Liv. 52 in alcoholic liver disease: a prospective controlled trial

Abstract

Liv.52, a hepatoprotective agent of herbal origin, is used empirically for the treatment of alcoholic liver disease in Sri Lanka. We conducted acontrolled trial to assess the efficacy of Liv.52 in patients with alcoholic liver disease. Patients with evidence of alcoholic liver disease attending outpatient clinics were included in a prospective, double blind, randomized, placebo controlled trial. During the trial period, 80 patients who fulfilled inclusion criteria were randomly assigned Liv.52 (cases; n = 40) or placebo (controls) the recommended dose of three capsules twice daily for 6 months. All patients underwent clinical examination (for which a clinical score was computed), and laboratory investigations for routine blood chemistry and liver function before commencement of therapy (baseline). Thereafter, clinical assessments were done monthly for 6 months, while laboratory investigations were done after 1 and 6 months of therapy. There was no significant difference in the age composition, alcohol intake and baseline liver function between the two groups. The two-sample t-test was used to analyze data obtained after 1 and 6 months of therapy against baseline values. There was no significant difference in clinical outcome and liver chemistry between the two groups at any time point. There were no reports of adverse effects attributable to the drug. Our results suggest that Liv.52 may not be useful in the management of patients with alcohol induced liver disease.

Liv.52, a hepatoprotective agent of herbal origin, is used empirically for the treatment of alcoholic liver disease in Sri Lanka. We conducted a controlled trial to assess the efficacy of Liv.52 in patients with alcoholic liver disease. Patients with evidence of alcoholic liver disease attending outpatient clinics were included in a prospective, double blind, randomized, placebo controlled trial. During the trial period, 80 patients who fulfilled inclusion criteria were randomly assigned Liv.52 (cases; n=40) or placebo (controls) the recommended dose of three capsules twice daily for 6 months. All patients underwent clinical examination (for which a clinical score was computed), and laboratory investigations for routine blood chemistry and liver function before commencement of therapy (baseline). Thereafter, clinical assessments were done monthly for 6 months, while laboratory investigations were done after 1 and 6 months of therapy. There was no significant difference in the age composition, alcohol intake and baseline liver function between the two groups. The two-sample t-test was used to analyze data obtained after 1 and 6 months of therapy against baseline values. There was no significant difference in clinical outcome and liver chemistry between the two groups at any time point. There were no reports of adverse effects attributable to the drug. Our results suggest that Liv.52 may not be useful in the management of patients with alcohol induced liver disease.