CHAMGAP
APPROVEDReviewed and approved by the Chamgap Editorial Team (2026-07-23). The draft was written by AI, the existence of all 3 cited sources was verified at the original page, and the verdict passed blind grading and adversarial audit. Methodology v0.6.
Verdict No. 1472 · Search date 2026-07-23 · Methodology v0.6

Human albumin 20%,
does it really help with Reduced mortality and hospitalization with long-term weekly administration in decompensated cirrhosis with ascites?

30-Second Summary
B
Evidence Grade B · 68 · Safety unknown
Promising for selected outpatients with cirrhotic ascites, but generalization is limited by one open trial and conflicting evidence
What the
research shows
Long-term human albumin 20% is rated B because it may reduce mortality and hospitalization in selected outpatients with decompensated cirrhosis and ascites. In the open-label randomized ANSWER trial of 431 participants, 18-month survival was 77% versus 66%, with a mortality hazard ratio of 0.62, and ascites-related admissions and paracenteses also decreased. However, this was a single open-label trial; the double-blind MACHT trial using lower-dose albumin plus midodrine in transplant-waitlisted patients showed no complication or survival benefit, and randomized-trial meta-analysis did not establish a mortality benefit. The hard-endpoint signal is accepted, but the open single-trial design and conflicting evidence give B with 68 points.
What the
ads claim
Promotion may simplify the evidence into raising albumin levels improves survival in every cirrhosis patient. The evidence concerns a specific prolonged high-dose protocol in selected outpatients with ascites and asks a different question from short-term albumin use for acute indications.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • Human albumin 20% is a concentrated plasma-fractionated intravenous biologic requiring prescription and clinician administration; it is not a dietary protein supplement.
  • The ANSWER protocol used 40 g twice weekly for the first two weeks and then weekly; it is not equivalent to arbitrary low-dose or intermittent administration.
  • Blood pressure, respiratory status, volume state, and renal function require monitoring because volume overload, pulmonary edema, and allergic reactions can occur.
  • Cost, venous access, and repeated visits are substantial burdens, and patient selection and stopping rules should be decided by a liver specialist.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 1472 · B 68
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

ANSWER added albumin 40 g twice weekly for the first two weeks and then weekly for up to 18 months to standard treatment. It improved 18-month survival, ascites control, and hospital use. MACHT randomized 196 transplant-waitlisted patients with ascites to midodrine plus albumin 40 g every 15 days or placebo and did not improve complications or survival. A 2021 meta-analysis of five randomized trials and 716 participants reduced ascites recurrence or paracentesis need but found no significant mortality difference. The approach is promising in a defined dose and population but needs standardized independent replication.

02

Why this is classified as B (68)

ANSWER's mortality HR of 0.62 and reductions in admissions and paracenteses are direct hard-endpoint benefits. Because it was one open-label trial and mortality findings conflict with MACHT and randomized-trial meta-analysis, the open-trial ceiling gives B with 68 points.

Counterpoint. For properly selected patients, improved ascites control and lower health-care use may be practical benefits. This is not a self-purchased or self-injected treatment, and acute albumin indications should not be confused with long-term disease-modifying use.

Rejudgment record. Cross-check applied — Accepted the randomized hard-endpoint benefit in ANSWER while applying the open single-trial ceiling and incorporating the null MACHT result, nonsignificant mortality in randomized-trial meta-analysis, and heterogeneity of dose and population. At cross-check the score was lowered to 68 because, beyond the null blinded MACHT trial, a five-trial meta-analysis also failed to confirm a mortality reduction (grade B retained).

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
Reduction in all-cause mortality with long-term weekly administrationBANSWER found HR 0.62, but it was one open-label trial and MACHT and meta-analysis did not reproduce the finding.
Reduction in ascites-related hospitalizationBANSWER found fewer admissions, but the open design and specific outpatient population and dose limit generalizability.
Reduction in need for therapeutic paracentesisBANSWER and randomized-trial meta-analysis show a consistent reduction signal, but treatment burden and patient selection matter.

Cross-check — Codex and Claude

This verdict was drafted by Codex through literature review and source-existence checks, cross-checked through blind grading and adversarial audit, and settled by reapplying the methodology boundary rules. Cases with split grades were resolved through rejudgment.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Caraceni P et al. ANSWER. 2018Multicenter open-label randomized controlled trial431Noncommercial public support including the Italian Medicines Agency18-month overall survival; ascites complications, admissions, and paracenteses18-month survival was 77% versus 66%; mortality HR 0.62, with fewer ascites-related admissions and paracenteses.Key direct hard-endpoint evidence
Solà E et al. MACHT. 2018Multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial196Academic and public researchCirrhosis complications and survivalMidodrine plus albumin 40 g every 15 days did not improve complications or survival.Conflicting direct evidence
Sandi BB et al. 2021Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials716Reported academic researchMortality, ascites recurrence or paracentesis, and complicationsAscites recurrence or paracentesis need fell with RR 0.56, but mortality did not differ significantly.Synthesis and uncertainty
§

Receipt — 3 References

All 3 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-07-23).

Caraceni P, Riggio O, Angeli P, et al.; ANSWER Study Investigators. Long-term albumin administration in decompensated cirrhosis (ANSWER): an open-label randomised trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10138):2417-2429. PMID: 29861076. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30840-7.
checked
Solà E, Solé C, Simón-Talero M, et al. Midodrine and albumin for prevention of complications in patients with cirrhosis awaiting liver transplantation: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. J Hepatol. 2018;69(6):1250-1259. PMID: 30138685. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.08.006.
checked
Sandi BB, Leão GS, de Mattos AA, de Mattos AZ. Long-term albumin administration in patients with cirrhosis and ascites: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;36(3):609-617. PMID: 32914468. DOI: 10.1111/jgh.15253.
checked
Draft and rewrite: Codex (AI) · Verification: Codex blind grading and adversarial audit · Final adjudication: Claude
Reviewed and approved: Chamgap Editorial Team · Approval date: 2026-07-23 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

Human albumin 20% x Reduced mortality and hospitalization with long-term weekly administration in decompensated cirrhosis with ascites Evidence Grade B card
[Chamgap] Human albumin 20% x Reduced mortality and hospitalization with long-term weekly administration in decompensated cirrhosis with ascites — Evidence Grade B·68. 3 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/liver/human-albumin-20-percent-long-term-decompensated-cirrhosis-survival-hospitalization/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.