Loading…
Efficacy of vasopressin V2 receptor antagonist tolvaptan in treatment of hepatic edema
Aim Tolvaptan, an oral active vasopressin V2 receptor antagonist, is widely used for hepatic edema in Japan, but its clinical benefits have yet to be fully clarified. The present study evaluated the efficacy of tolvaptan in hepatic edema. Methods The efficacy and treatment regimen of tolvaptan were...
Saved in:
Published in: | Hepatology research 2017-05, Vol.47 (6), p.542-557 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Aim
Tolvaptan, an oral active vasopressin V2 receptor antagonist, is widely used for hepatic edema in Japan, but its clinical benefits have yet to be fully clarified. The present study evaluated the efficacy of tolvaptan in hepatic edema.
Methods
The efficacy and treatment regimen of tolvaptan were evaluated in 150 patients with hepatic edema by analyzing the initial (day 14) and long‐term (day 90) responses to the drug and their predictive factors. All patients were divided into good (Child–Pugh classification B, and absent of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma) and poor hepatic condition groups, and the response rates were compared between the two groups.
Results
The initial response rate was 62%, and the long‐term response rate was 47%. The assessment of predictive factors for response to tolvaptan showed that serum creatinine and C‐reactive protein levels were important predictors of initial response, and that hepatic conditions, such as the Child–Pugh score or presence of hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as initial response, were significant predictors of long‐term response. In addition, both the initial and long‐term response rates and the cumulative survival rate were found to be higher in the good hepatic condition group than in the poor hepatic condition group, respectively (71% vs. 57%, P = 0.113; 62% vs. 39%, P = 0.009; log–rank test, P |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1386-6346 1872-034X |
DOI: | 10.1111/hepr.12778 |