A283 HETEROGENEITY OF TREATMENT RESPONSE TO BETA-BLOCKERS IN THE TREATMENT OF PORTAL HYPERTENSION RELATED TO CIRRHOSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Non-selective beta-blockers (BB) improve clinical outcomes in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. However, it has been suggested that only a proportion of patients treated with BB benefit from them. Indeed, patients who achieve a ampersand:003E20% reduction in Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient (HVPG) with BB have an excellent prognosis, but only 30-50% achieve such response. This has been suggested as a reason for not using BB where no HVPG measurements are available. Aims In this study we aimed to quantify how heterogeneous is the response to BB in patients with cirrhosis, by analyzing trials in which the effects of BB on HVPG were compared with those of placebo. Methods For assessing the potential heterogeneity of treatment response to BB we conducted a meta-analysis of differences in variance between trial arms. The degree of heterogeneity of HVPG response to BB was quantified with the pooled variability ratio (VR) (SD of the HVPG at the end of the trial in the BB group divided by that in the placebo group). Results Our systematic search yielded 18 studies. Figure 1 shows a forest plot with the meta-analysis of the variability ratios (VR) in final HVPG. Pooled VR was 0.99 (95% CI 0.87-1.14). This indicates that there was no evidence for a higher average variability in the final HVPG in the beta-blocker treatment groups as compared to placebo groups, and hence there was no evidence to support that patients with cirrhosis exhibit a heterogeneous response to beta-blockers (i.e. there is no evidence to support that some patients responded to beta-blockers and others did not). Conclusions In conclusion, the analysis of RCTs comparing the HVPG response of beta-blockers with placebo in patients with cirrhosis does not suggest a heterogeneous hemodynamic response to beta-blockers. This, together with the fact that in most RCTs demonstrating the clinical benefits of beta-blockers treatment was not adjusted based on HVPG response, further supports the concept that there is no need to perform portal pressure measurements to guide treatment with beta-blockers. Funding Agencies None
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.049 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".