Bezafibrate for primary biliary cirrhosis

Update on Emerging Treatment Options for Primary Biliary Cholangitis

Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) is a rare autoimmune cholestatic liver disease that may progress to fibrosis or cirrhosis. Treatment options are currently limited. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) remains first-line therapy and has been proven to normalize serum biochemistries, halt histologic disease progression, and lead to patient survival comparable to the general population. Obeticholic acid (OCA) was recently approved as adjunct therapy in PBC patients with inadequate response or intolerance to UDCA. However, OCA has been associated with worsening pruritus in clinical studies which may limit its use in this patient population. Several studies are currently underway to address the lack of treatment options for PBC. Of these, fibrates, which have been used in Japan for over a decade, have produced promising results. Furthermore, as currently approved therapies for PBC do not address the potentially debilitating clinical symptoms of PBC such as pruritus and fatigue, supplemental therapy is often required for symptom control.

Association between plasma gamma-glutamyltransferase fractions and metabolic syndrome among hypertensive patients

Among the risk factors associated to metabolic syndrome (MetS), hypertension shows the highest prevalence in Italy. We investigated the relationship between the newly identified serum γ-glutamyltransferase (GGT) fractions, b- s- m- f-GGT, and risk factors associated to MetS in hypertensive patients. A total of ninety-five consecutive hypertensive patients were enrolled. GGT fractions were analysed by gel-filtration chromatography, and hepatic steatosis was evaluated by ultrasound. MetS was diagnosed in 36% of patients. Considering the whole group, b- and f-GGT showed the highest positive correlation with BMI, glucose, triglycerides and insulin, and the highest negative correlation with HDL cholesterol. While both serum triglycerides and insulin were independently associated with b-GGT levels, only triglycerides were independently associated with f-GGT. The values of b-GGT activity increased with steatosis grade (g0 = 1.19; g2 = 3.29; ratio g2/g0 = 2.75, p < 0.0001 linear trend). Patients with MetS showed higher levels of b-GGT, m-GGT and f-GGT [median (25^th-75^th) U/L: 3.19 (1.50-6.59); 0.55 (0.26-0.81); 10.3 (9.1-13.6); respectively] as compared to subjects presenting with one or two MetS criteria [1.75 (0.95-2.85), p < 0.001; 0.33 (0.19-0.60), p < 0.05; 8.8 (7.0-10.6), p < 0.001]. Our data point to a potential role for b- and f-GGT fractions in identifying MetS patients among hypertensive subjects, thus providing a minimally invasive blood-based tool for MetS diagnosis.

Why Doesn't Primary Biliary Cholangitis Respond to Immunosuppressive Medications?

Purpose of Review

The purpose of this review is to discuss reasons why immunosuppressive therapy so far failed in Primary Biliry Cholangitis.

Recent Findings

Even targeted immunosuppressive therapy seems ineffective or potentially harmful.

Summary

Bile acid-mediated cholangiocyte damage, facilitated by insufficient bicarbonate secretion, seems to attenuate the anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrotic actions of immunosuppressant and immunomodulatory drugs in a clinically significant way.

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.

Systematic review and meta-analysis: bezafibrate in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) is the standard treatment for primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC), but not all cases respond well. Evidence has shown that combination therapy of UDCA with bezafibrate significantly improved liver function. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of UDCA and bezafibrate combination therapy in the treatment of PBC.

RESULTS

Nine trials, with a total of 269 patients, were included in the analysis. The bias risk of these trials was high. Compared with UDCA alone, the combination with bezafibrate improved the Mayo risk score (mean difference [MD], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.95; P=0.0008) and liver biochemistry: alkaline phosphatase (MD, -238.21 IU/L; 95% CI, -280.83 to -195.60; P<0.00001); gamma-glutamyltransferase (MD, -38.23 IU/L; 95% CI, -50.16 to -25.85; P<0.00001); immunoglobulin M (MD, -128.63 IU/L; 95% CI, -151.55 to -105.71; P<0.00001); bilirubin (MD, -0.20 mg/dL; 95% CI, -0.33 to -0.07; P=0.002); triglycerides (MD, -26.84 mg/dL; 95% CI, -36.51 to -17.17; P<0.0001); total cholesterol (MD, -21.58 mg/dL; 95% CI, -30.81 to -12.34; P<0.0001), and serum alanine aminotransferase (MD, -10.24 IU/L; 95% CI, -12.65 to -78.5; P<0.00001). However, combination therapy showed no significant differences in the incidence of all-cause mortality or pruritus, and may have resulted in more adverse events (risk ratio [RR], 0.22; 95% CI, 0.07-0.67; P=0.008).

CONCLUSION

Combination therapy improved liver biochemistry and the prognosis of PBC, but did not improve clinical symptoms or incidence of death. Attention should be paid to adverse events when using bezafibrate.

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.

Network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: efficacy and safety of UDCA-based therapies in primary biliary cirrhosis

Major ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA)-based therapies for primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) include UDCA only, or combined with either methotrexate (MTX), corticosteroids (COT), colchicine (COC), or bezafibrate (BEF). As the optimum treatment regimen is unclear and warrants exploration, we aimed to compare these therapies in terms of patient mortality or liver transplantation (MOLT) and adverse events (AE).PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched for randomized controlled trials up to August 31, 2014. We estimated the hazard ratios (HRs) for MOLT and odds ratios (ORs) for AE. A sensitivity analysis based on the dose of UDCA was also executed.Thirty-one eligible articles were included. Compared with COT plus UDCA, UDCA (HR 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09-1.39), BEF plus UDCA (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.02-4.83), COC plus UDCA (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.07-2.25), MTX plus UDCA (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.05-1.63), or OBS (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.11-2.01) all provided an increased risk of MOLT. With respect to drug AE profile, although not differing appreciably, BEF plus UDCA was associated with more AEs compared with UDCA (OR 3.16, 95% CI 0.59-20.67), COT plus UDCA (OR 2.27, 95% CI 0.15-33.36), COC plus UDCA (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.09-12.16), MTX plus UDCA (OR 2.03, 95% CI 0.23-17.82), or OBS (OR 3.00, 95% CI 0.53-20.75). The results of sensitivity analyses were highly consistent with previous analyses.COT plus UDCA was the optimal UDCA-based regimen for both MOLT and AEs. BEF plus UDCA was most likely to cause AEs, whereas monotherapy with UDCA and coadministriation of COT plus UDCA appeared to be associated with the fewest AEs for PBC treatment.

BAFF promotes regulatory T-cell apoptosis and blocks cytokine production by activating B cells in primary biliary cirrhosis

Primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) is a chronic and slowly progressive cholestatic liver disease of autoimmune etiology. A number of questions regarding its etiology are unclear. CD4+CD25+ regulatory T cells (Tregs) play a critical role in self-tolerance and, for unknown reasons, their relative number is reduced in PBC patients. B-cell-activating factor (BAFF) is a key survival factor during B-cell maturation and its concentration is increased in peripheral blood of PBC patients. It has been reported that activated B cells inhibit Treg cell proliferation and there are no BAFF receptors on Tregs. Therefore, we speculated that excessive BAFF may result in Treg reduction via B cells. To prove our hypothesis, we isolated Tregs and B cells from PBC and healthy donors. BAFF and IgM concentrations were then analyzed by ELISA and CD40, CD80, CD86, IL-10, and TGF-β expression in B cells and Tregs were measured by flow cytometry. BAFF up-regulated CD40, CD80, CD86, and IgM expression in B cells. However, BAFF had no direct effect on Treg cell apoptosis and cytokine secretion. Nonetheless, we observed that BAFF-activated B cells could induce Treg cell apoptosis and reduce IL-10 and TGF-β expression. We also showed that BAFF-activated CD4+ T cells had no effect on Treg apoptosis. Furthermore, we verified that bezafibrate, a hypolipidemic drug, can inhibit BAFF-induced Treg cell apoptosis. In conclusion, BAFF promotes Treg cell apoptosis and inhibits cytokine production by activating B cells in PBC patients. The results of this study suggest that inhibition of BAFF activation is a strategy for PBC treatment.