In memoriam Professor Em. Jan G. van den Tweel (1942–2020)

Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift -     

Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials: Efficacy and Safety of UDCA-Based Therapies in Primary Biliary Cirrhosis

Major ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA)-based therapies for primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) include UDCA only, or combined with either methotrexate (MTX), corticosteroids (COT), colchicine (COC), or bezafibrate (BEF). As the optimum treatment regimen is unclear and warrants exploration, we aimed to compare these therapies in terms of patient mortality or liver transplantation (MOLT) and adverse events (AE).PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched for randomized controlled trials up to August 31, 2014. We estimated the hazard ratios (HRs) for MOLT and odds ratios (ORs) for AE. A sensitivity analysis based on the dose of UDCA was also executed.Thirty-one eligible articles were included. Compared with COT plus UDCA, UDCA (HR 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09–1.39), BEF plus UDCA (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.02–4.83), COC plus UDCA (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.07–2.25), MTX plus UDCA (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.05–1.63), or OBS (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.11–2.01) all provided an increased risk of MOLT. With respect to drug AE profile, although not differing appreciably, BEF plus UDCA was associated with more AEs compared with UDCA (OR 3.16, 95% CI 0.59–20.67), COT plus UDCA (OR 2.27, 95% CI 0.15–33.36), COC plus UDCA (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.09–12.16), MTX plus UDCA (OR 2.03, 95% CI 0.23–17.82), or OBS (OR 3.00, 95% CI 0.53–20.75). The results of sensitivity analyses were highly consistent with previous analyses.COT plus UDCA was the optimal UDCA-based regimen for both MOLT and AEs. BEF plus UDCA was most likely to cause AEs, whereas monotherapy with UDCA and coadministriation of COT plus UDCA appeared to be associated with the fewest AEs for PBC treatment.     

Assessment of the reporting of quality and outcome measures in hepatic resections: a call for 90-day reporting in all hepatectomy series

BackgroundThe aim of this paper is to assess the current state of quality and outcomes measures being reported for hepatic resections in the recent literature.MethodsMedline and PubMed databases were searched for English language articles published between 1 January 2002 and 30 April 2013. Two examiners reviewed each article and relevant citations for appropriateness of inclusion, which excluded papers of liver donor hepatic resections, repeat hepatectomies or meta-analyses. Data were extracted and summarized by two examiners for analysis.ResultsFifty-five studies were identified with suitable reporting to assess peri-operative mortality in hepatic resections. In only 35% (19/55) of the studies was the follow-up time explicitly stated, and in 47% (26/55) of studies peri-operative mortality was limited to in-hospital or 30 days. The time period in which complications were captured was not explicitly stated in 19 out of 28 studies. The remaining studies only captured complications within 30 days of the index operation (8/28). There was a paucity of quality literature addressing truly patient-centred outcomes.ConclusionQuality outcomes after a hepatic resection are inconsistently reported in the literature. Quality outcome studies for a hepatectomy should report mortality and morbidity at a minimum of 90 days after surgery.