TY - JOUR
T1 - Improving primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding by adapting therapy to the clinical stage of cirrhosis. A competing-risk meta-analysis of individual participant data
AU - Villanueva, Càndid
AU - Sapena, Victor
AU - Lo, Gin-Ho
AU - Seo, Yeon Seok
AU - Shah, Hasnain Ali
AU - Singh, Virendra
AU - Tripathi, Dhiraj
AU - Schepke, Michael
AU - Gheorghe, Cristian
AU - Bonilha, Daniell Q
AU - Jutabha, Rome
AU - Wang, Huay-Min
AU - Rodrigues, Susana G
AU - Brujats, Anna
AU - Lee, Han Ah
AU - Azam, Zahid
AU - Kumar, Pramod
AU - Hayes, Peter C
AU - Sauerbruch, Tilman
AU - Chen, Wen-Chi
AU - Iacob, Speranta
AU - Libera, Ermelindo D
AU - Jensen, Dennis M
AU - Alvarado, Edilmar
AU - Torres, Ferran
AU - Bosch, Jaume
N1 - Funding Information:
This study has been supported in part by grants from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (EC08/00087, PI10/01552, PI13/02535, PS09/00485, PI14/00876, PI15/00066). The CIBERehd is funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCiii). E.A. is a recipient of a “Río Ortega” fellowship grant from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CM16/00133) and “Juan Rodés” post‐doctoral grant from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (JR20/00047).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
PY - 2023/12/18
Y1 - 2023/12/18
N2 - Background & aims: Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) and endoscopic variceal-ligation (EVL) have similar efficacy preventing first variceal bleeding. Compensated and decompensated cirrhosis are markedly different stages, which may impact treatment outcomes. We aimed to assess the efficacy of NSBBs vs EVL on survival in patients with high-risk varices without previous bleeding, stratifying risk according to compensated/decompensated stage of cirrhosis.Methods: By systematic review, we identified RCTs comparing NSBBs vs EVL, in monotherapy or combined, for primary bleeding prevention. We performed a competing-risk, time-to-event meta-analysis, using individual patient data (IPD) obtained from principal investigators of RCTs. Analyses were stratified according to previous decompensation of cirrhosis.Results: Of 25 RCTs eligible, 14 failed to provide IPD and 11 were included, comprising 1400 patients (656 compensated, 744 decompensated), treated with NSBBs (N = 625), EVL (N = 546) or NSBB+EVL (N = 229). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Overall, mortality risk was similar with EVL vs. NSBBs (subdistribution hazard-ratio (sHR) = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.75-1.49) and with EVL + NSBBs vs either monotherapy, with low heterogeneity (I-2 = 28.7%). In compensated patients, mortality risk was higher with EVL vs NSBBs (sHR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.11-2.77) and not significantly lower with NSBBs+EVL vs NSBBs, without heterogeneity (I-2 = 0%). In decompensated patients, mortality risk was similar with EVL vs. NSBBs and with NSBBs+EVL vs. either monotherapy.Conclusions: In patients with compensated cirrhosis and high-risk varices on primary prophylaxis, NSBBs significantly improved survival vs EVL, with no additional benefit noted adding EVL to NSBBs. In decompensated patients, survival was similar with both therapies. The study suggests that NSBBs are preferable when advising preventive therapy in compensated patients.
AB - Background & aims: Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) and endoscopic variceal-ligation (EVL) have similar efficacy preventing first variceal bleeding. Compensated and decompensated cirrhosis are markedly different stages, which may impact treatment outcomes. We aimed to assess the efficacy of NSBBs vs EVL on survival in patients with high-risk varices without previous bleeding, stratifying risk according to compensated/decompensated stage of cirrhosis.Methods: By systematic review, we identified RCTs comparing NSBBs vs EVL, in monotherapy or combined, for primary bleeding prevention. We performed a competing-risk, time-to-event meta-analysis, using individual patient data (IPD) obtained from principal investigators of RCTs. Analyses were stratified according to previous decompensation of cirrhosis.Results: Of 25 RCTs eligible, 14 failed to provide IPD and 11 were included, comprising 1400 patients (656 compensated, 744 decompensated), treated with NSBBs (N = 625), EVL (N = 546) or NSBB+EVL (N = 229). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Overall, mortality risk was similar with EVL vs. NSBBs (subdistribution hazard-ratio (sHR) = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.75-1.49) and with EVL + NSBBs vs either monotherapy, with low heterogeneity (I-2 = 28.7%). In compensated patients, mortality risk was higher with EVL vs NSBBs (sHR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.11-2.77) and not significantly lower with NSBBs+EVL vs NSBBs, without heterogeneity (I-2 = 0%). In decompensated patients, mortality risk was similar with EVL vs. NSBBs and with NSBBs+EVL vs. either monotherapy.Conclusions: In patients with compensated cirrhosis and high-risk varices on primary prophylaxis, NSBBs significantly improved survival vs EVL, with no additional benefit noted adding EVL to NSBBs. In decompensated patients, survival was similar with both therapies. The study suggests that NSBBs are preferable when advising preventive therapy in compensated patients.
KW - Clinically significant portal hypertension
KW - Complications of cirrhosis
KW - Endoscopic variceal ligation
KW - Prevention of cirrhosis decompensation
KW - Primary prophylaxis
KW - beta-Blockers
KW - Clinically significant portal hypertension
KW - Complications of cirrhosis
KW - Endoscopic variceal ligation
KW - Prevention of cirrhosis decompensation
KW - Primary prophylaxis
KW - Beta-Blockers
KW - Clinically significant portal hypertension
KW - Complications of cirrhosis
KW - Endoscopic variceal ligation
KW - Prevention of cirrhosis decompensation
KW - Primary prophylaxis
KW - Beta-Blockers
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85179963486&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/c4a4ee8e-78be-3822-90e5-4609b8979206/
U2 - 10.1111/apt.17824
DO - 10.1111/apt.17824
M3 - Article
C2 - 38108646
SN - 0269-2813
VL - 59
SP - 306
EP - 321
JO - Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
JF - Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
IS - 3
ER -