Chlorambucil for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis

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.

Primary biliary cirrhosis: From bench to bedside

Primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) is a chronic non-suppurative destructive intrahepatic cholangitis leading to cirrhosis after a protractive non cirrhotic stage. The etiology and pathogenesis are largely unknown and autoimmne mechanisms have been implicated to explain the pathological lesions. Many epitopes and autoantigens have been reported as crucial in the pathophysiology of the disease and T and B cells abnormalities have been described, the exact pathways leading to the destruction of small intrahepatic ductules are mostly speculative. In this review we examined the various epidemiologal and geoepidemiological data as well as the complex pathogenetic aspects of this disease, focusing on recent in vivo and in vitro studies in this field. Initiation and progression of PBC is believed to be a multifactorial process with strong infuences from the patient’s genetic background and by various environmental factors. The role of innate and adaptive immunity, including cytokines, chemokines, macrophages and the involvement of apoptosis and reactive oxygen species are outlined in detailed. The current pathogenetic aspects are presented and a novel pathogenetic theory unifying the accumulated clinical information with in vitro and in vivo data is formulated. A review of clinical manifestations and immunological and pathological diagnosis was presented. Treatment modalities, including the multiple mechanisms of action of ursodeoxycholate were finally discussed.

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.