Background The role of artificial and bioartificial liver support systems in acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is still controversial. We aimed to perform the first network meta-analysis comparing and ranking different liver support systems and standard medical therapy (SMT) in patients with ACLF. Methods The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020155850). A systematic search was conducted in five databases. We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of artificial or bioartificial liver support systems on survival in patients with ACLF. Ranking was performed by calculating the surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve values. The RoB2 tool and a modified GRADE approach were used for the assessment of the risk of bias and quality of evidence (QE). Results In the quantitative synthesis 16 trials were included, using MARS®, Prometheus®, ELAD®, plasma exchange (PE) and BioLogic-DT®. Overall (OS) and transplant-free (TFS) survival were assessed at 1 and 3 months. PE significantly improved 3-month OS compared to SMT (RR 0.74, CrI: 0.6–0.94) and ranked first on the cumulative ranking curves for both OS outcomes (SUCRA: 86% at 3 months; 77% at 1 month) and 3-month TFS (SUCRA: 87%) and second after ELAD for 1-month TFS (SUCRA: 76%). Other comparisons did not reach statistical significance. QE was moderate for PE concerning 1-month OS and both TFS outcomes. Other results were of very low certainty. Conclusion PE seems to be the best currently available liver support therapy in ACLF regarding 3-month OS. Based on the low QE, randomized trials are needed to confirm our findings for already existing options and to introduce new devices.

Acute liver failure (ALF) is a potentially life-threatening condition. Liver support therapies can be applied as a bridging-to-transplantation or bridging-to-recovery; however, results of clinical trials are controversial. Our aim was to compare liver support systems in acute and hyperacute liver failure with network meta-analysis. After systematic search, randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing liver support therapies in adults with acute or hyperacute liver failure were included. In-hospital mortality was the primary outcome, the secondary outcomes were hepatic encephalopathy and mortality-by-aetiology. A Bayesian-method was used to perform network meta-analysis and calculate surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values to rank interventions. Eleven RCTs were included. BioLogic-DT and molecular adsorbent recirculating system (MARS) resulted in the lowest mortality (SUCRAs: 76% and 73%, respectively). In non-paracetamol-poisoned patients, BioLogic-DT, charcoal hemoperfusion and MARS may be equally efficient regarding mortality (SUCRAs: 53%, 52% and 52%, respectively). Considering hepatic encephalopathy, extracorporeal liver assist device (ELAD) may be the most effective option (SUCRA: 78%). However, in pairwise meta-analysis, there were no statistically significant differences between the interventions in the outcomes. In conclusion, MARS therapy seems to be the best available option in reducing mortality. Further research is needed on currently available and new therapeutic modalities. (CRD42020160133).

Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected patients treated with direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are still at risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after sustained virologic response (SVR). This study aimed to investigate the role of diabetes mellitus (DM) as a potential predictive risk factor in developing de novo HCC in HCV-infected patients after DAA treatment.Methods: This study was registered on PROSPERO under registration number CRD42021230457. We performed a systematic search in four medical databases from inception through November 3rd, 2020. Studies were eligible if they reported on HCV-infected patients treated with DAAs and compared the frequency of de novo HCC in patients with and without DM. We calculated pooled odds ratios, unadjusted (UHR), and adjusted hazard ratios (AHR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in meta-analysis.Results: We included 30 articles in our systematic review and meta-analysis. DM proved to be a significant risk factor of HCC in DAA-treated HCV patients in unadjusted (UHR = 1.44, CI: 1.15–1.79) and adjusted analyses (AHR = 1.31, CI: 1.06–1.62). In the group of patients achieving SVR after DAA therapy, DM increased the risk of HCC in unadjusted (UHR = 1.3, CI: 1.09–1.51) analysis; however, in adjusted results, the risk was non-significant (AHR = 1.07, CI: 0.89–1.28). In patients with advanced liver fibrosis, DM was a risk factor for HCC in adjusted (AHR = 1.36, CI: 1.03–1.8), but not in unadjusted analysis (UHR = 1.11, CI: 0.8–1.42).Conclusions: DM is an independent risk factor of de novo HCC after DAA treatment in HCV-infected patients.Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=230457, identifier: CRD42021230457.