The authors of the Cochrane review graded the evidence as high quality for hepatic encephalopathy. However, there was moderate heterogeneity of their results, which raises concerns about validity and applicability. In addition, most trials were non-blinded, small, and judged to be at “high risk of bias.” The ‘high quality’ grade here seems highly debatable; and a large, well-done clinical trial may easily upend these findings.
The review also pooled trials using different forms of BCAA. Nine assessed oral and seven assessed intravenous administration, with only oral showing a statistical benefit. In addition, assessing hepatic encephalopathy is fraught with subjectivity and disagreement. For instance, many studies in this review used the PSE index, which the Food and Drug Administration has rejected as inadequate. This is mainly due to the inclusion of blood ammonia levels and severity of asterixis. The utility of ammonia level is controversial given that ammonia concentration is not useful for screening for hepatic encephalopathy since their levels vary if they are arterial or venous.
, In addition too, due to the fact that these levels are significantly affected by collection techniques and can be falsely elevated if the sample was collected after fist clenching, using tourniquet, or if the sample was not placed on ice.
Also, asterixis is not specific to HE as it can also be observed in patients with other forms of metabolic encephalopathies such as in uremia and respiratory failure.
Without blinded assessors, a method not used in most trials here, and a validated scale, it is difficult to have confidence in these findings. This is particularly true when the only objective outcome, mortality, showed no difference between groups.
The yellow color recommendation (unclear benefits) is based on the inconclusive data supporting benefits of BCAA for hepatic encephalopathy.
The original manuscript was published in
Medicine by the Numbers, American Family Physician as part of the partnership between TheNNT.com and AFP.