Search

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.

Unlabelled: The diagnostic research process can be divided into five phases, designed to establish the clinical utility of a new diagnostic test--the index test. The aim of the present review is to illustrate the study designs that are appropriate for each diagnostic phase, using clinical examples regarding liver fibrosis diagnosed with transient elastography, when possible. Phase 0 is the preclinical pilot phase during which the validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the index test are assessed in healthy and diseased people. Phase I is designed to describe the distribution of the index test results in healthy people and its normal values. Phase IIA comprises studies designed to estimate the accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of the index test in discriminating between diseased and nondiseased people in a clinically relevant population. Phase IIB studies allow the comparison of the accuracy of different index tests; Phase IIC studies aim to evaluate the possible harms of incorporating the index test in a diagnostic-therapeutic strategy. In phase III, diagnostic test-therapeutic randomized clinical trials aim to assess the benefits and harms of the new diagnostic-therapeutic strategy versus the present strategy. Phase IV comprises large surveillance cohort studies that aim to assess the effectiveness of the new diagnostic-therapeutic strategy in clinical practice., Conclusion: As common in clinical research, giving excessive weight to the results of single studies and trials is likely to divert from the totality of evidence obtained through the systematic reviews of these studies, conducted with rigorous methodology and statistical methods. (Hepatology 2014;60:408-418)., (© 2014 by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Background and Aims: The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group (CHBG) is one of the 52 collaborative review groups within The Cochrane Collaboration. The activities of the CHBG focus on collecting hepato-biliary randomized clinical trials (RCT) and controlled clinical trials (CCT), and including them in systematic reviews with meta-analyses of the trials. In this overview, we present the growth of The CHBG Controlled Trials Register, as well as the systematic reviews that have been produced since March 1996., Results: The CHBG register includes almost 11,000 RCT and 700 CCT publications. The earliest RCT in the register were published in 1955, and the earliest CCT in 1945. From 1945 to 1980, there were less than 100 publications each year. From 1981 to 1997, their number increased from over 100 to 600 a year. After 1997, the number of publications seems to have been decreasing. The CHBG has published 199 protocols for systematic reviews and 107 systematic reviews through to August 2009 in which 21% of the RCT and CCT were included. The CHBG reviews have been cited approximately 1200 times., Conclusions: A large amount of work has been carried out since 1996. However, there is still much to do, as the CHBG register contains a great number of RCT and CCT on topics that have not yet been systematically reviewed., (© 2011 Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.)

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: 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., Aim: To assess the benefits and harms of antioxidant supplements for patients with liver diseases., Methods: We identified trials through electronic and manual searches until August 2009. We included randomized trials comparing antioxidant supplements (beta-carotene, vitamin A, C, E and selenium) vs. placebo or no intervention for autoimmune liver diseases, viral hepatitis, alcoholic liver disease and cirrhosis (any aetiology). Random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses were conducted. Results were presented as relative risks (RR), or mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI)., Results: Twenty randomized 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) 0.60-1.19, I(2) = 0%] or liver-related mortality (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.39-2.05, I(2) = 37%). Stratification according to the type of liver disease assessed did not affect the conclusions. Antioxidant supplements significantly increased the activity of gamma glutamyl transpeptidase (MD 24.21 IU/L, 95% CI 6.67-41.75, I(2) = 0%)., Conclusions: We found no evidence to support or refute antioxidant supplements in patients with liver disease. Antioxidant supplements may increase liver enzymes.

Evidence shows that the quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) affects estimates of intervention efficacy, which is significantly exaggerated in low-quality trials. The present study examines the quality of all 235 RCTs published in HEPATOLOGY from the initiation in 1981 through August 1998. Quality was assessed by means of a validated 5-point scale and separate quality components associated with empirical evidence of bias. Only 26% of all RCTs reported sample size calculations, 52% adequate generation of the allocation sequence, 34% adequate allocation concealment and 34% double-blinding. The median quality score of all trials was 3 points (range, 1-5 points). Multiple logistic regression analysis explored the association between quality and therapeutic areas, number of centers, external funding, year of publication, and country of origin. High-quality trials were most likely to investigate portal hypertension (odds ratio [OR]: 2.4; 95% CI: 1.1-5.5; P =.03), be multicentered (OR: 3.4; 95% CI: 1.3-8.9; P =.01), sponsored by public organizations (OR: 4.2; 95% CI: 2.1-8.6; P =.0001), or the drug and device industry (OR: 4.7; 95% CI: 2.2-10.2; P =.0001) compared with other therapeutic areas, single-center trials, and trials with no external funding. Quality did not improve with time and was not associated with country of origin. The main conclusions are that the quality of RCTs in HEPATOLOGY needs improvement and that the probability of high quality increased with the number of centers involved and external funding.