Colchicine for primary biliary cirrhosis

Botanical Drug Extracts Combined With Biomaterial Carriers for Osteoarthritis Cartilage Degeneration Treatment: A Review of 10 Years of Research

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a long-term chronic arthrosis disease which is usually characterized by pain, swelling, joint stiffness, reduced range of motion, and other clinical manifestations and even results in disability in severe cases. The main pathological manifestation of OA is the degeneration of cartilage. However, due to the special physiological structure of the cartilage, once damaged, it is unable to repair itself, which is one of the challenges of treating OA clinically. Abundant studies have reported the application of cartilage tissue engineering in OA cartilage repair. Among them, cell combined with biological carrier implantation has unique advantages. However, cell senescence, death and dedifferentiation are some problems when cultured in vitro. Botanical drug remedies for OA have a long history in many countries in Asia. In fact, botanical drug extracts (BDEs) have great potential in anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antiaging, and other properties, and many studies have confirmed their effects. BDEs combined with cartilage tissue engineering has attracted increasing attention in recent years. In this review, we will explain in detail how cartilage tissue engineering materials and BDEs play a role in cartilage repair, as well as the current research status.

Reversine and herbal Xiang-Sha-Liu-Jun-Zi decoction ameliorate thioacetamide-induced hepatic injury by regulating the RelA/NF-κB/caspase signaling pathway

This study investigated the anti-fibrotic effects of reversine and Chinese medicine Xiang–Sha–Liu–Jun–Zi decoction (XSLJZD) on thioacetamide (TAA)-induced hepatic injury. Sprague-Dawley rats were intraperitoneally administered with TAA, then injected with reversine intraperitoneally, and/or orally provided with XSLJZD. TAA resulted in liver injury with increases in the liver index and levels of serum aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase. Reversine alleviated the liver index and AST level and improved TAA-induced pathological changes but decreased TAA-induced collagen deposition, and α-smooth muscle actin and transforming growth factor-β1 expression. Reversine also modulated the mRNA levels of inflammatory cytokines, such as RelA, interleukin (IL)-17A, IL-22, IL-1β, IL-6, NLR family pyrin domain containing 3, platelet-derived growth factor, and monocyte chemoattractant protein, and suppressed nuclear factor (NF)-κB (p65) phosphorylation and caspase 1 activation. Meanwhile, XSLJZD protected TAA-injured liver without increasing fibrosis and enhanced the regulating effect of reversine on RelA, IL-17A, IL-1β, and MCP-1 cytokines. In conclusion, reversine ameliorates liver injury and inhibits inflammation reaction by regulating NF-κB, and XSLJZD protects the liver through its synergistic effect with reversine on regulating inflammatory cytokines.

Pharmacological interventions for primary biliary cholangitis: an attempted network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Primary biliary cholangitis (previously primary biliary cirrhosis) is a chronic liver disease caused by the destruction of small intra-hepatic bile ducts resulting in stasis of bile (cholestasis), liver fibrosis, and liver cirrhosis. The optimal pharmacological treatment of primary biliary cholangitis remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different pharmacological interventions in the treatment of primary biliary cholangitis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available pharmacological interventions according to their safety and efficacy. However, it was not possible to assess whether the potential effect modifiers were similar across different comparisons. Therefore, we did not perform the network meta-analysis, and instead, assessed the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions using standard Cochrane methodology.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and randomised controlled trials registers to February 2017 to identify randomised clinical trials on pharmacological interventions for primary biliary cholangitis.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in participants with primary biliary cholangitis. We excluded trials which included participants who had previously undergone liver transplantation. We considered any of the various pharmacological interventions compared with each other or with placebo or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on available-participant analysis with Review Manager 5. We assessed risk of bias according to Cochrane, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 74 trials including 5902 participants that met the inclusion criteria of this review. A total of 46 trials (4274 participants) provided information for one or more outcomes. All the trials were at high risk of bias in one or more domains. Overall, all the evidence was low or very low quality. The proportion of participants with symptoms varied from 19.9% to 100% in the trials that reported this information. The proportion of participants who were antimitochondrial antibody (AMA) positive ranged from 80.8% to 100% in the trials that reported this information. It appeared that most trials included participants who had not received previous treatments or included participants regardless of the previous treatments received. The follow-up in the trials ranged from 1 to 96 months.The proportion of people with mortality (maximal follow-up) was higher in the methotrexate group versus the no intervention group (OR 8.83, 95% CI 1.01 to 76.96; 60 participants; 1 trial; low quality evidence). The proportion of people with mortality (maximal follow-up) was lower in the azathioprine group versus the no intervention group (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.98; 224 participants; 2 trials; I2 = 0%; low quality evidence). However, it has to be noted that a large proportion of participants (25%) was excluded from the trial that contributed most participants to this analysis and the results were not reliable. There was no evidence of a difference in any of the remaining comparisons. The proportion of people with serious adverse events was higher in the D-penicillamine versus no intervention group (OR 28.77, 95% CI 1.57 to 526.67; 52 participants; 1 trial; low quality evidence). The proportion of people with serious adverse events was higher in the obeticholic acid plus ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) group versus the UDCA group (OR 3.58, 95% CI 1.02 to 12.51; 216 participants; 1 trial; low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in any of the remaining comparisons for serious adverse events (proportion) or serious adverse events (number of events). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life at any time point.

FUNDING

nine trials had no special funding or were funded by hospital or charities; 31 trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies; and 34 trials provided no information on source of funding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on very low quality evidence, there is currently no evidence that any intervention is beneficial for primary biliary cholangitis. However, the follow-up periods in the trials were short and there is significant uncertainty in this issue. Further well-designed randomised clinical trials are necessary. Future randomised clinical trials ought to be adequately powered; performed in people who are generally seen in the clinic rather than in highly selected participants; employ blinding; avoid post-randomisation dropouts or planned cross-overs; should have sufficient follow-up period (e.g. five or 10 years or more); and use clinically important outcomes such as mortality, health-related quality of life, cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, and liver transplantation. Alternatively, very large groups of participants should be randomised to facilitate shorter trial duration.

Obeticholic Acid

Objective: To review the pharmacology, efficacy, and safety of obeticholic acid (OCA) and determine its clinical role relative to other agents in the treatment of patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC). Data Sources: A PubMed search (1946 to November 2016) was conducted using the terms INT-747, obeticholic acid, OCA, farnesoid X receptor agonists, FXR agonists, primary biliary cirrhosis, and primary biliary cholangitis. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Phase II and III studies evaluating the use of OCA in PBC patients were included in this review. Data Synthesis: OCA, a farnesoid X receptor (FXR) agonist, is indicated for adult patients with PBC in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) or as monotherapy if unable to tolerate UDCA. Two clinical trials were identified evaluating OCA for the treatment of PBC. Study end points utilized biochemical markers (alkaline phosphatase [ALP] and bilirubin). A phase II study (n = 165) to determine efficacy and safety of OCA at 3 different doses (10 mg, 25 mg, 50 mg) demonstrated statistically significant reductions in ALP ( P < .0001 for all OCA groups versus placebo) after 12 weeks. A phase III trial (n = 217) assessed lower OCA doses (5 mg and 10 mg) with a longer study duration (12 months). Statistically significant differences ( P < .001) between the 5 to 10 mg group (46%) and the 10 mg group (47%) compared to the placebo group (10%) were found. The primary adverse effect reported in both trials was pruritus. Conclusions: OCA is the first FXR agonist approved for the treatment of PBC. Ongoing research to evaluate clinical outcomes with OCA is currently underway.

Colchicine for prevention of cardiovascular events

BACKGROUND

Colchicine is an anti-inflammatory drug that is used for a wide range of inflammatory diseases. Cardiovascular disease also has an inflammatory component but the effects of colchicine on cardiovascular outcomes remain unclear. Previous safety analyses were restricted to specific patient populations.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate potential cardiovascular benefits and harms of a continuous long-term treatment with colchicine in any population, and specifically in people with high cardiovascular risk.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry, citations of key papers, and study references in January 2015. We also contacted investigators to gain unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (parallel-group or cluster design or first phases of cross-over studies) comparing colchicine over at least six months versus any control in any adult population.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, stroke, heart failure, non-scheduled hospitalisations, and non-scheduled cardiovascular interventions. We conducted predefined subgroup analyses, in particular for participants with high cardiovascular risk. .

MAIN RESULTS

We included 39 randomised parallel-group trials with 4992 participants. Colchicine had no effect on all-cause mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.09; participants = 4174; studies = 30; I² = 27%; moderate quality of evidence). There is uncertainty surrounding the effect of colchicine in reducing cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.21, I² = 9%; participants = 1132; studies = 7; moderate quality of evidence). Colchicine reduced the risk for total myocardial infarction (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.57; participants = 652; studies = 2; moderate quality of evidence). There was no effect on total adverse events (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.46; participants = 1313; studies = 11; I² = 45%; very low quality of evidence) but gastrointestinal intolerance was increased (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.03 to 3.26; participants = 1258; studies = 11; I² = 74%; low quality of evidence). Colchicine showed no effect on heart failure (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.88; participants = 462; studies = 3; I² = 45%; low quality of evidence) and no effect on stroke (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.70; participants = 874; studies = 3; I² = 45%; low quality of evidence). Reporting of serious adverse events was inconsistent; no event occurred over 824 patient-years (4 trials). Effects on other outcomes were very uncertain. Summary effects of RCTs specifically focusing on participants with high cardiovascular risk were similar (4 trials; 1230 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is much uncertainty surrounding the benefits and harms of colchicine treatment. Colchicine may have substantial benefits in reducing myocardial infarction in selected high-risk populations but uncertainty about the size of the effect on survival and other cardiovascular outcomes is high, especially in the general population from which most of the studies in our review were drawn. Colchicine is associated with gastrointestinal side effects based on low-quality evidence. More evidence from large-scale randomised trials is needed.

Progress in treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis

Primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) is a chronic autoimmune cholestatic liver disease characterized by cholestasis, and it often eventually develops into cirrhosis, portal hypertension and liver failure. Asymptomatic patients typically are diagnosed by the elevation of alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and the presence of anti-mitochondrial antibody (AMA) titers of 1:40 or greater. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) is the only Food and Drug Administration approved treatment for PBC, but it is not universally effective. In patients with UDCA-refractory PBC, additional therapies should be considered, including budesonide, fibrates, obeticholic acid, immunosuppressants and liver transplantation.

Immunosuppressive therapy in immune-mediated liver disease in the non-transplanted patient

Autoimmune liver disease management goals are primarily slowing disease progression and symptomatic treatment. There are few options for curative medical management other than transplant for a spectrum of autoimmune liver disease that encompasses autoimmune hepatitis, primary biliary cirrhosis, primary sclerosing cholangitis as well as their overlap syndromes. These diseases are managed primarily with immunosuppressive therapy. Herein, we review the current literature, detailing the promise and pitfalls of the recommended immunosuppressive therapy for these challenging diseases.

Chlorambucil for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Chlorambucil has been used for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis as it possesses immunosuppressive properties. But it is unknown whether it benefits or harms these patients.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the beneficial and any harmful effects of chlorambucil for primary biliary cirrhosis patients.

SEARCH METHODS

Eligible trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (March 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2012, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1946 to March 2012), EMBASE (1974 to March 2012), Science Citation Index EXPANDED (1900 to March 2012), The Chinese Biomedical Database (1976 to March 2012), The Chinese Medical Current Contents (1994 to March 2012), The China Hospital Knowledge Database (1994 to March 2012), and a database of ongoing trials (http://www.controlled-trials.com/mrct/) (accessed 6 March 2012). The reference lists of the retrieved publications and review articles were also read through, and pharmaceutical companies known to produce chlorambucil were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials, irrespective of language, year of publication, and publication status, comparing chlorambucil at any dose versus placebo, no intervention, another active drug, or one dose of chlorambucil with another dose.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We planned to assess continuous data with mean differences (MD), and dichotomous outcomes with relative risk (RR), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). As we only identified one trial, Fisher's exact tests were employed.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one randomised trial was identified and included in the review. The bias risk in the trial was high. The trial compared chlorambucil versus no intervention in 24 patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. Fisher's exact test did not show a significant reduction of mortality when comparing chlorambucil with no treatment (0/13 (0%) versus (2/11 (18.2%); P = 0.20). There was no significant difference regarding adverse events for chlorambucil compared with no treatment, but all patients receiving chlorambucil experienced adverse events (13/13 (100%) versus (3/11 (27%); P = 0.1). According to the authors of the trial, chlorambucil led to a significant improvement in mean serum levels of bilirubin (P < 0.05), albumin (P < 0.05), immunoglobulin M (P < 0.01), serum aspartate aminotransferase activity (P < 0.01), and hepatic inflammatory infiltrates (P < 0.01).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is not sufficient evidence to support or reject the use of chlorambucil for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. Chlorambucil may show benefit in some unvalidated surrogate outcome measures (for example, serum bilirubin and immunoglobulin M levels). Chlorambucil is, however, connected with a number of adverse events. Bone marrow suppression should be noted in particular. Further randomised clinical trials are necessary to assess the benefits and harms of chlorambucil in this indication.

The diagnosis and treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis

Primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) is a slowly progressive cholestatic liver disease of autoimmune etiology. The initial presentation of PBC is various from asymptomatic, abnormal liver biochemical tests to overt cirrhosis. The diagnosis of PBC is based on cholestatic biochemical liver tests, presence of antimitochondrial antibody and histologic findings of nonsuppurative destructive cholangitis. Although the diagnosis is straightforward, it could be underdiagnosed because of its asymptomatic presentation, or underrecognition of the disease. UDCA in a dose of 13-15 mg/kg is the widely approved therapy which can improve the prognosis of patients with PBC. However, one-third of patients does not respond to UDCA therapy and may require liver transplantation. Every effort to diagnose PBC in earlier stage and to develop new therapeutic drugs and clinical trials should be made.

Methotrexate for primary biliary cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Methotrexate has been used to treat patients with primary biliary cirrhosis as it possesses immunosuppressive properties. The previously prepared version of this review from 2005 showed that methotrexate seemed to significantly increase mortality in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. Since that last review version, follow-up data of the included trials have been published.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of methotrexate for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomised clinical trials were identified by searching The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE (from their inception until September 2009). Reference lists were also read through. Authors of trials were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched to include randomised clinical trials comparing methotrexate with placebo, no intervention, or another drug irrespective of blinding, language, year of publication, or publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Our primary outcomes were mortality, and mortality or liver transplantation combined. Dichotomous outcomes were reported as relative risks (RR) and hazard ratios (HR) if applicable. Continuous outcomes were reported as mean differences (MD).

MAIN RESULTS

Five trials were included. Four trials with 370 patients compared methotrexate with placebo or no intervention (three trials added an equal dose of ursodeoxycholic acid to the intervention groups). The bias risk of these trials was high. We did not find statistically significant effects of methotrexate on mortality (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.64), mortality or liver transplantation combined, pruritus, fatigue, liver complications, liver biochemistry, liver histology, or adverse events. The pruritus score (MD - 0.17, 95% CI - 0.25 to - 0.09) was significantly lower in patients receiving methotrexate. The prothrombin time was significantly worsened in patients receiving methotrexate (MD 1.60 s, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.02). One trial with 85 patients compared methotrexate with colchicine. The trial had low risk of bias. Methotrexate, when compared to colchicine, did not significantly effect mortality, fatigue, liver biopsy, or adverse events. Methotrexate significantly benefited pruritus score (MD - 0.68, 95% CI - 1.11 to - 0.25), serum alkaline phosphatases (MD - 0.41 U/l, 95% CI - 0.70 to - 0.12), and plasma immunoglobulin M (MD - 0.47 mg/dl, 95% CI - 0.74 to - 0.20) compared with colchicine. Other outcomes showed no statistical difference.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Methotrexate had no statistically significant effect on mortality in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis nor the need for liver transplantation. Although methotrexate may benefit other outcomes (pruritus score, serum alkaline phosphatase, immunoglobulin M levels), there is no sufficient evidence to support methotrexate for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis.

Hepatology may have problems with putative surrogate outcome measures

A surrogate outcome measure is a laboratory measurement, a physical sign, or another intermediate substitute that is able to predict an intervention's effect on a clinically meaningful outcome. A clinical outcome detects how a patient feels, functions, or survives. Surrogate outcome measures occur faster or more often, are cheaper, and/or are less invasively achieved than the clinical outcome. In practice, validation is surprisingly often overlooked, especially if a biologic plausible rationale is proposed. Surrogate outcomes must be validated before use. The first step in validation is to demonstrate a correlation between the putative surrogate and the clinical outcome, e.g., the higher the surrogate the shorter time to death. However, a correlation is not sufficient to validate the surrogate. The second step is to establish if the intervention's effect on the surrogate outcome accurately predicts the intervention's effect on the clinical outcome. In hepatology a number of putative surrogate outcomes are used both in clinical research and in clinical practice without having been properly validated. Sustained virological response to interferons and ribavirin in patients with chronic hepatitis C, serum bilirubin concentration following ursodeoxycholic acid or immunosuppressants for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis, and nutritional outcomes following artificial nutrition for liver patients may not be valid surrogates for morbidity or mortality. The challenge is to develop reliable surrogates, both to facilitate the development of new interventions and to ensure our patients and us that these interventions are effective clinically.

Causes and consequences of ischemic-type biliary lesions after liver transplantation

Biliary complications are a major source of morbidity, graft loss, and even mortality after liver transplantation. The most troublesome are the so-called ischemic-type biliary lesions (ITBL), with an incidence varying between 5% and 15%. ITBL is a radiological diagnosis, characterized by intrahepatic strictures and dilatations on a cholangiogram, in the absence of hepatic artery thrombosis. Several risk factors for ITBL have been identified, strongly suggesting a multifactorial origin. The main categories of risk factors for ITBL include ischemia-related injury; immunologically induced injury; and cytotoxic injury, induced by bile salts. However, in many cases no specific risk factor can be identified. Ischemia-related injury comprises prolonged ischemic times and disturbance in blood flow through the peribiliary vascular plexus. Immunological injury is assumed to be a risk factor based on the relationship of ITBL with ABO incompatibility, polymorphism in genes coding for chemokines, and pre-existing immunologically mediated diseases such as primary sclerosing cholangitis and autoimmune hepatitis. The clinical presentation of patients with ITBL is often not specific; symptoms may include fever, abdominal complaints, and increased cholestasis on liver function tests. Diagnosis is made by imaging studies of the bile ducts. Treatment starts with relieving the symptoms of cholestasis and dilatation by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP) or percutaneous transhepatic cholangiodrainage (PTCD), followed by stenting if possible. Eventually up to 50% of the patients with ITBL will require a retransplantation or may die. In selected patients, a retransplantation can be avoided or delayed by resection of the extra-hepatic bile ducts and construction of a hepaticojejunostomy. More research on the pathogenesis of ITBL is needed before more specific preventive or therapeutic strategies can be developed.