Minimal Hepatic Encephalopathy in Indians: Psychometric Hepatic Encephalopathy Score and Inhibitory Control Test for Diagnosis and Rifaximin or Lactulose for Its Reversal

Preventive and therapeutic effects of rifaximin on hepatic encephalopathy with differential application dosages and strategies: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a neuropsychiatric syndrome that affects the prognosis of patients with liver disease and is considered an independent risk factor for hospitalization and death. Rifaximin has been approved for HE treatment. This review will analyze the effect of rifaximin on different stages of HE with differential application dosages and strategies by traditional and network meta-analyses.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of PubMed, EmBase, and Cochrane Library databases up to February 26, 2023, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about rifaximin for the prevention and treatment of HE. The outcomes included incidence of HE and HE progression, HE reversal, mortality, and adverse effects.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies were included. In the primary prevention of HE, rifaximin significantly reduced the incidence of HE (OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.45, 0.96; p = 0.032). In secondary prevention, rifaximin significantly reduced the risk of recurrence in patients who were in remission (OR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.28, 0.52; p < 0.001). In the treatment of minimal HE, rifaximin significantly reduced the breakthrough of MHE to OHE (OR: 0.17; 95% CI: 0.04,0.63; p = 0.008). Rifaximin also significantly improved the clinical symptoms of MHE and OHE patients (OR: 3.76; 95% CI: 2.69, 5.25; p < 0.001). However, rifaximin did not reduce mortality at any stage in HE patients (OR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.58, 1.08; p = 0.133). Additionally, rifaximin did not increase the risk of adverse effects (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.74, 1.24; p = 0.749). In the network meta-analysis, the 400 mg T.I.D. intervention had a relative advantage for HE risks in primary and secondary prevention. In the treatment of MHE, 600 mg b.i.d. was superior in preventing the breakthrough from MHE to OHE.

CONCLUSION

Rifaximin prevented HE risks and progression and improved clinical symptoms in patients with MHE but did not reduce mortality. For primary and secondary prevention, 400 mg t.i.d. could be considered. 600 mg b.i.d. could be considered in patients with MHE.

Rifaximin for prevention and treatment of hepatic encephalopathy in people with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Hepatic encephalopathy describes the spectrum of neuropsychiatric changes that may complicate the course of cirrhosis and detrimentally affect outcomes. Ammonia plays a key role in its development. Rifaximin is a non-absorbable antibiotic that inhibits urease-producing bacteria and reduces absorption of dietary and bacterial ammonia.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of rifaximin versus placebo, no intervention, or non-absorbable disaccharides for: (i) the prevention of hepatic encephalopathy, and (ii) the treatment of minimal and overt hepatic encephalopathy, in people with cirrhosis, both when used alone and when combined with a non-absorbable disaccharide.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Clinical Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, the reference lists of identified papers, and relevant conference proceedings. We wrote to authors and pharmaceutical companies for information on other published, unpublished, or ongoing trials. Searches were performed to January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials assessing prevention or treatment of hepatic encephalopathy with rifaximin alone, or with a non-absorbable disaccharide, versus placebo/no intervention, or a non-absorbable disaccharide alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Six authors independently searched for studies, extracted data, and validated findings. We assessed the design, bias risk, and participant/intervention characteristics of the included studies. We assessed mortality, serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, hepatic encephalopathy, non-serious adverse events, blood ammonia, Number Connection Test-A, and length of hospital stay.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 41 trials involving 4545 people with, or at risk for, developing hepatic encephalopathy. We excluded 89 trials and identified 13 ongoing studies. Some trials involved participants with more than one type of hepatic encephalopathy or more than one treatment comparison. Hepatic encephalopathy was classed as acute (13 trials), chronic (7 trials), or minimal (8 trials), or else participants were considered at risk for its development (13 trials). The control groups received placebo (12 trials), no/standard treatment (1 trial), or a non-absorbable disaccharide (14 trials). Eighteen trials assessed rifaximin plus a non-absorbable disaccharide versus a non-absorbable disaccharide alone. We classified 11 trials as at high risk of overall bias for mortality and 28 for non-mortality outcomes, mainly due to lack of blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting. Compared to placebo/no intervention, rifaximin likely has no overall effect on mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.38; P = 48, I2 = 0%; 13 trials, 1007 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and there may be no overall effect when compared to non-absorbable disaccharides (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.97; P = 0.97, I2 = 0%; 10 trials, 786 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there is likely a reduction in the overall risk of mortality when comparing rifaximin plus a non-absorbable disaccharide to a non-absorbable disaccharide alone (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.86; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 22; P = 0.001, I2 = 0%; 14 trials, 1946 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is likely no effect on the overall risk of serious adverse events when comparing rifaximin to placebo/no intervention (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.32; P = 68, I2 = 0%; 9 trials, 801 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and there may be no overall effect when compared to non-absorbable disaccharides (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.40; P = 85, I2 = 0%; 8 trials, 681 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there was very low-certainty evidence that use of rifaximin plus a non-absorbable disaccharide may be associated with a lower risk of serious adverse events than use of a non-absorbable disaccharide alone (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.98; P = 0.04, I2 = 60%; 7 trials, 1076 participants). Rifaximin likely results in an overall effect on health-related quality of life when compared to placebo/no intervention (mean difference (MD) -1.43, 95% CI -2.87 to 0.02; P = 0.05, I2 = 81%; 4 trials, 214 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may benefit health-related quality of life in people with minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MD -2.07, 95% CI -2.79 to -1.35; P < 0.001, I2 = 0%; 3 trials, 176 participants). The overall effect on health-related quality of life when comparing rifaximin to non-absorbable disaccharides is very uncertain (MD -0.33, 95% CI -1.65 to 0.98; P = 0.62, I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 249 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the combined rifaximin/non-absorbable disaccharide trials reported on this outcome. There is likely an overall beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy when comparing rifaximin to placebo/no intervention (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.77; NNTB = 5; P < 0.001, I2 = 68%; 13 trials, 1009 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This effect may be more marked in people with minimal hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.52; NNTB = 3; P < 0.001, I2 = 10%; 6 trials, 364 participants) and in prevention trials (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.91; NNTB = 10; P = 0.007, I2 = 36%; 4 trials, 474 participants). There may be little overall effect on hepatic encephalopathy when comparing rifaximin to non-absorbable disaccharides (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05; P = 0.13, I2 = 0%; 13 trials, 921 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there may be an overall beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy when comparing rifaximin plus a non-absorbable disaccharide to a non-absorbable disaccharide alone (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.71; NNTB = 5; P < 0.001, I2 = 62%; 17 trials, 2332 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to placebo/no intervention, rifaximin likely improves health-related quality of life in people with minimal hepatic encephalopathy, and may improve hepatic encephalopathy, particularly in populations with minimal hepatic encephalopathy and when it is used for prevention. Rifaximin likely has no overall effect on mortality, serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, or hepatic encephalopathy compared to non-absorbable disaccharides. However, when used in combination with a non-absorbable disaccharide, it likely reduces overall mortality risk, the risk of serious adverse events, improves hepatic encephalopathy, reduces the length of hospital stay, and prevents the occurrence/recurrence of hepatic encephalopathy. The certainty of evidence for these outcomes is very low to moderate; further high-quality trials are needed.

Psychometric Hepatic Encephalopathy Score for the Diagnosis of Minimal Hepatic Encephalopathy in Thai Cirrhotic Patients

The psychometric hepatic encephalopathy score (PHES) is the gold standard for diagnosing minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE). Screening for MHE is frequently overlooked in clinical practice due to time constraints. Furthermore, the simplified animal naming test (S-ANT1) is a new simple tool for evaluating MHE in cirrhotic patients. The purpose of this study was to standardize the PHES in a healthy Thai population, assess the prevalence of MHE, and validate the S-ANT1 in detecting MHE in patients with cirrhosis. The study included 194 healthy controls and 203 cirrhotic patients without overt HE. Psychometric tests and the S-ANT1 were administered to all participants. Multiple linear regression was used to analyze factors related to PHES results, and formulas were developed to predict the results for each PHES subtest. In healthy controls, age and education were predictors of all five subtests. The PHES of the control group was −0.26 ± 2.28 points, and the threshold for detecting MHE was set at ≤ −5 points. The cirrhotic group had PHES values of −2.6 ± 3.1 points. Moreover, MHE was found to be present in 26.6% of cirrhotic patients. S-ANT1 had a moderate positive correlation with PHES (r = 0.44, p < 0.001). S-ANT1 < 22 named animals detected MHE with a sensitivity of 71.2%, specificity of 65%, and area under the receiver operating curve of 0.68 (p < 0.001). In conclusion, Thai PHES normative data have been developed to detect MHE in cirrhotic patients who do not have overt HE. The optimal cutoff for detecting MHE in Thai cirrhotic patients was PHES ≤ −5 points and S-ANT1 < 22 named.

Psychometric methods for diagnosing and monitoring minimal hepatic encephalopathy -current validation level and practical use

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is cerebral dysfunction caused by liver failure and inflicts 30-40% of patients with liver cirrhosis during their disease course. Clinically manifest HE is often preceded by minimal HE (MHE) - a clinically undetectable cognitive disturbance closely associated with loss of quality of life. Accordingly, detecting and treating MHE improve the patients' daily functioning and prevent HE-related hospital admissions. The scope of this review article is to create an overview of the validation level and usage of psychometric tests used to detect MHE: Portosystemic hepatic encephalopathy test, continuous reaction time test, Stroop EncephalApp, animal naming test, critical flicker frequency test, and inhibitory control test. Our work is aimed at the clinician or scientist who is about to decide on which psychometric test would fit best in their clinic, cohort, or study. First, we outline psychometric test validation obstacles and requirements. Then, we systematically approach the literature on each test and select well-conducted studies to answer the following questions:• Which percentage of patients with cirrhosis does the test deem as having MHE?• Is the test able to predict clinically manifest HE?• Is there a well-known test-retest variation and inter-observer variation?• Is the test able to detect a treatment response?• Is the test result affected by age, educational level, gender, or comorbidities?

Is rifaximin better than nonabsorbable disaccharides in hepatic encephalopathy?: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the present meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of rifaximin and nonabsorbable disaccharides (NADs) in hepatic encephalopathy (HE).

METHODS

After the registration of the present meta-analysis on INPLASY, all procedures were performed according to PRISMA 2020. Relevant literature was retrieved on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to September 5, 2021. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the enrolled studies, and Review Manager software (version 5.3) was used to analyze the clinical efficacy, blood ammonia and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Six studies with 559 patients were included in the present meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in the basic characteristics of the included studies. Analysis of the complete resolution of HE showed that rifaximin was better than NADs (risk ratio [RR] = 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03-3.39, P = .04). However, there were no significant differences in mental status (RR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.92-1.18, P = .53), blood ammonia level (standard mean difference = -0.02, 95% CI = -0.40-0.02, P = .08), or drug adverse drug effects (OR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.10-1.77, I2 = 56%, P = .24) between the rifaximin and NADs treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Rifaximin is not superior to NADs in the treatment of HE.

Novel computerized psychometric tests as primary screening tools for the diagnosis of minimal hepatic encephalopathy

Minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) is a critical neurocognitive complication of decompensated liver cirrhosis and portosystemic shunting, which results in a wide range of cognitive deficits including impairments in working attention, psychomotor speed, and executive function. Current guidelines have recommended paper-and-pencil psychometric tests for the diagnosis of MHE. Most high-risk cirrhotic patients are required to be examined; however, paper-and-pencil psychometric tests are neither convenient nor rapid to perform in the clinic. Recently, novel computerized psychometric tests, including the inhibitory control test, EncephalApp Stroop App, and critical flicker frequency, have been proven to be rapid, effective, and convenient methods for screening MHE in clinical practice and for identifying high-risk cirrhotic patients for further validation using rigid neuropsychometric examinations. However, diagnostic accuracy of these tests is influenced by educational background, age, and cultural differences. This review summarizes clinical evidence of the application of novel computerized psychometric tests for screening MHE.