Systematic review with network meta-analysis: the comparative effectiveness and safety of interventions in patients with overt hepatic encephalopathy

Abstract

Background: Interventional treatment for overt hepatic encephalopathy (OHE), includes non-absorbable disaccharides, neomycin, rifaximin, L-ornithine-L-aspartate and branched chain amino acids (BCAA). However, the optimum regimen remains inconclusive.

Aim: To compare interventions in terms of patients' adverse events and major clinical outcomes.

Methods: Literature search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library studies published up to July 31 2014. RCTs of above interventions in OHE patients were included. Network meta-analysis combined direct and indirect evidence to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and mean difference (MD) between treatments and the probabilities of ranking for treatment based on clinical outcomes.

Results: Twenty eligible RCTs were included. When compared with observation, only L-ornithine-L-aspartate (OR 3.71, P < 0.001) and BCAA (OR 3.37, P < 0.001) improved clinical efficacy significantly. However, when L-ornithine-L-aspartate was compared with BCAA, non-absorbable disaccharides and neomycin, there was a trend suggesting that L-ornithine-L-aspartate may be the most effective intervention with respect to clinical improvement (OR 1.10), rifaximin (OR 1.31), non-absorbable disaccharides (OR 2.75), neomycin (OR 2.22). In addition, L-ornithine-L-aspartate (MD -20.18, 95% CI -40.12 to -0.27) provided a significant reduction in blood ammonia concentration compared with observation. Neomycin appeared to be associated with more adverse events in comparison with non-absorbable disaccharides (OR 10.15), rifaximin (OR 17.31), L-ornithine-L-aspartate (OR 3.16) or BCAA (OR 7.69).

Conclusions: L-ornithine-L-aspartate treatment may show a trend in superiority for clinical efficacy among standard interventions for OHE. Rifaximin shows the greatest reduction in blood ammonia concentration, and treatment with neomycin demonstrates a higher probability in causing adverse effects among the five compared interventions.