Copyright
©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Gastroenterol. Nov 21, 2015; 21(43): 12322-12333
Published online Nov 21, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i43.12322
Published online Nov 21, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i43.12322
Table 1 Major studies describing the changes in gut microbiota composition and the effects of rifaximin treatment in patients with advanced liver disease and hepatic encephalopathy
Study | Study design | No. patients | Disease severity | HE type | Treatment schedule | Results | Safety |
Mas et al[56] 2003 | Prospective randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, controlled trial | 103 | Not reported | Overt HE | 50 pts rifaximin 1200 mg/d for 5-10 d | Improved neuropsychiatric and psychometric parameters in both groups | Abdominal pain: 4% rifaximin |
53 pts lactitol 60 g/d for 5-10 d | Reduced blood ammonia levels in both groups | Mild diarrhea: 2% lactitol | |||||
No significant differences in efficacy (resolution/improvement 81.6% rifaximin vs 80.4% lactitol; unchanged/failure 18.4% rifaximin vs 19.6% lactitol) | Vomiting: 2% lactitol | ||||||
HE complete resolution: 53.1% rifaximin vs 37.2% lactitol | |||||||
Paik et al[57] 2005 | Prospective randomized | CTP: | Overt HE | 32 pts rifaximin 400 mg TID for 7 d | Reduction in blood ammonia levels similar in both groups | Abdominal pain: 3% rifaximin | |
rifaximin A: 0%, B: 50%, C: 50% | 22 pts lactulose 90 mL/d for 7 d | Improvement in HE grade and index similar in both groups | Severe diarrhea: 4.5% lactulose | ||||
lactulose A: 0%, B: 64%, C: 36% | Improvement in HE grade similar in both groups | ||||||
Leevy et al[58] 2007 | Retrospective | 145 | Not reported | Overt HE | Lactulose 30 cc BID for ≥ 6 mo followed by rifaximin 400 mg TID for ≥ 6 mo | HE grade III or IV: 6% after rifaximin 25% after lactulose (P < 0.001) | Hospitalizations (mean number): 0.5 rifaximin period vs 1.6 lactulose period (P = 0.001) |
Asterixis: 63% after rifaximin vs 93% after lactulose (P < 0.001) | Hospitalizations days (mean): 2.5 rifaximin period vs 7.3 lactulose period (P = 0.001) | ||||||
Diarrhea: 89% during lactulose, 99% during rifaximin | |||||||
Flatulence: 100% during lactulose, 100% during rifaximin | |||||||
Abdominal pain: 100% during lactulose, 100% during rifaximin | |||||||
Headache: 100% during lactulose, 99% during rifaximin | |||||||
However, severe adverse events were more common in the lactulose period (P < 0.001) | |||||||
Bass et al[51] 2010 | Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled | 299 | MELD score (%): | Overt HE | 140 pts 550 mg BID for 6 mo | Rifaximin is more effective than placebo in maintaining HE remission (P < 0.001) | Incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups; most frequently reported: nausea diarrhea, fatigue |
rifaximin | 159 pts placebo | Breakthrough episodes rate: 22.1% rifaximin vs 45.9% placebo | Bacterial peritonitis: 1.4% rifaximin vs 2.5% placebo | ||||
≤ 10: 24.3% | 90% of pts also received lactulose | Risk of HE-related hospitalization: 13.6% rifaximin vs 22.6% placebo (P = 0.01) | Bacteremia: 0.7% rifaximin vs 1.3% placebo | ||||
11-18: 67.1% | C. difficile infection: 1.4% rifaximin vs 0% placebo | ||||||
19-24: 8.6% | Sepsis: 0% rifaximin vs 1.3% placebo | ||||||
placebo: | |||||||
≤ 10: 30.2% | |||||||
11-18: 60.4% | |||||||
19-24: 8.8% | |||||||
Bajaj et al[59] 2011 | Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled | 42 | MELD score (mean) | Minimal HE | 21 pts rifaximin 550 mg BID | Total driving errors improvement: 76% rifaximin vs 31% placebo (P = 0.013), with a significant reduction of speeding tickets (P = 0.005) and illegal turns on navigation (P = 0.01) | Infections rate: 0% |
rifaximin: 9 | 21 pts placebo for 8-wk | Hospitalization rate: 0% | |||||
placebo: 9 | Nausea: 14% rifaximin vs 14% placebo | ||||||
Cognitive performance improvement: 91% rifaximin vs 61% placebo (P = 0.01) | Self-limited vomiting: 5% rifaximin vs 5% placebo | ||||||
Improved psycho-social dimension (quality of life assessment by Sickness Impact Profile questionnaire) in the rifaximin group compared with the placebo group (P = 0.04) | Abdominal pain: 24% rifaximin vs 24% placebo | ||||||
Flatulence: 19% rifaximin vs 43% placebo | |||||||
Headache: 19% rifaximin vs 33% placebo | |||||||
Flu-like symptoms: 5% rifaximin | |||||||
Constipation: 5% rifaximin | |||||||
Self-limited diarrhea: 5% rifaximin vs 5% placebo | |||||||
Hitching: 5% placebo | |||||||
Anorexia and dry mouth: 5% placebo | |||||||
Neff et al[52] 2012 | Retrospective | 203 | MELD score (mean, range): | Overt HE | 149 pts rifaximin monotherapy (400-1600 mg/d) | 1-yr HE remission rate: 81% rifaximin vs 67% rifaximin + lactulose | Incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding, infection, hospitalization for dehydration/overt HE similar in both groups |
rifaximin 12 (8-27) | 54 pts rifaximin (600-1200 mg/d) + lactulose (90 mL/d) dual therapy | Lower incidence of overt HE episodes in pts with mean MELD score ≤ 20 | |||||
rifaximin + lactulose 13 (11-26) | |||||||
Bajaj et al[62] 2013 | Prospective | 20 | MELD score (mean ± SD): 9.8 ± 3.3 | Minimal HE | 550 mg BID for 8 wk | Significant improvement in cognitive performance on all tests apart from the block design test | Not reported |
Significant improvement in serum bilirubin but not the other MELD score components | |||||||
No significant microbial change (modest reduction in Veillonellaceae and increase in Eubacteriaceae) | |||||||
Significant increase in serum saturated (myristic, caprylic, palmitic, palmitoleic, oleic and eicosanoic) and unsaturated (linoleic, linolenic, gamma-linolenic and arachnidonic) fatty acids, serum fructose, succinic acid and citramalic acid | |||||||
Change in correlation networks involving several bacteria (Enterobacteriaceae, Bacteroidaceae, Veillonellaceae, Porphyromonadaceae and Rikenellaceae) reflecting a functional shift in the gut microbiome | |||||||
Sharma et al[53] 2013 | Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled | 120 | CTP score (mean ± SD): | Overt HE | group A (63 pts): lactulose + rifaximin 1200 mg/d | HE remission rate: 76% group A vs 50.8% group B (P < 0.004) | Diarrhea: 13% group A vs 10% group B (P > 0.05) |
group A 9.9 ± 2.8 | group B (57 pts): lactulose + placebo | Mortality: 23.8% group A vs 49.1% group B (P < 0.05). Death was mainly due to sepsis | Abdominal pain: 6% group A vs 7% group B (P > 0.05) | ||||
group B 9.4 ± 2.5 | Hospital stay (mean ± SD): 5.8 ± 3.4 in group A vs 8.2 ± 4.6 group B (P = 0.001) | ||||||
MELD score (mean ± SD): | |||||||
group A 24.9 ± 6.6 | |||||||
group B 23.8 ± 5.18 | |||||||
Maharshi et al[54] 2014 | Prospective, randomized, controlled | 120 pts with acute variceal bleeding and no HE | CTP and MELD scores comparable between groups but not reported | Overt HE | 60 pts lactulose 30 mL QID | Incidence of HE: 15% rifaximin vs 17% lactulose (P = 1) | Rifaximn group: 5% abdominal pain and nausea |
60 pts rifaximin 400 mg TID | Mortality: 17% rifaximin vs 13% lactulose (P = 1) | Lactulose group: 26.6% diarrhea, 15% abdominal bloating | |||||
for 5 d | Hospital stay (mean ± SD): 10.6 ± 3.1 d rifaximin vs 12.4 ± 3.5 lactulose (pts with HE, P = 0.35); 6.3 ± 1.6 rifaximin vs 6.9 ± 1.9 lactulose (pts without HE, P = 0.18) | ||||||
Sharma et al[55] 2014 | Prospective, randomized, controlled | 124 | CTP | Minimal HE | 31 pts LOLA 3 g TID for 2 mo | LOLA, rifaximin, and probiotics are superior to placebo in improving critical flicker frequency score | Not reported |
LOLA | 31 pts rifaximin 400 mg TID for 2 mo | LOLA, rifaximin, and probiotics are superior to placebo in improving neuropsychometric tests | |||||
A: 22.5%, B: 42%, C: 35.5% | 32 pts probiotics BID for 2 mo | ||||||
rifaximn | 30 pts placebo | ||||||
A: 39%, B: 32%, C: 29% | |||||||
probiotics | |||||||
A: 19%, B: 66%, C: 16% | |||||||
placebo | |||||||
A: 33%, B: 27%, C: 40% |
- Citation: Ponziani FR, Gerardi V, Pecere S, D’Aversa F, Lopetuso L, Zocco MA, Pompili M, Gasbarrini A. Effect of rifaximin on gut microbiota composition in advanced liver disease and its complications. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21(43): 12322-12333
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v21/i43/12322.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i43.12322