Search

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common type of liver cancer, accounting for 70% to 85% of individuals with primary liver cancer. Gene therapy, which uses genes to treat or prevent diseases, holds potential for treatment, especially for tumours. Trials on the effects of gene therapy in people with hepatocellular carcinoma have been published or are ongoing., Objectives: To evaluate the benefits and harms of gene therapy in people with hepatocellular carcinoma, irrespective of sex, administered dose, and type of formulation., Search Methods: We identified randomised clinical trials through electronic searches in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science. We searched five online clinical trial registries to identify unpublished or ongoing trials. We checked reference lists of the retrieved studies for further trials. The date of last search was 20 January 2023., Selection Criteria: We aimed to include randomised clinical trials assessing any type of gene therapy in people diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma, irrespective of year, language of publication, format, or outcomes reported., Data Collection and Analysis: We followed Cochrane methodology and used Review Manager to prepare the review. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality/overall survival (whatever data were provided), serious adverse events during treatment, and health-related quality of life. The secondary outcomes were proportion of people with disease progression, adverse events considered non-serious, and proportion of people without improvement in liver function tests. We assessed risk of bias of the included trials using RoB 2 and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We presented the results of time-to-event outcomes as hazard ratios (HR), dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR), and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Our primary analyses were based on intention-to-treat and outcome data at the longest follow-up., Main Results: We included six randomised clinical trials with 364 participants. The participants had unresectable (i.e. advanced inoperable) hepatocellular carcinoma. We found no trials assessing the effects of gene therapy in people with operable hepatocellular carcinoma. Four trials were conducted in China, one in several countries (from North America, Asia, and Europe), and one in Egypt. The number of participants in the six trials ranged from 10 to 129 (median 47), median age was 55.2 years, and the mean proportion of males was 72.7%. The follow-up duration ranged from six months to five years. As the trials compared different types of gene therapy and had different controls, we could not perform meta-analyses. Five of the six trials administered co-interventions equally to the experimental and control groups. All trials assessed one or more outcomes of interest in this review. The certainty of evidence was very low in five of the six comparisons and low in the double-dose gene therapy comparison. Below, we reported the results of the primary outcomes only. Pexastimogene devacirepvec (Pexa-Vec) plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone There is uncertainty about whether there may be little to no difference between the effect of Pexa-Vec plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone on overall survival (HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.82; 1 trial (censored observation at 20-month follow-up), 129 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and on serious adverse events (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.33; 1 trial at 20 months after treatment, 129 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial reported quality of life narratively as "assessment of quality of life and time to symptomatic progression was confounded by the high patient dropout rate." Adenovirus-thymidine kinase with ganciclovir (ADV-TK/GCV) plus liver transplantation versus liver transplantation alone There is uncertainty about whether ADV-TK/GCV plus liver transplantation may benefit all-cause mortality at the two-year follow-up (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.76; 1 trial, 45 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report serious adverse events other than mortality or quality of life. Double-dose ADV-TK/GCV plus liver transplantation versus liver transplantation alone There is uncertainty about whether double-dose ADV-TK/GCV plus liver transplantation versus liver transplantation may benefit all-cause mortality at five-year follow-up (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.73; 1 trial, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report serious adverse events other than mortality or quality of life. Recombinant human adenovirus-p53 with hydroxycamptothecin (rAd-p53/HCT) versus hydroxycamptothecin alone There is uncertainty about whether there may be little to no difference between the effect of rAd-p53/HCT versus hydroxycamptothecin alone on the overall survival at 12-month follow-up (RR 3.06, 95% CI 0.16 to 60.47; 1 trial, 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report serious adverse events or quality of life. rAd-p53/5-Fu (5-fluorouracil) plus transarterial chemoembolisation versus transarterial chemoembolisation alone The trial included 46 participants. We had insufficient data to assess overall survival. The trial did not report serious adverse events or quality of life. E1B-deleted (dl1520) adenovirus versus percutaneous ethanol injection The trial included 10 participants. It did not report data on overall survival, serious adverse events, or health-related quality of life. One trial did not provide any information on sponsorship; one trial received a national research grant, one trial by the Pedersen foundation, and three were industry-funded trials. We found five ongoing randomised clinical trials., Authors' Conclusions: The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of gene therapy on the studied outcomes because of high risk of bias and imprecision of outcome results. The trials were underpowered and lacked trial data on clinically important outcomes. There was only one trial per comparison, and we could not perform meta-analyses. Therefore, we do not know if gene therapy may reduce, increase, or have little to no effect on all-cause mortality or overall survival, or serious adverse events in adults with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. The impact of gene therapy on adverse events needs to be investigated further. Evidence on the effect of gene therapy on health-related quality of life is lacking., (Copyright © 2024 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Vitamin D deficiency is often reported in people with chronic liver diseases. Improving vitamin D status could therefore be beneficial for people with chronic liver diseases., Objectives: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin D supplementation in adults with chronic liver diseases., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov  and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and enquired experts and pharmaceutical companies as to additional trials. All searches were up to November 2020., Selection Criteria: Randomised clinical trials that compared vitamin D at any dose, duration, and route of administration versus placebo or no intervention in adults with chronic liver diseases. Vitamin D could have been administered as supplemental vitamin D (vitamin D 3 (cholecalciferol) or vitamin D 2 (ergocalciferol)), or an active form of vitamin D (1α-hydroxyvitamin D (alfacalcidol), 25-hydroxyvitamin D (calcidiol), or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol))., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence., Main Results: We included 27 randomised clinical trials with 1979 adult participants. This review update added 12 trials with 945 participants. We assessed all trials as at high risk of bias. All trials had a parallel-group design. Eleven trials were conducted in high-income countries and 16 trials in middle-income countries. Ten trials included participants with chronic hepatitis C, five trials participants with liver cirrhosis, 11 trials participants with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and one trial liver transplant recipients. All of the included trials reported the baseline vitamin D status of participants. Participants in nine trials had baseline serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels at or above vitamin D adequacy (20 ng/mL), whilst participants in the remaining 18 trials were vitamin D insufficient (less than 20 ng/mL). Twenty-four trials administered vitamin D orally, two trials intramuscularly, and one trial intramuscularly and orally. In all 27 trials, the mean duration of vitamin D supplementation was 6 months, and the mean follow-up of participants from randomisation was 7 months. Twenty trials (1592 participants; 44% women; mean age 48 years) tested vitamin D 3 (cholecalciferol); three trials (156 participants; 28% women; mean age 54 years) tested vitamin D 2 ; four trials (291 participants; 60% women; mean age 52 years) tested 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D; and one trial (18 participants; 0% women; mean age 52 years) tested 25-hydroxyvitamin D. One trial did not report the form of vitamin D. Twelve trials used a placebo, whilst the other 15 trials used no intervention in the control group. Fourteen trials appeared to be free of vested interest. Eleven trials did not provide any information on clinical trial support or sponsorship. Two trials were funded by industry. We are very uncertain regarding the effect of vitamin D versus placebo or no intervention on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 1.45; 27 trials; 1979 participants). The mean follow-up was 7 months (range 1 to 18 months). We are very uncertain regarding the effect of vitamin D versus placebo or no intervention on liver-related mortality (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.08 to 34.66; 1 trial; 18 participants) (follow-up: 12 months); serious adverse events such as hypercalcaemia (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 100.8; 1 trial; 76 participants); myocardial infarction (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.08 to 6.81; 2 trials; 86 participants); thyroiditis (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.91; 1 trial; 68 participants); circular haemorrhoidal prolapse (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 65.9; 1 trial; 20 participants); bronchopneumonia (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.02 to 7.32; 1 trial 20 participants); and non-serious adverse events. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes is very low. We found no data on liver-related morbidity such as gastrointestinal bleeding, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatorenal syndrome, ascites, or liver cancer. There were also no data on health-related quality of life. The evidence is also very uncertain regarding the effect of vitamin D versus placebo or no intervention on rapid, early, and sustained virological response in people with chronic hepatitis C., Authors' Conclusions: Given the high risk of bias and insufficient power of the included trials and the very low certainty of the available evidence, vitamin D supplementation versus placebo or no intervention may increase or reduce all-cause mortality, liver-related mortality, serious adverse events, or non-serious adverse events in adults with chronic liver diseases. There is a lack of data on liver-related morbidity and health-related quality of life. Further evidence on clinically important outcomes analysed in this review is needed., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Chronic hepatitis B is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Chronic hepatitis B requires long-term management aiming at reduction of the risks of hepatocellular inflammatory necrosis, liver fibrosis, decompensated liver cirrhosis, liver failure, and liver cancer, and improving health-related quality of life. The Chinese herbal medicine formula Xiao Chai Hu Tang has been used to decrease discomfort and replication of the virus in people with chronic hepatitis B. However, the benefits and harms of Xiao Chai Hu Tang formula have never been established with rigorous review methodology., Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of Xiao Chai Hu Tang formula versus placebo or no intervention in people with chronic hepatitis B., Search Methods: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, and seven other databases to 1 March 2019. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov/), and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry for ongoing or unpublished trials to 1 March 2019., Selection Criteria: We included randomised clinical trials, irrespective of publication status, language, and blinding, comparing Xiao Chai Hu Tang formula versus no intervention or placebo in people with chronic hepatitis B. We included participants of any sex and age, diagnosed with chronic hepatitis B according to guidelines or as defined by the trialists. We allowed co-interventions when the co-interventions were administered equally to all the intervention groups., Data Collection and Analysis: Review authors independently retrieved data from reports and after correspondence with investigators. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were hepatitis B-related mortality, hepatitis B-related morbidity, and adverse events considered 'not to be serious'. We presented the meta-analysed results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the risks of bias using risk of bias domains with predefined definitions. We used GRADE methodology to evaluate our certainty in the evidence., Main Results: We included 10 randomised clinical trials with 934 participants, but only five trials with 490 participants provided data for analysis. All the trials compared Xiao Chai Hu Tang formula with no intervention. All trials appeared to have been conducted and published only in China. The included trials assessed heterogeneous forms of Xiao Chai Hu Tang formula, administered for three to eight months. One trial included participants with hepatitis B and comorbid tuberculosis, and one trial included participants with hepatitis B and liver cirrhosis. The remaining trials included participants with hepatitis B only. All the trials were at high risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence for all outcomes that provided data for analyses was very low. We downgraded the evidence by one or two levels because of outcome risk of bias, inconsistency or heterogeneity of results (opposite direction of effect), indirectness of evidence (use of surrogate outcomes instead of clinically relevant outcomes), imprecision of results (the CIs were wide), and publication bias (small sample size of the trials). Additionally, 47 trials lacked the necessary methodological information needed to ensure the inclusion of these trials in our review. None of the included trials aimed to assess clinically relevant outcomes such as all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, hepatitis B-related mortality, or hepatitis B-related morbidity. The effects of Xiao Chai Hu Tang formula on the proportion of participants with adverse events considered 'not to be serious' is uncertain (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.02 to 11.98; I 2 = 69%; very low-certainty evidence). Only three trials with 222 participants reported the proportion of people with detectable hepatitis B virus DNA (HBV-DNA), but the evidence that Xiao Chai Hu Tang formula reduces the presence of HBV-DNA in the blood (a surrogate outcome) is uncertain (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.85; I 2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). Only two trials with 160 participants reported the proportion of people with detectable hepatitis B virus e-antigen (HBeAg; a surrogate outcome) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.02; I 2 = 38%; very low-certainty evidence) and the evidence is uncertain. The evidence is also uncertain for separately reported adverse events considered 'not to be serious'., Funding: two of the 10 included trials received academic funding from government or hospital. None of the remaining eight trials reported information on funding., Authors' Conclusions: The clinical effects of Xiao Chai Hu Tang formula for chronic hepatitis B remain unclear. The included trials were small and of low methodological quality. Despite the wide use of Xiao Chai Hu Tang formula, we lack data on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, hepatitis B-related mortality, and hepatitis B-related morbidity. The evidence in this systematic review comes from data obtained from a maximum three trials. We graded the certainty of evidence as very low for adverse events considered not to be serious and the surrogate outcomes HBeAg and HBV-DNA. We found a large number of trials which lacked clear description of their design and conduct, and hence, these trials are not included in the present review. As all identified trials were conducted in China, there might be a concern about the applicability of this review outside China. Large-sized, high-quality randomised sham-controlled trials with homogeneous groups of participants and transparent funding are lacking., (Copyright © 2019 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Chronic hepatitis B is a liver disease associated with high morbidity and mortality. Chronic hepatitis B requires long-term management aiming to reduce the risks of hepatocellular inflammatory necrosis, liver fibrosis, decompensated liver cirrhosis, liver failure, and liver cancer, as well as to improve health-related quality of life. Acupuncture is being used to decrease discomfort and improve immune function in people with chronic hepatitis B. However, the benefits and harms of acupuncture still need to be established in a rigorous way., Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of acupuncture versus no intervention or sham acupuncture in people with chronic hepatitis B., Search Methods: We undertook electronic searches of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chongqing VIP (CQVIP), Wanfang Data, and SinoMed to 1 March 2019. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov/), and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) for ongoing or unpublished trials until 1 March 2019., Selection Criteria: We included randomised clinical trials, irrespective of publication status, language, and blinding, comparing acupuncture versus no intervention or sham acupuncture in people with chronic hepatitis B. We included participants of any sex and age, diagnosed with chronic hepatitis B as defined by the trialists or according to guidelines. We allowed co-interventions when the co-interventions were administered equally to all intervention groups., Data Collection and Analysis: Review authors in pairs individually retrieved data from reports and through correspondence with investigators. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, proportion of participants with one or more serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes were hepatitis B-related mortality, hepatitis B-related morbidity, and adverse events considered not to be serious. We presented the pooled results as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the risks of bias using risk of bias domains with predefined definitions. We put more weight on the estimate closest to zero effect when results with fixed-effect and random-effects models differed. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using GRADE., Main Results: We included eight randomised clinical trials with 555 randomised participants. All included trials compared acupuncture versus no intervention. These trials assessed heterogeneous acupuncture interventions. All trials used heterogeneous co-interventions applied equally in the compared groups. Seven trials included participants with chronic hepatitis B, and one trial included participants with chronic hepatitis B with comorbid tuberculosis. All trials were assessed at overall high risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence for all outcomes was very low due to high risk of bias for each outcome, imprecision of results (the confidence intervals were wide), and publication bias (small sample size of the trials, and all trials were conducted in China). Additionally, 79 trials lacked the necessary methodological information to ensure their inclusion in our review.None of the included trials aim to assess all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, hepatitis B-related mortality, and hepatitis B-related morbidity. We are uncertain whether acupuncture, compared with no intervention, has an effect regarding adverse events considered not to be serious (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.06; I² = 0%; 3 trials; 203 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or detectable hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg) (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.68; I² = 98%; 2 trials; 158 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Acupuncture showed a reduction in detectable hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA (a non-validated surrogate outcome; RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; 1 trial, 58 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether acupuncture has an effect regarding the remaining separately reported adverse events considered not to be serious.Three of the eight included trials received academic funding from government or hospital. None of the remaining five trials reported information on funding., Authors' Conclusions: The clinical effects of acupuncture for chronic hepatitis B remain unknown. The included trials lacked data on all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, serious adverse events, hepatitis-B related mortality, and hepatitis-B related morbidity. The vast number of excluded trials lacked clear descriptions of their design and conduct. Whether acupuncture influences adverse events considered not to be serious is uncertain. It remains unclear if acupuncture affects HBeAg, and if it is associated with reduction in detectable HBV DNA. Based on available data from only one or two small trials on adverse events considered not to be serious and on the surrogate outcomes HBeAg and HBV DNA, the certainty of evidence is very low. In view of the wide usage of acupuncture, any conclusion that one might try to draw in the future should be based on data on patient and clinically relevant outcomes, assessed in large, high-quality randomised sham-controlled trials with homogeneous groups of participants and transparent funding.

Background: Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy is a pregnancy-specific liver disorder, possibly associated with an increased risk of severe fetal adverse events. Total serum bile acids (TSBA) concentration, alone or in combination with serum aminotransferases, have been the most often used biomarkers for the diagnosis of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy in clinical practice. Serum bile acid profile, composed of primary or secondary, conjugated or non-conjugated bile acids, may provide more specific disease information., Objectives: To assess and compare, independently or in combination, the diagnostic accuracy of total serum bile acids or serum bile acids profile, or both, for the diagnosis of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy in pregnant women, presenting with pruritus. To define the optimal cut-off values for components of serum bile acid profile; to investigate possible sources of heterogeneity., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies Register, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, BIOSIS, CINAHL, two Chinese databases (CKNI, VIP), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), Evidence Search: Health and Social Care by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the World Health Organization (WHO) Reproductive Health Library (RHL), and the Turning Research into Practice database (TRIP). The most recent date of search was 6 May 2019. We identified additional references by handsearching the references of articles, meta-analyses, and evidence-based guidelines retrieved from the computerised databases, on-line trial registries, and grey literature through OpenSIGLE, National Technical Information Service (NTIS), ProQuest Dissertations & Thesis Database, and Index to Theses in Great Britain and Ireland., Selection Criteria: Prospective or retrospective diagnostic case-control or cross-sectional studies, irrespective of publication date, format, and language, which evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of total serum bile acids (TSBA) or components of serum bile acid profile for the diagnosis of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy in pregnant women of any age or ethnicity, in any clinical setting, symptomatic for pruritus., Data Collection and Analysis: We selected studies by reading titles, abstracts, or full texts, and assessing their fulfilment of our inclusion criteria. We emailed primary authors to request missing data or individual participant data. Having extracted data from each included study, we built the two-by-two tables for each primary study and for all the index tests considered. We estimated sensitivity and specificity with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). We presented data in coupled forest plots, showing sensitivities and specificities of each study, and we plotted the studies in the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) space. We performed meta-analyses adopting the hierarchical summary ROC model (HSROC) or the bivariate model to meta-analyse the data. We made indirect comparisons of the considered index tests by adding the index tests as covariates to the bivariate or HSROC models. We performed heterogeneity analysis and sensitivity analysis on studies assessing TSBA accuracy. We used Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5) and SAS statistical software, release 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA), to perform all statistical analyses. We used QUADAS-2 domains to assess the risk of bias of the included studies., Main Results: Our search yielded 5073 references, but at the end of our selection process, only 16 studies fulfilled the review inclusion criteria. Nine of these provided individual participant data. We analysed only data concerning TSBA, cholic acid (CA), glycocholic acid (GCA), chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA), and CA/CDCA because the remaining planned index tests were assessed in few studies. Only one study had low risk of bias in all four QUADAS-2 domains. The most biased domains were the patient sampling and the reference standard domains. When considering all studies with a cut-off of 10 μmol/L, TSBA overall sensitivity ranged from 0.72 to 0.98 and specificity ranged from 0.81 to 0.97. After a sensitivity analysis excluding case-control studies, TSBA sensitivity ranged from 0.48 to 0.66 and specificity from 0.52 to 0.99. After a sensitivity analysis excluding studies in which TSBA was part of the reference standard, TSBA sensitivity ranged from 0.49 to 0.65 and specificity from 0.53 to 0.99. We found the estimates of the overall accuracy for some serum bile acid components (CA, GCA, CDCA, and CA/CDCA) to be imprecise, with the CI for sensitivity and specificity very wide or impossible to calculate. Indirect comparisons between serum bile acid profile components and TSBA were not statistically significant. None of the heterogeneity analysis performed was statistically significant, except for the timing of assessment of TSBA (onset of symptoms, peak value among multiple assessments, delivery) but without clinically relevant results. We could not analyse the diagnostic accuracy of combinations of index tests because none of the included studies carried them out, and because of the small number of included studies., Authors' Conclusions: The overall high risk of bias, the existing concern regarding applicability of the results in clinical practice, and the great heterogeneity of the results in the included studies prevents us from making recommendations and reaching definitive conclusions at the present time. Thus, we do not find any compelling evidence to recommend or refute the routine use of any of these tests in clinical practice. So far, the diagnostic accuracy of TSBA for intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy might have been overestimated. There were too few studies to permit a precise estimate of the accuracy of serum bile acid profile components. Further primary clinical research is mandatory. We need both further phase II and phase III diagnostic studies.

Background: Plasma volume expanders are used in connection to paracentesis in people with cirrhosis to prevent reduction of effective plasma volume, which may trigger deleterious effect on haemodynamic balance, and increase morbidity and mortality. Albumin is considered the standard product against which no plasma expansion or other plasma expanders, e.g. other colloids (polygeline , dextrans, hydroxyethyl starch solutions, fresh frozen plasma), intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol have been compared. However, the benefits and harms of these plasma expanders are not fully clear., Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of any plasma volume expanders such as albumin, other colloids (polygeline, dextrans, hydroxyethyl starch solutions, fresh frozen plasma), intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol versus no plasma volume expander or versus another plasma volume expander for paracentesis in people with cirrhosis and large ascites., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index until January 2019. Furthermore, we searched FDA, EMA, WHO (last search January 2019), www.clinicaltrials.gov/, and www.controlled-trials.com/ for ongoing trials., Selection Criteria: Randomised clinical trials, no matter their design or year of publication, publication status, and language, assessing the use of any type of plasma expander versus placebo, no intervention, or a different plasma expander in connection with paracentesis for ascites in people with cirrhosis. We considered quasi-randomised, retrieved with the searches for randomised clinical trials only, for reports on harms., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) using the fixed-effect model and the random-effects model meta-analyses, based on the intention-to-treat principle, whenever possible. If the fixed-effect and random-effects models showed different results, then we made our conclusions based on the analysis with the highest P value (the more conservative result). We assessed risks of bias of the individual trials using predefined bias risk domains. We assessed the certainty of the evidence at an outcome level, using GRADE, and constructed 'Summary of Findings' tables for seven of our review outcomes., Main Results: We identified 27 randomised clinical trials for inclusion in this review (24 published as full-text articles and 3 as abstracts). Five of the trials, with 271 participants, assessed plasma expanders (albumin in four trials and ascitic fluid in one trial) versus no plasma expander. The remaining 22 trials, with 1321 participants, assessed one type of plasma expander, i.e. dextran, hydroxyethyl starch, polygeline, intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol versus another type of plasma expander, i.e. albumin in 20 of these trials and polygeline in one trial. Twenty-five trials provided data for quantitative meta-analysis. According to the Child-Pugh classification, most participants were at an intermediate to advanced stage of liver disease in the absence of hepatocellular carcinoma, recent gastrointestinal bleeding, infections, and hepatic encephalopathy. All trials were assessed as at overall high risk of bias. Ten trials seemed not to have been funded by industry; twelve trials were considered unclear about funding; and five trials were considered funded by industry or a for-profit institution.We found no evidence of a difference in effect between plasma expansion versus no plasma expansion on mortality (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.06 to 4.83; 248 participants; 4 trials; very low certainty); renal impairment (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.02 to 5.88; 181 participants; 4 trials; very low certainty); other liver-related complications (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.27; 248 participants; 4 trials; very low certainty); and non-serious adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.40; 158 participants; 3 trials; very low certainty). Two of the trials stated that no serious adverse events occurred while the remaining trials did not report on this outcome. No trial reported data on health-related quality of life.We found no evidence of a difference in effect between experimental plasma expanders versus albumin on mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; 1014 participants; 14 trials; very low certainty); serious adverse events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.10 to 8.30; 118 participants; 2 trials; very low certainty); renal impairment (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.91; 1107 participants; 17 trials; very low certainty); other liver-related complications (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.48; 1083 participants; 16 trials; very low certainty); and non-serious adverse events (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.85; 977 participants; 14 trials; very low certainty). We found no data on heath-related quality of life and refractory ascites., Authors' Conclusions: Our systematic review and meta-analysis did not find any benefits or harms of plasma expanders versus no plasma expander or of one plasma expander such as polygeline, dextrans, hydroxyethyl starch, intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol versus albumin on primary or secondary outcomes. The data originated from few, small, mostly short-term trials at high risks of systematic errors (bias) and high risks of random errors (play of chance). GRADE assessments concluded that the evidence was of very low certainty. Therefore, we can neither demonstrate or discard any benefit of plasma expansion versus no plasma expansion, and differences between one plasma expander versus another plasma expander.Larger trials at low risks of bias are needed to assess the role of plasma expanders in connection with paracentesis. Such trials should be conducted according to the SPIRIT guidelines and reported according to the CONSORT guidelines.

Background: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is a liver disease caused by hepatitis B virus, which may lead to serious complications such as cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. People with HBV infection may also have coinfections including HIV and other hepatitis viruses (hepatitis C or D), and coinfections may increase the risk of all-cause mortality. Chronic HBV infection increases morbidity, psychological stress, and it is an economic burden on people with chronic hepatitis B and their families. Radix Sophorae flavescentis, a herbal medicine, is administered mostly in combination with other drugs or herbs. It is believed that it decreases discomfort and prevents the replication of the virus in people with chronic hepatitis B. However, the benefits and harms of Radix Sophorae flavescentis on patient-centred outcomes are unknown, and its wide usage has never been established with rigorous review methodology., Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of Radix Sophorae flavescentis versus other drugs or herbs in people with chronic hepatitis B., Search Methods: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and seven other databases to December 2018. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov/), and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry for ongoing or unpublished trials to December 2018., Selection Criteria: We included randomised clinical trials, irrespective of publication status, language, or blinding, comparing Radix Sophorae flavescentis versus other drugs or herbs for people with chronic hepatitis B. In addition to chronic hepatitis B, participants could also have had cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, or any other concomitant disease. We excluded polyherbal blends containing Radix Sophorae flavescentis. We allowed cointerventions when the cointerventions were administered equally to all intervention groups., Data Collection and Analysis: Review authors in pairs individually retrieved data from published reports and after correspondence with investigators. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were hepatitis B-related mortality, hepatitis B-related morbidity, and adverse events considered 'not to be serious'. We presented the meta-analysed results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the risk of bias using domains with predefined definitions. We conducted Trial Sequential Analyses to control the risks of random errors. We used GRADE methodology to evaluate our certainty in the evidence (i.e. "the extent of our confidence that the estimates of the effect are correct or are adequate to support a particular decision or recommendation")., Main Results: We included 10 randomised clinical trials with 898 participants. We judged all trials at high risk of bias. The trials covered oral capsules, intravenous infusion, intramuscular injection, and acupoint (a specifically chosen site of acupuncture) injection of Radix Sophorae flavescentis with a follow-up period from 1 to 12 months. The drugs being used as a comparator were lamivudine, adefovir, interferon, tiopronin, thymosin, or other Chinese herbs. Two trials included children up to 14 years old. Participants in one trial had cirrhosis in chronic hepatitis B. None of the trials reported all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, serious adverse events, hepatitis B-related mortality, or morbidity. We are uncertain as to whether Radix Sophorae flavescentis has a beneficial or harmful effect on adverse events considered 'not to be serious' (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.75; I 2 = 0%; 2 trials, 163 participants; very low-certainty evidence), as well as if it decreases or increases the proportion of participants with detectable HBV-DNA (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.63; I 2 = 92%; 8 trials, 719 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Radix Sophorae flavescentis showed a reduction in the proportion of participants with detectable hepatitis B virus e-antigen (HBeAg) (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.98; I 2 = 43%; 7 trials, 588 participants; very low-certainty evidence).Two of the 10 trials were not funded, and one received academic funding. The remaining seven trials provided no information on funding.The randomisation process in another 109 trials was insufficiently reported to ensure the inclusion of any of these studies in our review., Authors' Conclusions: The included trials lacked data on all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, serious adverse events, hepatitis-B related mortality, and hepatitis-B related morbidity. The evidence on the effect of Radix Sophorae flavescentis on the proportion of participants with adverse events considered 'not to be serious' and on the proportion of participants with detectable HBV-DNA is still unclear. We advise caution regarding the results of Radix Sophorae flavescentis showing a reduction in the proportion of people with detectable HBeAg because the trials were at high risk of bias, because it is a non-validated surrogate outcome, and because of the very low certainty in the evidence. As we were unable to obtain information on a large number of studies regarding their trial design, we were deterred from including them in our review. Undisclosed funding may have influence on trial results and lead to poor design of the trial. In view of the wide usage of Radix Sophorae flavescentis, we need large, unbiased, high-quality placebo-controlled randomised trials assessing patient-centred outcomes.

Background: Alcoholic hepatitis is a form of alcoholic liver disease characterised by steatosis, necroinflammation, fibrosis, and complications to the liver. Typically, alcoholic hepatitis presents in people between 40 and 50 years of age. Alcoholic hepatitis can be resolved if people abstain from drinking, but the risk of death will depend on the severity of the liver damage and abstinence from alcohol. Glucocorticosteroids have been studied extensively in randomised clinical trials to assess their benefits and harms. However, the results have been contradictory., Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of glucocorticosteroids in people with alcoholic hepatitis., Search Methods: We identified trials through electronic searches in Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's (CHB) Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index Expanded. We looked for ongoing or unpublished trials in clinical trials registers and pharmaceutical company sources. We also scanned reference lists of the studies retrieved. The last search was 18 January 2019., Selection Criteria: Randomised clinical trials assessing glucocorticosteroids versus placebo or no intervention in people with alcoholic hepatitis, irrespective of year, language of publication, or format. We considered trials with adults diagnosed with alcoholic hepatitis, which could have been established through clinical or biochemical diagnostic criteria or both. We defined alcoholic hepatitis as mild (Maddrey's score less than 32) and severe (Maddrey's score 32 or more). We allowed cointerventions in the trial groups, provided they were similar., Data Collection and Analysis: We followed Cochrane methodology, performing the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We presented the results of dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and of continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models for meta-analyses. Whenever there were significant discrepancies in the results, we reported the more conservative point estimate of the two. We considered a P value of 0.01 or less, two-tailed, as statistically significant if the required information size was reached for our three primary outcomes (all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, and serious adverse events during treatment) and our post hoc decision to include analyses of mortality at more time points. We presented heterogeneity using the I² statistic. If trialists used intention-to-treat analysis to deal with missing data, we used these data in our primary analysis; otherwise, we used the available data. We assessed the bias risk of the trials using bias risk domains and the certainty of the evidence using GRADE., Main Results: Sixteen trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. All trials but one were at overall high risk of bias. Fifteen trials (one of which was an abstract) provided data for analysis (927 participants received glucocorticosteroids and 934 participants received placebo or no intervention). Glucocorticosteroids were administered orally or parenterally for a median 28 days (range 3 days to 12 weeks). The participants were between 25 and 70 years old, had different stages of alcoholic liver disease, and 65% were men. Follow-up, when reported, was up to the moment of discharge from the hospital, until they died (median of 63 days), or for at least one year. There was no evidence of effect of glucocorticosteroids on all-cause mortality up to three months following randomisation (random-effects RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.15; participants = 1861; trials = 15; very low-certainty evidence) or on health-related quality of life up to three months, measured with the European Quality of Life - 5 Dimensions - 3 Levels scale (MD -0.04 points, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.03; participants = 377; trial = 1; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of effect on the occurrence of serious adverse events during treatment (random-effects RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.29; participants = 1861; trials = 15; very low-certainty evidence), liver-related mortality up to three months following randomisation (random-effects RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.14; participants = 1861; trials = 15; very low-certainty evidence), number of participants with any complications up to three months following randomisation (random-effects RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27; participants = 1861; very low-certainty evidence), and number of participants of non-serious adverse events up to three months' follow-up after end of treatment (random-effects RR 1.99, 95% CI 0.72 to 5.48; participants = 160; trials = 4; very low-certainty evidence). Based on the information that we collected from the published trial reports, only one of the trials seems not to be industry-funded, and the remaining 15 trials did not report clearly whether they were partly or completely funded by the industry., Authors' Conclusions: We are very uncertain about the effect estimate of no difference between glucocorticosteroids and placebo or no intervention on all-cause mortality and serious adverse events during treatment because the certainty of evidence was very low, and low for health-related quality of life. Due to inadequate reporting, we cannot exclude increases in adverse events. As the CIs were wide, we cannot rule out significant benefits or harms of glucocorticosteroids. Therefore, we need placebo-controlled randomised clinical trials, designed according to the SPIRIT guidelines and reported according to the CONSORT guidelines. Future trials ought to report depersonalised individual participant data, so that proper individual participant data meta-analyses of the effects of glucocorticosteroids in subgroups can be conducted.

Background: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, a liver disease caused by hepatitis B virus, may lead to serious complications such as cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. People with HBV infection may have co-infections including HIV and other hepatitis viruses (hepatitis C or D), and co-infection may increase the risk of all-cause mortality. Chronic HBV infection increases morbidity and psychological stress and is an economic burden on people with chronic hepatitis B and their families. Radix Sophorae flavescentis, an herbal medicine, is administered most often in combination with other drugs or herbs. It is believed that it decreases discomfort and prevents replication of the virus in people with chronic hepatitis B. However, the benefits and harms of Radix Sophorae flavescentis for patient-centred outcomes are not known, and its wide usage has never been established with rigorous review methodology., Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of Radix Sophorae flavescentis versus placebo or no intervention in people with chronic hepatitis B., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chongqing VIP (CQVIP), Wanfang Data, and SinoMed. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov/), and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry for ongoing or unpublished trials. We conducted the last search in December 2018., Selection Criteria: We included randomised clinical trials, irrespective of publication status, language, or blinding, comparing Radix Sophorae flavescentis versus no intervention or placebo in people with chronic hepatitis B. We excluded polyherbal blends containing Radix Sophorae flavescentis. We allowed co-interventions when the co-interventions were administered equally to all intervention groups., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Review authors in pairs retrieved data from individual published reports and after correspondence with investigators. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were hepatitis B-related mortality, hepatitis B-related morbidity, and adverse events considered 'not to be serious'. We presented meta-analysed results as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of bias using domains with pre-defined definitions. We conducted Trial Sequential Analyses to control the risk of random errors. We used GRADE methodology to evaluate our certainty in the evidence (i.e. "the extent of our confidence that the estimates of the effect are correct or are adequate to support a particular decision or recommendation")., Main Results: We included 35 randomised clinical trials with 3556 participants. One trial compared Radix Sophorae flavescentis with placebo; the remaining 34 trials compared effects of Radix Sophorae flavescentis in addition to a co-intervention versus the same co-intervention. The included trials assessed heterogenous forms and ways of administering Radix Sophorae flavescentis (e.g. oral capsules, oral tablets, intravenous infusion, intramuscular injection, acupoint (a specifically chosen site of acupuncture) injection) with treatment duration of 1 to 24 months. Two of the trials included children up to 14 years old. Participants in two trials had cirrhosis in addition to chronic hepatitis B. All trials were assessed at high risk of bias, and certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was very low.Only one of the 35 trials assessed mortality; no deaths occurred. Ten trials assessed serious adverse events; no serious adverse events occurred. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life, hepatitis B-related mortality, or morbidity. Adverse events considered 'not to be serious' was an outcome in 19 trials; nine of these trials had zero events in both groups. Radix Sophorae flavescentis versus placebo or no intervention showed no difference in effects on adverse events considered 'not to be serious' (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.59; I² = 49%; 10 trials, 1050 participants). Radix Sophorae flavescentis showed a reduction in the proportion of participants with detectable HBV-DNA (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.68; I² = 56%; 29 trials, 2914 participants) and in the proportion of participants with detectable HBeAg (hepatitis B e-antigen) (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.76; I² = 19%; 20 trials, 2129 participants).Seven of the 35 randomised clinical trials received academic funding from government or hospital. Four trials received no funding. The remaining 24 trials provided no information on funding.Additionally, 432 trials lacked the methodological information needed to ensure inclusion of these trials in our review., Authors' Conclusions: The included trials lacked data on health-related quality of life, hepatitis B-related mortality, and hepatitis B-related morbidity. The effects of Radix Sophorae flavescentis on all-cause mortality and on the proportion of participants with serious adverse events and adverse events considered 'not to be serious' remain unclear. We advise caution in interpreting results showing that Radix Sophorae flavescentis reduced the proportion of people with detectable HBV-DNA and detectable HBeAg because the trials reporting on these outcomes are at high risk of bias and both outcomes are non-validated surrogate outcomes. We were unable to obtain information on the design and conduct of a large number of trials; therefore, we were deterred from including them in our review. Undisclosed funding may influence trial results and may lead to poor trial design. Given the wide usage of Radix Sophorae flavescentis, we need large, unbiased, high-quality placebo-controlled randomised trials in which patient-centred outcomes are assessed.

Background: Hepatosplenic schistosomiasis is an important cause of variceal bleeding in low-income countries. Randomised clinical trials have evaluated the outcomes of two categories of surgical interventions, shunts and devascularisation procedures, for the prevention of variceal rebleeding in people with hepatosplenic schistosomiasis. The comparative overall benefits and harms of these two interventions are unclear., Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of surgical portosystemic shunts versus oesophagogastric devascularisation procedures for the prevention of variceal rebleeding in people with hepatosplenic schistosomiasis., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, reference lists of articles, and proceedings of relevant associations for trials that met the inclusion criteria (date of search 11 January 2018)., Selection Criteria: Randomised clinical trials comparing surgical portosystemic shunts versus oesophagogastric devascularisation procedures for the prevention of variceal rebleeding in people with hepatosplenic schistosomiasis., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed the trials and extracted data using methodological standards expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias according to domains and risk of random errors with GRADE and Trial Sequential Analysis. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach., Main Results: We found two randomised clinical trials including 154 adult participants, aged between 18 years and 65 years, diagnosed with hepatosplenic schistosomiasis. One of the trials randomised participants to proximal splenorenal shunt versus distal splenorenal shunt versus oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy, and the other randomised participants to distal splenorenal shunt versus oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy. In both trials the diagnosis of hepatosplenic schistosomiasis was made based on clinical and biochemical assessments. The trials were conducted in Brazil and Egypt. Both trials were at high risk of bias.We are uncertain as to whether surgical portosystemic shunts improved all-cause mortality compared with oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy due to imprecision in the trials (risk ratio (RR) 2.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 9.92; participants = 154; studies = 2). We are uncertain whether serious adverse events differed between surgical portosystemic shunts and oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy (RR 2.26, 95% CI 0.44 to 11.70; participants = 154; studies = 2). None of the trials reported on health-related quality of life. We are uncertain whether variceal rebleeding differed between surgical portosystemic shunts and oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.23; participants = 154; studies = 2). We found evidence suggesting an increase in encephalopathy in the shunts group versus the devascularisation with splenectomy group (RR 7.51, 95% CI 1.45 to 38.89; participants = 154; studies = 2). We are uncertain whether ascites and re-interventions differed between surgical portosystemic shunts and oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy. We computed Trial Sequential Analysis for all outcomes, but the trial sequential monitoring boundaries could not be drawn because of insufficient sample size and events. We downgraded the overall certainty of the body of evidence for all outcomes to very low due to risk of bias and imprecision., Authors' Conclusions: Given the very low certainty of the available body of evidence and the low number of clinical trials, we could not determine an overall benefit or harm of surgical portosystemic shunts compared with oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy. Future randomised clinical trials should be designed with sufficient statistical power to assess the benefits and harms of surgical portosystemic shunts versus oesophagogastric devascularisations with or without splenectomy and with or without oesophageal transection.

Background: Vitamin D deficiency is often reported in people with chronic liver diseases. Therefore, improving vitamin D status could have a beneficial effect on people with chronic liver diseases., Objectives: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin D supplementation in people with chronic liver diseases., Search Methods: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science. We also searched databases of ongoing trials and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and asked experts and pharmaceutical companies for additional trials. All searches were up to January 2017., Selection Criteria: Randomised clinical trials that compared vitamin D at any dose, duration, and route of administration versus placebo or no intervention in adults with chronic liver diseases. Vitamin D could have been administered as supplemental vitamin D (vitamin D 3 (cholecalciferol) or vitamin D 2 (ergocalciferol)), or an active form of vitamin D (1α-hydroxyvitamin D (alfacalcidol), 25-hydroxyvitamin D (calcidiol), or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol))., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We contacted authors of the trials to ask for missing information. We conducted random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RRs), and for continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and Trial Sequential Analyses-adjusted CIs. We calculated Peto odds ratio (OR) for rare events. We considered risk of bias in domains to assess the risk of systematic errors. We conducted Trial Sequential Analyses to control the risk of random errors. We assessed the quality of the evidence with GRADE., Main Results: We included 15 randomised clinical trials with 1034 participants randomised. All trials had a parallel group design. Nine trials were conducted in high-income countries and six trials in middle-income countries. All trials were at high risk of bias. Six trials included participants with chronic hepatitis C, four trials included participants with liver cirrhosis, four trials included participants with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and one trial included liver transplant recipients. All included trials reported the baseline vitamin D status of participants. Participants in six trials had baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels at or above vitamin D adequacy (20 ng/mL), while participants in the remaining nine trials were vitamin D insufficient (less than 20 ng/mL). All trials administered vitamin D orally. Mean duration of vitamin D supplementation was 0.5 years and follow-up was 0.6 years. Eleven trials (831 participants; 40% women; mean age 52 years) tested vitamin D 3 , one trial (18 men; mean age 61 years) with three intervention groups tested vitamin D 2 and 25-dihydroxyvitamin D in separate groups, and three trials (185 participants; 55% women; mean age 55 years) tested 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D. Seven trials used placebo, and eight trials used no intervention in the control group.The effect of vitamin D on all-cause mortality at the end of follow-up is uncertain because the results were imprecise (Peto OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.09 to 5.38; I 2 = 32%; 15 trials; 1034 participants; very low quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis on all-cause mortality was performed based on a mortality rate in the control group of 10%, a relative risk reduction of 28% in the experimental intervention group, a type I error of 2.5%, and type II error of 10% (90% power). There was no diversity. The required information size was 6396 participants. The cumulative Z-curve did not cross the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit or harm after the 15th trial, and the Trial Sequential Analyses-adjusted CI was 0.00 to 2534.The effect of vitamin D on liver-related mortality (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.08 to 34.66; 1 trial; 18 participants) and on serious adverse events such as hypercalcaemia (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 100.8; 1 trial; 76 participants), myocardial infarction (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.08 to 6.81; 2 trials; 86 participants), and thyroiditis (RR 0.33 95% CI 0.01 to 7.91; 1 trial; 68 participants) is uncertain because the results were imprecise. The evidence on all these outcomes is of very low quality. The effect of vitamin D 3 on non-serious adverse events such as glossitis (RR 3.70, 95% CI 0.16 to 87.6; 1 trial; 65 participants; very low quality of evidence) is uncertain because the result was imprecise.Due to few data, we did not conduct Trial Sequential Analysis on liver-related mortality, and serious and non-serious adverse events.We found no data on liver-related morbidity and health-related quality of life in the randomised trials included in this review., Authors' Conclusions: We are uncertain as to whether vitamin D supplements in the form of vitamin D 3 , vitamin D 2 , 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, or 25-dihydroxyvitamin D have important effect on all-cause mortality, liver-related mortality, or on serious or non-serious adverse events because the results were imprecise. There is no evidence on the effect of vitamin D supplementation on liver-related morbidity and health-related quality of life. Our conclusions are based on few trials with an insufficient number of participants and on lack of data on clinically important outcomes. In addition, the analysed trials are at high risk of bias with significant intertrial heterogeneity. The overall quality of evidence is very low.

Background: Alcoholic hepatitis is a form of alcoholic liver disease, characterised by steatosis, necroinflammation, fibrosis, and potential complications to the liver disease. Typically, alcoholic hepatitis presents in people between 40 and 50 years of age. Alcoholic hepatitis can be resolved if people abstain from drinking, but the risk of death will depend on the severity of the liver damage and abstinence from alcohol. Glucocorticosteroids are used as anti-inflammatory drugs for people with alcoholic hepatitis. Glucocorticosteroids have been studied extensively in randomised clinical trials in order to assess their benefits and harms. However, the results have been contradictory., Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of glucocorticosteroids in people with alcoholic hepatitis., Search Methods: We identified trials through electronic searches in Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's (CHB) Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index Expanded. We looked for ongoing or unpublished trials in clinical trials registers and pharmaceutical company sources. We also scanned reference lists of the studies retrieved. The last search was 20 October 2016., Selection Criteria: Randomised clinical trials assessing glucocorticosteroids versus placebo or no intervention in people with alcoholic hepatitis, irrespective of year, language of publication, or format. We considered trials with adult participants diagnosed with alcoholic hepatitis, which could have been established through clinical or biochemical diagnostic criteria or both. We defined alcoholic hepatitis as mild (Maddrey's score less than 32) and severe (Maddrey's score 32 or more). We allowed co-interventions in the trial groups, provided they were similar., Data Collection and Analysis: We followed Cochrane and CHB methodology, performing the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5 and Trial Sequential Analysis. We presented the results of dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and those of the continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD). We applied both the fixed-effect model and the random-effects model meta-analyses. Whenever there were significant discrepancies in the results, we reported the more conservative point estimate of the two. We considered a P value of 0.01 or less, two-tailed, as statistically significant if the required information size was reached due to our three primary outcomes (all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, and serious adverse events during treatment) and our post hoc decision to include analyses of mortality at more time points. We presented heterogeneity using the I² statistic. If trialists used intention-to-treat analysis to deal with missing data, we used these data in our primary analysis; otherwise, we used the available data. We assessed the bias risk of the trials using bias risk domains and the quality of the evidence using GRADE., Main Results: Sixteen trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All trials were at high risk of bias. Fifteen trials provided data for analysis (927 participants received glucocorticosteroids and 934 participants received placebo or no intervention). The glucocorticosteroids were administered orally or parenterally for a median of 28 days (range 3 days to 12 weeks). The participants were between 25 and 70 years old, had different stages of alcoholic liver disease, and 65% were men. The follow-up of trial participants, when it was reported, was up to the moment of discharge from the hospital, until they died (a median of 63 days), or for at least a year. There was no evidence of effect of glucocorticosteroids on all-cause mortality up to three months following randomisation neither with traditional meta-analysis (random-effects RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.15; participants = 1861; trials = 15; I² = 45% (moderate heterogeneity) nor with Trial Sequential Analysis. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of effect on health-related quality of life up to three months (MD -0.04 points; 95% CI -0.11 to 0.03; participants = 377; trial = 1; low-quality evidence), measured with the European Quality of Life - 5 Dimensions-3 Levels (EQ- 5D-3L) scale. There was no evidence of effect on the occurrence of serious adverse events during treatment, neither with traditional meta-analysis (random-effects RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.29; participants = 1861; trials = 15; I² = 36% (moderate heterogeneity), liver-related mortality up to three months following randomisation (random-effects RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.14; participants = 1861; trials = 15; I² = 46% (moderate heterogeneity), frequency of any complications up to three months following randomisation (random-effects RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27; participants = 1861; I² = 42% (moderate heterogeneity), and frequency of non-serious adverse events up to three months' follow-up after end of treatment (random-effects RR 1.99, 95% CI 0.72 to 5.48; participants = 160; trials = 4; I² = 0% (no heterogeneity) nor with Trial Sequential Analysis. Nine of the trials were industry-funded., Authors' Conclusions: We found no evidence of a difference between glucocorticosteroids and placebo or no intervention on all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, and serious adverse events during treatment. The risk of bias was high and the quality of evidence was very low or low. Therefore, we are very uncertain about this effect estimate. Due to inadequate reporting, we cannot exclude increases in adverse events. As the confidence intervals were wide, we cannot rule out significant benefits and harms of glucocorticosteroids. Therefore, we need placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trials, designed according to the SPIRIT guidelines and reported according to the CONSORT guidelines. Future trials ought to report depersonalised individual participant data, so that proper individual participant data meta-analyses of the effects of glucocorticosteroids in subgroups can be conducted.

Background: Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), e.g. sofosbuvir, are relatively new and expensive interventions for chronic hepatitis C, and preliminary results suggest that DAAs may eradicate hepatitis C virus (HCV) from the blood (sustained virological response). Sustained virological response (SVR) is used by investigators and regulatory agencies as a surrogate outcome for morbidity and mortality, based solely on observational evidence. However, there have been no randomised trials that have validated that usage., Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of DAAs in people with chronic HCV., Search Methods: We searched for all published and unpublished trials in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and BIOSIS; the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Network Knowledge Information (CNKI), the Chinese Science Journal Database (VIP), Google Scholar, The Turning Research into Practice (TRIP) Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency (EMA) (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (www.fda.gov), and pharmaceutical company sources for ongoing or unpublished trials. Searches were last run in October 2016., Selection Criteria: Randomised clinical trials comparing DAAs versus no intervention or placebo, alone or with co-interventions, in adults with chronic HCV. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were hepatitis C-related morbidity, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, non-serious adverse events (each reported separately), and SVR. We systematically assessed risks of bias, performed Trial Sequential Analysis, and followed an eight-step procedure to assess thresholds for statistical and clinical significance. We evaluated the overall quality of the evidence, using GRADE., Main Results: We included a total of 138 trials randomising a total of 25,232 participants. The trials were generally short-term trials and designed primarily to assess the effect of treatment on SVR. The trials evaluated 51 different DAAs. Of these, 128 trials employed matching placebo in the control group. All included trials were at high risk of bias. Eighty-four trials involved DAAs on the market or under development (13,466 participants). Fifty-seven trials administered DAAs that were discontinued or withdrawn from the market. Study populations were treatment-naive in 95 trials, had been exposed to treatment in 17 trials, and comprised both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced individuals in 24 trials. The HCV genotypes were genotype 1 (119 trials), genotype 2 (eight trials), genotype 3 (six trials), genotype 4 (nine trials), and genotype 6 (one trial). We identified two ongoing trials.We could not reliably determine the effect of DAAs on the market or under development on our primary outcome of hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality. There were no data on hepatitis C-related morbidity and only limited data on mortality from 11 trials (DAA 15/2377 (0.63%) versus control 1/617 (0.16%); OR 3.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 26.18, very low-quality evidence). We did not perform Trial Sequential Analysis on this outcome.There is very low quality evidence that DAAs on the market or under development do not influence serious adverse events (DAA 5.2% versus control 5.6%; OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15 , 15,817 participants, 43 trials). The Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was sufficient information to rule out that DAAs reduce the relative risk of a serious adverse event by 20% when compared with placebo. The only DAA that showed a lower risk of serious adverse events when meta-analysed separately was simeprevir (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). However, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was not enough information to confirm or reject a relative risk reduction of 20%, and when one trial with an extreme result was excluded, the meta-analysis result showed no evidence of a difference.DAAs on the market or under development may reduce the risk of no SVR from 54.1% in untreated people to 23.8% in people treated with DAA (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52, 6886 participants, 32 trials, low quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Only 1/84 trials on the market or under development assessed the effects of DAAs on health-related quality of life (SF-36 mental score and SF-36 physical score).There was insufficient evidence from trials on withdrawn or discontinued DAAs to determine their effect on hepatitis C-related morbidity and all-cause mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.79; 5 trials, very low-quality evidence). However, these DAAs seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73; 29 trials, very low-quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.None of the 138 trials provided useful data to assess the effects of DAAs on the remaining secondary outcomes (ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and hepatocellular carcinoma)., Authors' Conclusions: The evidence for our main outcomes of interest come from short-term trials, and we are unable to determine the effect of long-term treatment with DAAs. The rates of hepatitis C morbidity and mortality observed in the trials are relatively low and we are uncertain as to how DAAs affect this outcome. Overall, there is very low quality evidence that DAAs on the market or under development do not influence serious adverse events. There is insufficient evidence to judge if DAAs have beneficial or harmful effects on other clinical outcomes for chronic HCV. Simeprevir may have beneficial effects on risk of serious adverse event. In all remaining analyses, we could neither confirm nor reject that DAAs had any clinical effects. DAAs may reduce the number of people with detectable virus in their blood, but we do not have sufficient evidence from randomised trials that enables us to understand how SVR affects long-term clinical outcomes. SVR is still an outcome that needs proper validation in randomised clinical trials.

Background: Heavy alcohol consumption causes alcoholic liver disease and is a causal factor of many types of liver injuries and concomitant diseases. It is a true systemic disease that may damage the digestive tract, the nervous system, the heart and vascular system, the bone and skeletal muscle system, and the endocrine and immune system, and can lead to cancer. Liver damage in turn, can present as multiple alcoholic liver diseases, including fatty liver, steatohepatitis, fibrosis, alcoholic cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma, with presence or absence of hepatitis B or C virus infection. There are three scarring types (fibrosis) that are most commonly found in alcoholic liver disease: centrilobular scarring, pericellular fibrosis, and periportal fibrosis. When liver fibrosis progresses, alcoholic cirrhosis occurs. Hepatocellular carcinoma occurs in 5% to 15% of people with alcoholic cirrhosis, but people in whom hepatocellular carcinoma has developed are often co-infected with hepatitis B or C virus.Abstinence from alcohol may help people with alcoholic disease in improving their prognosis of survival at any stage of their disease; however, the more advanced the stage, the higher the risk of complications, co-morbidities, and mortality, and lesser the effect of abstinence. Being abstinent one month after diagnosis of early cirrhosis will improve the chance of a seven-year life expectancy by 1.6 times. Liver transplantation is the only radical method that may change the prognosis of a person with alcoholic liver disease; however, besides the difficulties of finding a suitable liver transplant organ, there are many other factors that may influence a person's survival.Ultrasound is an inexpensive method that has been used for years in clinical practice to diagnose alcoholic cirrhosis. Ultrasound parameters for assessing cirrhosis in people with alcoholic liver disease encompass among others liver size, bluntness of the liver edge, coarseness of the liver parenchyma, nodularity of the liver surface, size of the lymph nodes around the hepatic artery, irregularity and narrowness of the inferior vena cava, portal vein velocity, and spleen size.Diagnosis of cirrhosis by ultrasound, especially in people who are asymptomatic, may have its advantages for the prognosis, motivation, and treatment of these people to decrease their alcohol consumption or become abstinent.Timely diagnosis of alcoholic cirrhosis in people with alcoholic liver disease is the cornerstone for evaluation of prognosis or choosing treatment strategies., Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography for detecting the presence or absence of cirrhosis in people with alcoholic liver disease compared with liver biopsy as reference standard.To determine the diagnostic accuracy of any of the ultrasonography tests, B-mode or echo-colour Doppler ultrasonography, used singly or combined, or plus ultrasonography signs, or a combination of these, for detecting hepatic cirrhosis in people with alcoholic liver disease compared with liver biopsy as a reference standard, irrespective of sequence., Search Methods: We performed searches in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies Register, The Cochrane Library (Wiley), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), and the Science Citation Index Expanded to 8 January 2015. We applied no language limitations.We screened study references of the retrieved studies to identify other potentially relevant studies for inclusion in the review and read abstract and poster publications., Selection Criteria: Three review authors independently identified studies for possible inclusion in the review. We excluded references not fulfilling the inclusion criteria of the review protocol. We sent e-mails to study authors.The included studies had to evaluate ultrasound in the diagnosis of hepatic cirrhosis using only liver biopsy as the reference standard.The maximum time interval of investigation with liver biopsy and ultrasonography should not have exceeded six months. In addition, ultrasonography could have been performed before or after liver biopsy., Data Collection and Analysis: We followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy., Main Results: The review included two studies that provided numerical data regarding alcoholic cirrhosis in 205 men and women with alcoholic liver disease. Although there were no applicability concerns in terms of participant selection, index text, and reference standard, we judged the two studies at high risk of bias. Participants in both studies had undergone both liver biopsy and ultrasonography investigations. The studies shared only a few comparable clinical signs and symptoms (index tests).We decided to not perform a meta-analysis due to the high risk of bias and the high degree of heterogeneity of the included studies., Authors' Conclusions: As the accuracy of ultrasonography in the two included studies was not informative enough, we could not recommend the use of ultrasonography as a diagnostic tool for liver cirrhosis in people with alcoholic liver disease. In order to be able to answer the review questions, we need diagnostic ultrasonography prospective studies of adequate sample size, enrolling only participants with alcoholic liver disease.The design and report of the studies should follow the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. The sonographic features, with validated cut-offs, which may help identify clinical signs used for diagnosis of fibrosis in alcoholic liver disease, should be carefully selected to achieve maximum diagnostic accuracy on ultrasonography.

Background: The presence and progression of hepatic (liver) fibrosis into cirrhosis is a prognostic variable having impact on survival in people with alcoholic liver disease. Liver biopsy, although an invasive method, is the recommended 'reference standard' for diagnosis and staging of hepatic fibrosis in people with liver diseases. Transient elastography is a non-invasive method for assessing and staging hepatic fibrosis., Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of transient elastography for diagnosis and staging hepatic fibrosis in people with alcoholic liver disease when compared with liver biopsy. To identify the optimal cut-off values for differentiating the five stages of hepatic fibrosis., Search Methods: The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled and Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies Registers, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), and the Science Citation Index Expanded (last search August 2014)., Selection Criteria: Diagnostic cohort and diagnostic case-control study designs that assessed hepatic fibrosis in participants with alcoholic liver disease with transient elastography and liver biopsy, irrespective of language or publication status. The study participants could be of any sex and ethnic origin, above 16 years old, hospitalised or managed as outpatients. We excluded participants with viral hepatitis, autoimmunity, metabolic diseases, and toxins., Data Collection and Analysis: We followed the guidelines in the draft Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy., Main Results: Five retrospective and nine prospective cohort studies with 834 participants provided data for the review analyses. Authors of seven of those studies sent us individual participant data. The risk of bias in the included studies was high in all but three studies. We could identify no serious concerns regarding the applicability of the studies in answering the main study question of our review, namely to use transient elastography to diagnose hepatic fibrosis. We could not identify the optimal cut-off values for the fibrosis stages. The definition of the diagnosis of alcoholic liver disease was not provided in one study and was not clearly defined in two studies, but it was clear in the remaining 11 studies. The study authors used different liver stiffness cut-off values of transient elastography for the hepatic fibrosis stages.There was only one study (103 participants) with data on hepatic fibrosis stage F1 or worse, with a cut-off of 5.9 kPa, and reporting sensitivity of 0.83 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.90) and specificity of 0.88 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.00). The summary sensitivity and specificity of transient elastography for F2 or worse (seven studies with 338 participants and with cut-offs around 7.5 kPa (range 7.00 to 7.8 kPa)) were 0.94 and 0.89 with LR+ 8.2 and LR- 0.07, which suggests that transient elastography could be useful to rule out the presence of significant hepatic fibrosis, thus avoiding liver biopsy.Due to the wide range of cut-off values (from 8.0 to 17.0 kPa) found in the 10 studies with 760 participants with hepatic fibrosis F3 or worse, we fitted a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model and estimated a summary ROC (SROC) curve. The sensitivity of the 10 studies varied from 72% to 100% and the specificity from 59% to 89%. We performed an additional analysis by including the studies with a cut-off value of around and equal to 9.5 kPa (range 8.0 to 11.0 kPa). The summary sensitivity and specificity of transient elastography (eight studies with 564 participants) were 0.92 and 0.70 with LR+ 3.1 and LR- 0.11, which suggests that transient elastography could also be useful to rule out the presence of severe hepatic fibrosis (F3 or worse), avoiding liver biopsy. We carried out a sensitivity analysis by considering only the studies with a cut-off value equal to 9.5 kPa and the result did not differ.We performed an HSROC analysis and reported an SROC curve for hepatic fibrosis stage F4 (cirrhosis). The HSROC analysis suggested that when the cut-off value changes, there is a wide variation in specificity and a more limited variation in sensitivity. We performed an additional analysis with the studies with the most commonly used cut-off value of 12.5 kPa. The summary sensitivity and specificity of transient elastography (seven studies with 330 participants) were 0.95 and 0.71 with LR+ 3.3 and LR- 0.07, which again suggests that transient elastography could be useful to rule out the presence of cirrhosis, avoiding liver biopsy., Authors' Conclusions: We identified a small number of studies with a few participants and were unable to include several studies, which raises the risk of outcome reporting bias. With these caveats in mind, transient elastography may be used as a diagnostic method to rule out liver cirrhosis (F4) in people with alcoholic liver disease when the pre-test probability is about 51% (range 15% to 79%). Transient elastography may also help in ruling out severe fibrosis (F3 or worse). Liver biopsy investigation remains an option if the certainty to rule in or rule out the stage of hepatic fibrosis or cirrhosis remains insufficient after a clinical follow-up or any other non-invasive test considered useful by the clinician.The proposed cut-off values for the different stages of hepatic fibrosis may be used in clinical practice, but caution is needed, as those values reported in this review are only the most common cut-off values used by the study authors. The best cut-off values for hepatic fibrosis in people with alcoholic liver disease could not be established yet.In order to diagnose correctly the stage of hepatic fibrosis in people with alcoholic liver disease using transient elastography assessment, the studies should consider a single aetiology. Hepatic fibrosis should be diagnosed with both transient elastography and liver biopsy and in this sequence, and transient elastography cut-off values should be pre-specified and validated. The time interval between the two investigations should not exceed three months, which is the interval mainly valid for people without cirrhosis, and assessment of results should be properly blinded. Only studies with low risk of bias, fulfilling the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy may answer the review question.

Background: The evidence on whether vitamin D supplementation is effective in decreasing cancers is contradictory., Objectives: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin D supplementation for prevention of cancer in adults., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science to February 2014. We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and asked experts and pharmaceutical companies for additional trials., Selection Criteria: We included randomised trials that compared vitamin D at any dose, duration, and route of administration versus placebo or no intervention in adults who were healthy or were recruited among the general population, or diagnosed with a specific disease. Vitamin D could have been administered as supplemental vitamin D (vitamin D₃ (cholecalciferol) or vitamin D₂ (ergocalciferol)), or an active form of vitamin D (1α-hydroxyvitamin D (alfacalcidol), or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol))., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors extracted data independently. We conducted random-effects and fixed-effect model meta-analyses. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratios (RRs). We considered risk of bias in order to assess the risk of systematic errors. We conducted trial sequential analyses to assess the risk of random errors., Main Results: Eighteen randomised trials with 50,623 participants provided data for the analyses. All trials came from high-income countries. Most of the trials had a high risk of bias, mainly for-profit bias. Most trials included elderly community-dwelling women (aged 47 to 97 years). Vitamin D was administered for a weighted mean of six years. Fourteen trials tested vitamin D₃, one trial tested vitamin D₂, and three trials tested calcitriol supplementation. Cancer occurrence was observed in 1927/25,275 (7.6%) recipients of vitamin D versus 1943/25,348 (7.7%) recipients of control interventions (RR 1.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.06); P = 0.88; I² = 0%; 18 trials; 50,623 participants; moderate quality evidence according to the GRADE instrument). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) of the 18 vitamin D trials shows that the futility area is reached after the 10th trial, allowing us to conclude that a possible intervention effect, if any, is lower than a 5% relative risk reduction. We did not observe substantial differences in the effect of vitamin D on cancer in subgroup analyses of trials at low risk of bias compared to trials at high risk of bias; of trials with no risk of for-profit bias compared to trials with risk of for-profit bias; of trials assessing primary prevention compared to trials assessing secondary prevention; of trials including participants with vitamin D levels below 20 ng/mL at entry compared to trials including participants with vitamin D levels of 20 ng/mL or more at entry; or of trials using concomitant calcium supplementation compared to trials without calcium. Vitamin D decreased all-cause mortality (1854/24,846 (7.5%) versus 2007/25,020 (8.0%); RR 0.93 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.98); P = 0.009; I² = 0%; 15 trials; 49,866 participants; moderate quality evidence), but TSA indicates that this finding could be due to random errors. Cancer occurrence was observed in 1918/24,908 (7.7%) recipients of vitamin D₃ versus 1933/24,983 (7.7%) in recipients of control interventions (RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.06); P = 0.88; I² = 0%; 14 trials; 49,891 participants; moderate quality evidence). TSA of the vitamin D₃ trials shows that the futility area is reached after the 10th trial, allowing us to conclude that a possible intervention effect, if any, is lower than a 5% relative risk reduction. Vitamin D₃ decreased cancer mortality (558/22,286 (2.5%) versus 634/22,206 (2.8%); RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.98); P = 0.02; I² = 0%; 4 trials; 44,492 participants; low quality evidence), but TSA indicates that this finding could be due to random errors. Vitamin D₃ combined with calcium increased nephrolithiasis (RR 1.17 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.34); P = 0.02; I² = 0%; 3 trials; 42,753 participants; moderate quality evidence). TSA, however, indicates that this finding could be due to random errors. We did not find any data on health-related quality of life or health economics in the randomised trials included in this review., Authors' Conclusions: There is currently no firm evidence that vitamin D supplementation decreases or increases cancer occurrence in predominantly elderly community-dwelling women. Vitamin D₃ supplementation decreased cancer mortality and vitamin D supplementation decreased all-cause mortality, but these estimates are at risk of type I errors due to the fact that too few participants were examined, and to risks of attrition bias originating from substantial dropout of participants. Combined vitamin D₃ and calcium supplements increased nephrolithiasis, whereas it remains unclear from the included trials whether vitamin D₃, calcium, or both were responsible for this effect. We need more trials on vitamin D supplementation, assessing the benefits and harms among younger participants, men, and people with low vitamin D status, and assessing longer duration of treatments as well as higher dosages of vitamin D. Follow-up of all participants is necessary to reduce attrition bias.

Background: Available evidence on the effects of vitamin D on mortality has been inconclusive. In a recent systematic review, we found evidence that vitamin D3 may decrease mortality in mostly elderly women. The present systematic review updates and reassesses the benefits and harms of vitamin D supplementation used in primary and secondary prophylaxis of mortality., Objectives: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin D supplementation for prevention of mortality in healthy adults and adults in a stable phase of disease., Search Methods: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the Science Citation Index-Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (all up to February 2012). We checked references of included trials and pharmaceutical companies for unidentified relevant trials., Selection Criteria: Randomised trials that compared any type of vitamin D in any dose with any duration and route of administration versus placebo or no intervention in adult participants. Participants could have been recruited from the general population or from patients diagnosed with a disease in a stable phase. Vitamin D could have been administered as supplemental vitamin D (vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) or vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol)) or as an active form of vitamin D (1α-hydroxyvitamin D (alfacalcidol) or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol))., Data Collection and Analysis: Six review authors extracted data independently. Random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses were conducted. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratios (RRs). To account for trials with zero events, we performed meta-analyses of dichotomous data using risk differences (RDs) and empirical continuity corrections. We used published data and data obtained by contacting trial authors.To minimise the risk of systematic error, we assessed the risk of bias of the included trials. Trial sequential analyses controlled the risk of random errors possibly caused by cumulative meta-analyses., Main Results: We identified 159 randomised clinical trials. Ninety-four trials reported no mortality, and nine trials reported mortality but did not report in which intervention group the mortality occurred. Accordingly, 56 randomised trials with 95,286 participants provided usable data on mortality. The age of participants ranged from 18 to 107 years. Most trials included women older than 70 years. The mean proportion of women was 77%. Forty-eight of the trials randomly assigned 94,491 healthy participants. Of these, four trials included healthy volunteers, nine trials included postmenopausal women and 35 trials included older people living on their own or in institutional care. The remaining eight trials randomly assigned 795 participants with neurological, cardiovascular, respiratory or rheumatoid diseases. Vitamin D was administered for a weighted mean of 4.4 years. More than half of the trials had a low risk of bias. All trials were conducted in high-income countries. Forty-five trials (80%) reported the baseline vitamin D status of participants based on serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels. Participants in 19 trials had vitamin D adequacy (at or above 20 ng/mL). Participants in the remaining 26 trials had vitamin D insufficiency (less than 20 ng/mL).Vitamin D decreased mortality in all 56 trials analysed together (5,920/47,472 (12.5%) vs 6,077/47,814 (12.7%); RR 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 0.99); P = 0.02; I(2) = 0%). More than 8% of participants dropped out. 'Worst-best case' and 'best-worst case' scenario analyses demonstrated that vitamin D could be associated with a dramatic increase or decrease in mortality. When different forms of vitamin D were assessed in separate analyses, only vitamin D3 decreased mortality (4,153/37,817 (11.0%) vs 4,340/38,110 (11.4%); RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.98); P = 0.002; I(2) = 0%; 75,927 participants; 38 trials). Vitamin D2, alfacalcidol and calcitriol did not significantly affect mortality. A subgroup analysis of trials at high risk of bias suggested that vitamin D2 may even increase mortality, but this finding could be due to random errors. Trial sequential analysis supported our finding regarding vitamin D3, with the cumulative Z-score breaking the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit, corresponding to 150 people treated over five years to prevent one additional death. We did not observe any statistically significant differences in the effect of vitamin D on mortality in subgroup analyses of trials at low risk of bias compared with trials at high risk of bias; of trials using placebo compared with trials using no intervention in the control group; of trials with no risk of industry bias compared with trials with risk of industry bias; of trials assessing primary prevention compared with trials assessing secondary prevention; of trials including participants with vitamin D level below 20 ng/mL at entry compared with trials including participants with vitamin D levels equal to or greater than 20 ng/mL at entry; of trials including ambulatory participants compared with trials including institutionalised participants; of trials using concomitant calcium supplementation compared with trials without calcium; of trials using a dose below 800 IU per day compared with trials using doses above 800 IU per day; and of trials including only women compared with trials including both sexes or only men. Vitamin D3 statistically significantly decreased cancer mortality (RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.98); P = 0.02; I(2) = 0%; 44,492 participants; 4 trials). Vitamin D3 combined with calcium increased the risk of nephrolithiasis (RR 1.17 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.34); P = 0.02; I(2) = 0%; 42,876 participants; 4 trials). Alfacalcidol and calcitriol increased the risk of hypercalcaemia (RR 3.18 (95% CI 1.17 to 8.68); P = 0.02; I(2) = 17%; 710 participants; 3 trials)., Authors' Conclusions: Vitamin D3 seemed to decrease mortality in elderly people living independently or in institutional care. Vitamin D2, alfacalcidol and calcitriol had no statistically significant beneficial effects on mortality. Vitamin D3 combined with calcium increased nephrolithiasis. Both alfacalcidol and calcitriol increased hypercalcaemia. Because of risks of attrition bias originating from substantial dropout of participants and of outcome reporting bias due to a number of trials not reporting on mortality, as well as a number of other weaknesses in our evidence, further placebo-controlled randomised trials seem warranted.

Background: Our systematic review has demonstrated that antioxidant supplements may increase mortality. We have now updated this review., Objectives: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in adults., Search Methods: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science to February 2011. We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and asked pharmaceutical companies for additional trials., Selection Criteria: We included all primary and secondary prevention randomised clinical trials on antioxidant supplements (beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, and selenium) versus placebo or no intervention., Data Collection and Analysis: Three authors extracted data. Random-effects and fixed-effect model meta-analyses were conducted. Risk of bias was considered in order to minimise the risk of systematic errors. Trial sequential analyses were conducted to minimise the risk of random errors. Random-effects model meta-regression analyses were performed to assess sources of intertrial heterogeneity., Main Results: Seventy-eight randomised trials with 296,707 participants were included. Fifty-six trials including 244,056 participants had low risk of bias. Twenty-six trials included 215,900 healthy participants. Fifty-two trials included 80,807 participants with various diseases in a stable phase. The mean age was 63 years (range 18 to 103 years). The mean proportion of women was 46%. Of the 78 trials, 46 used the parallel-group design, 30 the factorial design, and 2 the cross-over design. All antioxidants were administered orally, either alone or in combination with vitamins, minerals, or other interventions. The duration of supplementation varied from 28 days to 12 years (mean duration 3 years; median duration 2 years). Overall, the antioxidant supplements had no significant effect on mortality in a random-effects model meta-analysis (21,484 dead/183,749 (11.7%) versus 11,479 dead/112,958 (10.2%); 78 trials, relative risk (RR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.05) but significantly increased mortality in a fixed-effect model (RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.05). Heterogeneity was low with an I(2)- of 12%. In meta-regression analysis, the risk of bias and type of antioxidant supplement were the only significant predictors of intertrial heterogeneity. Meta-regression analysis did not find a significant difference in the estimated intervention effect in the primary prevention and the secondary prevention trials. In the 56 trials with a low risk of bias, the antioxidant supplements significantly increased mortality (18,833 dead/146,320 (12.9%) versus 10,320 dead/97,736 (10.6%); RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.07). This effect was confirmed by trial sequential analysis. Excluding factorial trials with potential confounding showed that 38 trials with low risk of bias demonstrated a significant increase in mortality (2822 dead/26,903 (10.5%) versus 2473 dead/26,052 (9.5%); RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.15). In trials with low risk of bias, beta-carotene (13,202 dead/96,003 (13.8%) versus 8556 dead/77,003 (11.1%); 26 trials, RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.09) and vitamin E (11,689 dead/97,523 (12.0%) versus 7561 dead/73,721 (10.3%); 46 trials, RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.05) significantly increased mortality, whereas vitamin A (3444 dead/24,596 (14.0%) versus 2249 dead/16,548 (13.6%); 12 trials, RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.18), vitamin C (3637 dead/36,659 (9.9%) versus 2717 dead/29,283 (9.3%); 29 trials, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.07), and selenium (2670 dead/39,779 (6.7%) versus 1468 dead/22,961 (6.4%); 17 trials, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.03) did not significantly affect mortality. In univariate meta-regression analysis, the dose of vitamin A was significantly associated with increased mortality (RR 1.0006, 95% CI 1.0002 to 1.001, P = 0.002)., Authors' Conclusions: We found no evidence to support antioxidant supplements for primary or secondary prevention. Beta-carotene and vitamin E seem to increase mortality, and so may higher doses of vitamin A. Antioxidant supplements need to be considered as medicinal products and should undergo sufficient evaluation before marketing.

Background: The available evidence on vitamin D and mortality is inconclusive., Objectives: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin D for prevention of mortality in adults., Search Strategy: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (to January 2011). We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and asked experts and pharmaceutical companies for additional trials., Selection Criteria: We included randomised trials that compared vitamin D at any dose, duration, and route of administration versus placebo or no intervention. Vitamin D could have been administered as supplemental vitamin D (vitamin D(3) (cholecalciferol) or vitamin D(2) (ergocalciferol)) or an active form of vitamin D (1α-hydroxyvitamin D (alfacalcidol) or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol))., Data Collection and Analysis: Six authors extracted data independently. Random-effects and fixed-effect model meta-analyses were conducted. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratios (RR). To account for trials with zero events, meta-analyses of dichotomous data were repeated using risk differences (RD) and empirical continuity corrections. Risk of bias was considered in order to minimise risk of systematic errors. Trial sequential analyses were conducted to minimise the risk of random errors., Main Results: Fifty randomised trials with 94,148 participants provided data for the mortality analyses. Most trials included elderly women (older than 70 years). Vitamin D was administered for a median of two years. More than one half of the trials had a low risk of bias. Overall, vitamin D decreased mortality (RR 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.00, I(2) = 0%). When the different forms of vitamin D were assessed separately, only vitamin D(3) decreased mortality significantly (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.98, I(2) = 0%; 74,789 participants, 32 trials) whereas vitamin D(2), alfacalcidol, or calcitriol did not. Trial sequential analysis supported our finding regarding vitamin D(3), corresponding to 161 individuals treated to prevent one additional death. Vitamin D(3) combined with calcium increased the risk of nephrolithiasis (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.34, I(2) = 0%). Alfacalcidol and calcitriol increased the risk of hypercalcaemia (RR 3.18, 95% CI 1.17 to 8.68, I(2) = 17%). Data on health-related quality of life and health economics were inconclusive., Authors' Conclusions: Vitamin D in the form of vitamin D(3) seems to decrease mortality in predominantly elderly women who are mainly in institutions and dependent care. Vitamin D(2), alfacalcidol, and calcitriol had no statistically significant effect on mortality. Vitamin D(3) combined with calcium significantly increased nephrolithiasis. Both alfacalcidol and calcitriol significantly increased hypercalcaemia.

Background: Several liver diseases have been associated with oxidative stress. Accordingly, antioxidants have been suggested as potential therapeutics for various liver diseases. The evidence supporting these suggestions is equivocal., Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of antioxidant supplements for patients with liver diseases., Search Strategy: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science to January 2011. We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and asked experts and pharmaceutical companies for additional trials., Selection Criteria: We considered for inclusion randomised trials that compared antioxidant supplements (beta-carotene, vitamin A, C, E, and selenium) versus placebo or no intervention for autoimmune liver diseases, viral hepatitis, alcoholic liver disease, and cirrhosis (any aetiology)., Data Collection and Analysis: Four authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. Outcome measures were all-cause mortality, liver-related mortality, liver-related morbidity, biochemical indices at maximum follow-up in the individual trials as well as adverse events, quality-of-life measures, and cost-effectiveness. For patients with hepatitis B or C we also considered end of treatment and sustained virological response. We conducted random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses. Results were presented as relative risks (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI)., Main Results: Twenty randomised trials with 1225 participants were included. The trials assessed beta-carotene (3 trials), vitamin A (2 trials), vitamin C (9 trials), vitamin E (15 trials), and selenium (8 trials). The majority of the trials had high risk of bias and showed heterogeneity. Overall, the assessed antioxidant supplements had no significant effect on all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60 to 1.19, I(2) = 0%), or liver-related mortality (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.05, I(2) = 37%). Stratification according to the type of liver disease did not affect noticeably the results. Antioxidant supplements significantly increased activity of gamma glutamyl transpeptidase (MD 24.21 IU/l, 95% CI 6.67 to 41.75, I(2) = 0%)., Authors' Conclusions: We found no evidence to support or refute antioxidant supplements in patients with liver disease. Antioxidant supplements may increase liver enzyme activity.

Background: Hepatitis A (infectious hepatitis) is a common epidemic disease. Immunoglobulins for passive immunisation are used as prevention., Objectives: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of the pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis with immunoglobulins for preventing hepatitis A., Search Strategy: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Chinese Biomedical Database, and Science Citation Index Expanded for trials until October 2008. In addition, we read through reference lists of the identified publications and handsearched three journals., Selection Criteria: Randomised clinical trials on immunoglobulin prophylaxis for preventing hepatitis A, irrespective of blinding, publication status, or language., Data Collection and Analysis: Data were extracted by two authors and verified by a third author. Results were presented as relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The primary outcome was occurrence of hepatitis A (infectious hepatitis)., Main Results: We included 13 trials with 567,476 participants randomised to pre- or post-exposure prophylaxis. The trials had high risk of bias. The trials were heterogeneous in terms of study setting, participants, interventions, and outcome measures. Our meta-analysis with six randomised trials showed that immunoglobulins, when used for pre-exposure prophylaxis, significantly reduced the number of adult patients with hepatitis A at 6 to 12 months (1020/286503 versus 761/134529; RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.70; random-effects model) in comparison with no intervention or inactive control. Four trials showed a similar effect in children aged 3 to 17 at 6 to 12 months follow-up (917/210822 versus 677/78960; RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.59). Comparing different doses of immunoglobulins, higher dosage was generally more effective than lower dosage (1.5 ml better than 0.75 ml and 0.75 ml better than 0.1 ml) in preventing hepatitis A. No significant systemic adverse events were reported. One trial showed that immunoglobulin was more effective than placebo for post-exposure prophylaxis. It appeared that there was no significant difference between immunoglobulins and inactivated hepatitis A vaccine in seroconversion to hepatitis A vaccine antibodies at four weeks (RR 1.16; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.38), but immunoglobulins were significantly less effective than vaccine regarding antibody levels at 8, 12, or 24 weeks., Authors' Conclusions: Immunoglobulins seem to be effective for pre-exposure and post-exposure prophylaxis of hepatitis A. However, caution is warranted for the positive findings due to the limited number of trials, year of conductance, and risk of bias. Conductance of rigorous trials will be justifiable.

Background: Oxidative stress may cause gastrointestinal cancers. The evidence on whether antioxidant supplements are effective in preventing gastrointestinal cancers is contradictory., Objectives: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of antioxidant supplements in preventing gastrointestinal cancers., Search Strategy: We identified trials through the trials registers of the four Cochrane Review Groups on gastrointestinal diseases, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2007), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, SCI-EXPANDED, and The Chinese Biomedical Database from inception to October 2007. We scanned reference lists and contacted pharmaceutical companies., Selection Criteria: Randomised trials comparing antioxidant supplements to placebo/no intervention examining occurrence of gastrointestinal cancers., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors (GB and DN) independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. Outcome measures were gastrointestinal cancers, overall mortality, and adverse effects. Outcomes were reported as relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) based on random-effects and fixed-effect model meta-analysis. Meta-regression assessed the effect of covariates across the trials., Main Results: We identified 20 randomised trials (211,818 participants), assessing beta-carotene (12 trials), vitamin A (4 trials), vitamin C (8 trials), vitamin E (10 trials), and selenium (9 trials). Trials quality was generally high. Heterogeneity was low to moderate. Antioxidant supplements were without significant effects on gastrointestinal cancers (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.06). However, there was significant heterogeneity (I(2) = 54.0%, P = 0.003). The heterogeneity may have been explained by bias risk (low-bias risk trials RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.13 compared to high-bias risk trials RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.80; test of interaction P < 0.0005), and type of antioxidant supplement (beta-carotene potentially increasing and selenium potentially decreasing cancer risk). The antioxidant supplements had no significant effects on mortality in a random-effects model meta-analysis (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.07, I(2) = 53.5%), but significantly increased mortality in a fixed-effect model meta-analysis (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.07). Beta-carotene in combination with vitamin A (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.23) and vitamin E (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11) significantly increased mortality. Increased yellowing of the skin and belching were non-serious adverse effects of beta-carotene. In five trials (four with high risk of bias), selenium seemed to show significant beneficial effect on gastrointestinal cancer occurrence (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.75, I(2) = 0%)., Authors' Conclusions: We could not find convincing evidence that antioxidant supplements prevent gastrointestinal cancers. On the contrary, antioxidant supplements seem to increase overall mortality. The potential cancer preventive effect of selenium should be tested in adequately conducted randomised trials.

Background: Animal and physiological research as well as observational studies suggest that antioxidant supplements may improve survival., Objectives: To assess the effect of antioxidant supplements on mortality in primary or secondary prevention randomised clinical trials., Search Strategy: We searched The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2005), EMBASE (1985 to October 2005), and the Science Citation Index Expanded (1945 to October 2005). We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and wrote to pharmaceutical companies for additional trials., Selection Criteria: We included all primary and secondary prevention randomised clinical trials on antioxidant supplements (beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, and selenium) versus placebo or no intervention. Included participants were either healthy (primary prevention trials) or had any disease (secondary prevention trials)., Data Collection and Analysis: Three authors extracted data. Trials with adequate randomisation, blinding, and follow-up were classified as having a low risk of bias. Random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses were performed. Random-effects meta-regression analyses were performed to assess sources of intertrial heterogeneity., Main Results: Sixty-seven randomised trials with 232,550 participants were included. Forty-seven trials including 180,938 participants had low risk of bias. Twenty-one trials included 164,439 healthy participants. Forty-six trials included 68111 participants with various diseases (gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, neurological, ocular, dermatological, rheumatoid, renal, endocrinological, or unspecified). Overall, the antioxidant supplements had no significant effect on mortality in a random-effects meta-analysis (relative risk [RR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99 to 1.06), but significantly increased mortality in a fixed-effect model (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.06). In meta-regression analysis, the risk of bias and type of antioxidant supplement were the only significant predictors of intertrial heterogeneity. In the trials with a low risk of bias, the antioxidant supplements significantly increased mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.08). When the different antioxidants were assessed separately, analyses including trials with a low risk of bias and excluding selenium trials found significantly increased mortality by vitamin A (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.24), beta-carotene (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11), and vitamin E (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.07), but no significant detrimental effect of vitamin C (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.20). Low-bias risk trials on selenium found no significant effect on mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.09)., Authors' Conclusions: We found no evidence to support antioxidant supplements for primary or secondary prevention. Vitamin A, beta-carotene, and vitamin E may increase mortality. Future randomised trials could evaluate the potential effects of vitamin C and selenium for primary and secondary prevention. Such trials should be closely monitored for potential harmful effects. Antioxidant supplements need to be considered medicinal products and should undergo sufficient evaluation before marketing.

Background: Oxidative stress may cause gastrointestinal cancers. The evidence on whether antioxidant supplements are effective in preventing gastrointestinal cancers is contradictory., Objectives: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of antioxidant supplements in preventing gastrointestinal cancers., Search Strategy: We identified trials through the trials registers of the four Cochrane Review Groups on gastrointestinal diseases, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2003), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and SCI-EXPANDED from inception to February 2003, and The Chinese Biomedical Database (March 2003). We scanned reference lists and contacted pharmaceutical companies., Selection Criteria: Randomised trials comparing antioxidant supplements to placebo/no intervention examining the incidence of gastrointestinal cancers., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. The outcome measures were incidence of gastrointestinal cancers, overall mortality, and adverse events. Outcomes were reported as relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) based on fixed and random effects meta-analyses., Main Results: We identified 14 randomised trials (170,525 participants), assessing beta-carotene (9 trials), vitamin A (4 trials), vitamin C (4 trials), vitamin E (5 trials), and selenium (6 trials). Trial quality was generally high. Heterogeneity was low to moderate. Neither the fixed effect (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.04) nor random effects meta-analyses (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05) showed significant effects of supplementation with antioxidants on the incidences of gastrointestinal cancers. Among the seven high-quality trials reporting on mortality (131,727 participants), the fixed effect (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.10) unlike the random effects meta-analysis (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.15) showed that antioxidant supplements significantly increased mortality. Two low-quality trials (32,302 participants) found no significant effect of antioxidant supplementation on mortality. The difference between the mortality estimates in high- and low-quality trials was significant by test of interaction (z = 2.10, P = 0.04). Beta-carotene and vitamin A (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.45) and beta-carotene and vitamin E (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.20) significantly increased mortality, while beta-carotene alone only tended to do so (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.11). Increased yellowing of the skin and belching were non-serious adverse effects of beta-carotene. In four trials (three with unclear/inadequate methodology), selenium showed significant beneficial effect on gastrointestinal cancer incidences., Reviewers' Conclusions: We could not find evidence that antioxidant supplements prevent gastrointestinal cancers. On the contrary, they seem to increase overall mortality. The potential cancer preventive effect of selenium should be studied in adequately conducted randomised trials.