenced by the procedure recovery period.

CONCLUSIONS

These data do not support a view that the patient experience of beta-blockade for prevention of variceal bleeds is likely to be superior to variceal band ligation.

Economic evaluation of covered stents for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt in patients with variceal bleeding and refractory ascites secondary to cirrhosis

OBJECTIVES

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt (TIPSS) is clinically effective in variceal bleeding and refractory ascites; however, the cost-effectiveness of TIPSS has yet to be evaluated in the UK. This study aimed to establish the cost-effectiveness of (i) pre-emptive TIPSS versus endoscopic band ligation (EBL) in populations with variceal bleeding and (ii) TIPSS versus large volume paracentesis (LVP) in refractory ascites.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was conducted with the perspective including healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A Markov model was constructed with a 2-year time horizon, health states for mortality and survival and probabilities for the development of variceal bleeding, ascites and hepatic encephalopathy. A survival analysis was conducted to extrapolate 12-month to 24-month mortality for the refractory ascites indication. Uncertainty was analysed in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

TIPSS was cost-effective (dominant) and cost saving for both indications. For variceal bleeding, pre-emptive TIPSS resulted in 0.209 additional QALYs, and saved £600 per patient compared with EBL. TIPSS had a very high probability of being cost-effective (95%) but was not cost saving in scenario analyses driven by rates of variceal rebleeding. For refractory ascites, TIPSS resulted in 0.526 additional QALYs and saved £17 983 per patient and had a 100% probability of being cost-effective and cost saving when compared with LVP.

CONCLUSIONS

TIPSS is a cost-effective intervention for variceal bleeding and refractory ascites. TIPSS is highly cost-saving for refractory ascites. Robust randomised trial data are required to confirm whether pre-emptive TIPSS is cost saving for variceal bleeding.

Clinical algorithms for the prevention of variceal bleeding and rebleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis

Portal hypertension (PH), a common complication of liver cirrhosis, results in development of esophageal varices. When esophageal varices rupture, they cause significant upper gastrointestinal bleeding with mortality rates up to 20% despite state-of-the-art treatment. Thus, prophylactic measures are of utmost importance to improve outcomes of patients with PH. Several high-quality studies have demonstrated that non-selective beta blockers (NSBBs) or endoscopic band ligation (EBL) are effective for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. In secondary prophylaxis, a combination of NSBB + EBL should be routinely used. Once esophageal varices develop and variceal bleeding occurs, standardized treatment algorithms should be followed to minimize bleeding-associated mortality. Special attention should be paid to avoidance of overtransfusion, early initiation of vasoconstrictive therapy, prophylactic antibiotics and early endoscopic therapy. Pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt should be used in all Child C10-C13 patients experiencing variceal bleeding, and potentially in Child B patients with active bleeding at endoscopy. The use of carvedilol, safety of NSBBs in advanced cirrhosis (i.e. with refractory ascites) and assessment of hepatic venous pressure gradient response to NSBB is discussed. In the present review, we give an overview on the rationale behind the latest guidelines and summarize key papers that have led to significant advances in the field.

β-blockers in advanced cirrhosis: More friend than enemy

Nonselective beta-adrenergic blocker (NSBB) therapy for the prevention of initial and recurrent gastrointestinal bleeding in cirrhotic patients with gastroesophageal varices has been used for the past four decades. NSBB therapy is considered the cornerstone of treatment for varices, and has become the standard of care. However, a 2010 study from the group that pioneered β-blocker therapy suggested a detrimental effect of NSBBs in decompensated cirrhosis, especially in patients with refractory ascites. Since then, numerous additional studies have incompletely resolved whether NSBBs are deleterious, although more recent evidence weighs against a harmful effect. The possibility of a "therapeutic window" has also been raised. We aimed to review the literature to analyze the pros and cons of using NSBBs in patients with cirrhosis, not only with respect to bleeding or mortality but also to other potential benefits and risks. β-blockers are highly effective in preventing first bleeding and recurrent bleeding. Furthermore, NSBBs improve congestion/ischemia of the gut mucosa, decrease intestinal permeability, and therefore indirectly alleviate systemic inflammation. β-blockers shorten the electrocardiographic prolonged QTc interval and may also decrease the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma. On the other hand, the possibility of deleterious effects in cirrhosis has not been completely eliminated. NSBBs may be associated with an increased risk of portal vein thrombosis, although this could be correlational artifact. Overall, we conclude that β-blockers in cirrhosis are much more of a friend than enemy.

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.

Cirrhotic portal hypertension: From pathophysiology to novel therapeutics

Portal hypertension and bleeding from gastroesophageal varices is the major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cirrhosis. Portal hypertension is initiated by increased intrahepatic vascular resistance and a hyperdynamic circulatory state. The latter is characterized by a high cardiac output, increased total blood volume and splanchnic vasodilatation, resulting in increased mesenteric blood flow. Pharmacological manipulation of cirrhotic portal hypertension targets both the splanchnic and hepatic vascular beds. Drugs such as angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II type receptor 1 blockers, which target the components of the classical renin angiotensin system (RAS), are expected to reduce intrahepatic vascular tone by reducing extracellular matrix deposition and vasoactivity of contractile cells and thereby improve portal hypertension. However, these drugs have been shown to produce significant off-target effects such as systemic hypotension and renal failure. Therefore, the current pharmacological mainstay in clinical practice to prevent variceal bleeding and improving patient survival by reducing portal pressure is non-selective -blockers (NSBBs). These NSBBs work by reducing cardiac output and splanchnic vasodilatation but most patients do not achieve an optimal therapeutic response and a significant proportion of patients are unable to tolerate these drugs. Although statins, used alone or in combination with NSBBs, have been shown to improve portal pressure and overall mortality in cirrhotic patients, further randomized clinical trials are warranted involving larger patient populations with clear clinical end points. On the other hand, recent findings from studies that have investigated the potential use of the blockers of the components of the alternate RAS provided compelling evidence that could lead to the development of drugs targeting the splanchnic vascular bed to inhibit splanchnic vasodilatation in portal hypertension. This review outlines the mechanisms related to the pathogenesis of portal hypertension and attempts to provide an update on currently available therapeutic approaches in the management of portal hypertension with special emphasis on how the alternate RAS could be manipulated in our search for development of safe, specific and effective novel therapies to treat portal hypertension in cirrhosis.

Beta-blockers in cirrhosis: Evidence-based indications and limitations

Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) are the mainstay of treatment for portal hypertension in the setting of liver cirrhosis. Randomised controlled trials demonstrated their efficacy in preventing initial variceal bleeding and subsequent rebleeding. Recent evidence indicates that NSBBs could prevent liver decompensation in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Despite solid data favouring NSBB use in cirrhosis, some studies have highlighted relevant safety issues in patients with end-stage liver disease, particularly with refractory ascites and infection. This review summarises the evidence supporting current recommendations and restrictions of NSBB use in patients with cirrhosis.