4.6 Article

l-ornithine-l-aspartate for hepatic encephalopathy in patients with cirrhosis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
卷 28, 期 5, 页码 783-792

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.12142

关键词

cirrhosis; hepatic encephalopathy; l-ornithine-l-aspartate; meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aim Several randomized, controlled trials that evaluated the effectiveness of l-ornithine-l-aspartate (LOLA) in the treatment of hepatic encephalopathy (HE) have been published recently. The purpose of this study was to update the meta-analysis to reevaluate the safety and efficacy of LOLA on HE in patients with cirrhosis. Methods The following databases were searched from inception to June 2012: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 6). Differences between groups were assessed by the pooled risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD). Possible sources of heterogeneity were assessed by sensitivity analyses. Results Eight randomized controlled trials with 646 patients were included. When comparing placebo/no-intervention control, LOLA was significantly more effective in the improvement of HE in the total (RR: 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.10 to 2.01), overt HE (RR: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.69), and minimal HE patients (RR: 2.25, 95% CI: 1.33 to 3.82). Furthermore, the reduction of fasting ammonia significantly favored LOLA (post-treatment value, MD: 18.26, 95% CI: 26.96 to 9.56; change, MD: 8.59, 95% CI: 5.22 to 11.96). The tolerance ratio, incidence of adverse events, and mortality were not significantly different between LOLA and the placebo/no-intervention control. LOLA and lactulose demonstrated similar effectiveness in the improvement of HE (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.35). Conclusions LOLA benefits both overt and minimal HE patients in the improvement of HE by reducing the serum ammonia concentration compared with the placebo/no-intervention control. Further, evaluations between LOLA and other effective treatments are needed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据