A placebo-controlled trial of primary biliary cirrhosis treatment with colchicine and ursodeoxycholic acid

Efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for pruritus in primary biliary cholangitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and objective: Pruritus is a common complication in patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC). The pathogenesis is not clear, and also the precise therapeutic measures remain alluring. In order to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of drug interventions in the treatment of pruritus associated with PBC, this systemic review and meta-analysis was conducted.

Methods: The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on drug interventions in the treatment of pruritus associated with primary cholangitis were searched in the electronic databases of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted and integrated the data, and assessed the bias risk of the selected literature, according to the Cochrane handbook. Finally, the STATA 15.0 software was used for the meta-analysis.

Results: A total of 23 RCTs involving 2,194 patients were studied, that included 12 pharmacological interventions. In terms of itching relief, compared with placebo, UDCA, methotrexate and GSK2330672 had a definite effect in improving pruritus (pruritus remission rate before and after treatment, p < 0.05). In terms of serum indexes, compared with placebo group, UDCA, OCA, rifampicin, cyclosporine, NGM282, seladelpar and colchicine may improve blood alkaline phosphatase (ALP) (p < 0.05), but only rifampicin showed low heterogeneity. UDCA, bezafibrate, OCA, rifampicin, NGM282 and others may improve blood γ-glutamyl transpeptidase (γ-GGT) (p < 0.05), but due to the high heterogeneity and the limitation of research samples, a clear conclusion cannot be drawn. In terms of adverse events, except high (>15 mg/kg/day) and low doses (<13 mg/kg/day) of UDCA increased the incidence of adverse events, there were no risk of increasing the incidence of adverse events compared with placebo (p > 0.05), and a moderate dose of UDCA (13–15 mg/kg/day) and malotilate (1,500 mg/day) may also help in reducing the incidence of adverse events (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: UDCA, methotrexate and GSK2330672 may relieve itching in patients with PBC, but there is a lack of robust evidence to support their effect on ALP or γ-GGT. Due to the heterogeneity in the published studies, based on the present review, we cannot explicitly recommend any specific drug for the treatment of PBC-related pruritus.

Systematic Review Registration:link-https://osf.io/2g8ya, identifier 10.17605/OSF.IO/2G8YA

Anti-inflammatory Therapy for Coronary Atherosclerotic Heart Disease: Unanswered Questions Behind Existing Successes

Coronary atherosclerotic heart disease is a serious threat to human health. The results of the Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcome Study published in 2017 put an end to the perennial debate about the anti-inflammatory treatment of coronary atherosclerotic heart disease. In addition to interleukin 1β monoclonal antibody, interleukin 6 receptor antagonists and colchicine have also shown exciting results in clinical trials within the last 3 years. However, behind these successes, questions remain that need to be addressed. In this review, we summarize the successes and existing doubts of interleukin 1β antibodies, interleukin 6 receptor antagonists, and colchicine in the anti-inflammatory treatment of coronary atherosclerotic heart disease.

Anti-inflammatory Therapies for Coronary Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Anti-inflammatory therapy has been proposed as a promising treatment for coronary heart disease (CHD) that could reduce residual inflammation risk (RIR) and therefore major adverse cardiovascular events. We implemented a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the clinical benefits of anti-inflammatory agents in patients with CHD based on secondary cardiovascular prevention. Methods: We systemically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for RCTs (published between Jan 1, 1950, and June 1, 2021; no language restrictions) that focused on anti-inflammatory therapy for coronary heart disease. Our primary end points of interest were a composite of all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction and stroke. We processed pooled data using a random-effects model. Results: Of 1497 selected studies, 18 studies with 67,449 participants met our inclusion criteria and were included in the present meta-analysis. Comparing anti-inflammatory agents with placebo, there was no significant decrease in risk of primary end points, secondary end points, all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction, stroke or revascularization. Further subgroup analysis indicated that anti-inflammatory agents led to a significant reduction in secondary end points (OR 0.87, CI 0.77-0.99; P = 0.03), recurrent myocardial infarction (OR 0.86, CI 0.78-0.95; P = 0.003) and revascularization (OR 0.81, CI 0.70-0.92; P = 0.001) in patients with stable CHD compared with placebo. Moreover, stable CHD patients had a lower propensity for recurrent myocardial infarction than acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients when using anti-inflammatory agents (P = 0.03). The colchicine subgroup analysis showed that colchicine yielded a promising reduction in the primary end points (OR 0.81, CI 0.70-0.95; P = 0.009) compared with placebo. Anti-inflammatory agents were associated with a higher risk of infection (OR 1.13, CI 1.03-1.23; P = 0.007) and negligible effects on cancers (OR 0.98, CI 0.90-1.06; P = 0.61). Conclusion: Anti-inflammatory agents appear to have beneficial effects in reducing the risk of recurrent myocardial infarction in patients with stable CHD, albeit at the cost of increased infection. Notably, colchicine demonstrates a promising cardioprotective effect with a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events and thus is a potential therapeutic strategy for stable CHD patients. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier CRD42021245514.

Effect of ursodeoxycholic acid on liver markers: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials

AIM

The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) therapy on serum liver function tests.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar databases were searched to identify randomized placebo-controlled trials assessing the impact of UDCA on hepatic parameters. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model and sensitivity analysis through the leave-one-out method in the Review Manager statistical software version 5.3.

RESULTS

After UDCA treatment, meta-analysis revealed a significant reduction of alanine aminotransferase (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -15.28 U/L, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -23.42, -7.15, P = 0.0002, I² = 97%), aspartate aminotransferase (WMD: -16.13 U/L, 95% CI: -23.84, -8.42, P < 0.0001, I² = 97%), gamma-glutamyl transferase (WMD: -23.29 U/L, 95% CI: -33.97, -12.61, P < 0.0001, I² = 97%), alkaline phosphatase (WMD: -93.80 U/L, 95% CI: -126.36, -61.25, P < 0.0001, I² = 95%) and bilirubin (WMD: -0.18 U/L, 95% CI: -0.35, -0.01, P = 0.04, I² = 93%), but not significant changes in albumin levels (WMD: 0.10 U/L, 95% CI: -0.05, 0.24, P = 0.18, I² = 80%).

CONCLUSION

The results of the present meta-analysis suggest a hepatoprotective effect of UDCA by reducing serum liver parameters.

The use of biologics in the treatment of autoimmune liver disease

Introduction: Autoimmune liver diseases include autoimmune hepatitis (AIH), primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) and juvenile autoimmune hepatitis (JAIH). The pathophysiologic features of each disease vary, but generally include presence of autoantibodies, cytokine abnormalities, and/or T and B cell autoreactivity.Areas covered: This article compares conventional therapy with newer biologics available for treatment of autoimmune liver diseases. Conventional therapy involves the use of immunosuppressive agents, or other treatment modalities for specific autoimmune liver diseases such as ursodeoxycholic acid and fibrates for PBC. Biologics were developed to target the production of autoantibodies by B cells, the presence of proinflammatory cytokines, adhesion molecules or T and B cell activation.Expert opinion: Despite the promise of biologics being able to target specific cellular and humoral pathways, results have been generally poor, and safety has not been as expected. Cases of autoimmune hepatitis have also developed with the use of these biologicals. Reasons for the lack of success of biologics in treating autoimmune liver disease has led to a reevaluation of our understanding of underlying pathogenesis, demonstrating that while our knowledge of the immunity has improved over the past two decades, it is far from complete.

Consensus guidelines: best practices for detection, assessment and management of suspected acute drug-induced liver injury occurring during clinical trials in adults with chronic cholestatic liver disease

BACKGROUND

Improved knowledge of the molecular pathophysiology and immunopathogenesis of cholestatic liver diseases in recent years has led to an increased interest in developing novel therapies. Patients with cholestatic liver disease often require different approaches to assessment and management of suspected drug-induced liver injury (DILI) compared to those with healthy livers and those with parenchymal liver diseases. At present, there are no regulatory guidelines or society position papers, that systematically address best practices pertaining to detection of DILI in these patients.

AIMS

To outline best practices for detection, assessment and management of suspected acute DILI during clinical trials in adults with the cholestatic liver diseases - Primary Biliary Cholangitis (PBC) and Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis (PSC).

METHODS

This is one of the several papers developed by the IQ DILI Initiative, which is comprised of members from 16 pharmaceutical companies, in collaboration with DILI experts from academia and regulatory agencies. The contents are the result of an extensive literature review, as well as in-depth discussions among industry, regulatory and academic DILI experts, to achieve consensus recommendations on DILI-related issues occurring during clinical trials for cholestatic liver diseases.

RESULTS

Recommended best practices are outlined pertaining to hepatic eligibility criteria, monitoring of liver tests, approach to a suspected DILI signal, and hepatic discontinuation rules.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper provides a framework for the approach to detection, assessment and management of suspected acute DILI occurring during clinical trials in adults with cholestatic liver disease.

Treatment of Fatigue in Primary Biliary Cholangitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Fatigue is the most common complication of primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) and can be debilitating. Numerous interventions have been trialed targeting several proposed mechanisms of PBC-associated fatigue. We sought to summarize and perform a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of these interventions.

METHODS

A comprehensive database search was conducted from inception through March 27, 2018. The primary outcome was proportion of fatigued patients or reduction in degree of fatigue. Adverse events were a secondary outcome. We assessed studies for risk of bias, graded quality of evidence, and used meta-analysis to obtain overall effect by pooling studies of the same class.

RESULTS

We identified 16 studies evaluating ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) (7), liver transplantation (2), serotonin reuptake inhibitors (2), colchicine (1), methotrexate (1), cyclosporine (1), modafinil (1), and obeticholic acid (1). On meta-analysis, UDCA was not associated with a reduction in risk of fatigue (RR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.69-1.08, p = 0.19, I² = 56.2%). While liver transplantation did reduce degree of fatigue (SMD - 0.57, 95% CI - 0.89 to - 0.24, p = 0.001, I² = 67.3%), fatigue did not return to baseline indicating the underlying cause may not be addressed.

CONCLUSIONS

While there is some improvement in fatigue with liver transplantation, there is a lack of high-quality evidence supporting the efficacy of any other intervention in the treatment of PBC-related fatigue. Further research into the underlying pathophysiology may help guide future trials.

Evaluation of the United Kingdom-primary biliary cholangitis and global primary biliary cholangitis group prognostic models for primary biliary cholangitis patients treated with ursodeoxycholic acid in the U.S. population

Background and Aim

The United Kingdom‐primary biliary cholangitis (UK‐PBC) and global primary biliary cholangitis group (GLOBE) prognostic models have been recently developed to predict long‐term outcomes in primary biliary cholangitis (PBC). However, these predictive scores have not yet been well evaluated in the U.S. population.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed newly diagnosed PBC patients at the Cleveland Clinic between November 1998 and February 2017. Adverse events were defined as liver transplantation, liver‐related mortality, and all‐cause mortality. Transplant‐free survival (TFS) was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Predictive performances of all prognostic models were evaluated using the C‐statistic.

Results

We identified 352 patients who used ursodeoxycholic acid therapy. Of them, 311 (88.4%) only had PBC, while 41 (11.6%) were diagnosed with PBC‐autoimmune hepatitis overlap. A total of 22 (6%), 47 (13%), and 55 (16%) patients had adverse events within 5, 10, and 15 years after diagnosis, respectively. In patients with PBC only, the C‐statistic in predicting 15‐year adverse events was 0.75 per GLOBE compared to 0.74 per UK‐PBC (P = 0.94), 0.73 per Rotterdam (P = 0.44), 0.66 per Barcelona (P = 0.004), 0.65 per Paris 1 (P = 0.005), 0.62 per Paris 2 (P < 0.0001), 0.60 per Toronto (P < 0.0001), and 0.60 per Mayo (P < 0.0001) scores. Median follow‐up was 9.2 years. Ten‐year TFS for patients who had optimal versus suboptimal treatment response was 92 versus 74% per Paris 1 (P < 0.0001), 95 versus 79% per Paris 2 (P = 0.0002), 93 versus 65% per Barcelona (P < 0.0001), and 96 versus 68% per Rotterdam (P < 0.0001) risk scores, respectively.

Conclusion

In our cohort of PBC patients, the UK‐PBC and GLOBE scores were both accurate and reasonably valid prognostic models in the U.S. population.

Secretin/secretin receptor signaling mediates biliary damage and liver fibrosis in early-stage primary biliary cholangitis

Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) primarily targets cholangiocytes and is characterized by liver fibrosis and biliary proliferation. Activation of the secretin (Sct)/secretin receptor (SR) axis, expressed only by cholangiocytes, increases biliary proliferation, liver fibrosis, and bicarbonate secretion. We evaluated the effectiveness of SR antagonist treatment for early-stage PBC. Male and female dominant-negative TGF-β receptor II (dnTGF-βRII) (model of PBC) and wild-type mice at 12 wk of age were treated with saline or the SR antagonist, Sec 5-27, for 1 wk. dnTGF-βRII mice expressed features of early-stage PBC along with enhanced Sct/SR axis activation and Sct secretion. dnTGF-βRII mice had increased biliary proliferation or senescence, inflammation, and liver fibrosis. In dnTGF-βRII mice, there was increased microRNA-125b/TGF-β1/TGF-β receptor 1/VEGF-A signaling. Human early-stage PBC patients had an increase in hepatobiliary Sct and SR expression and serum Sct levels. Increased biliary Sct/SR signaling promotes biliary and hepatic damage during early-stage PBC.-Kennedy, L., Francis, H., Invernizzi, P., Venter, J., Wu, N., Carbone, M., Gershwin, M. E., Bernuzzi, F., Franchitto, A., Alvaro, D., Marzioni, M., Onori, P., Gaudio, E., Sybenga, A., Fabris, L., Meng, F., Glaser, S., Alpini, G. Secretin/secretin receptor signaling mediates biliary damage and liver fibrosis in early-stage primary biliary cholangitis.

Impact of ursodeoxycholic acid on circulating lipid concentrations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials

Objective

The aim of this meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials was to examine whether ursodeoxycholic acid treatment is an effective lipid-lowering agent.

Methods

PubMed-Medline, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases were searched in order to find randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of ursodeoxycholic acid on lipid profile. A random-effect model and the generic inverse variance weighting method were used for quantitative data synthesis. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using the leave-one-out method. A random-effects meta-regression model was performed to explore the association between potential confounders and the estimated effect size on plasma lipid concentrations.

Results

Meta-analysis of 20 treatment arms revealed a significant reduction of total cholesterol following ursodeoxycholic acid treatment (WMD: − 13.85 mg/dL, 95% CI: -21.45, − 6.25, p < 0.001). Nonetheless, LDL-C (WMD: -6.66 mg/dL, 95% CI: -13.99, 0.67, p = 0.075), triglycerides (WMD: − 1.42 mg/dL, 95% CI: -7.51, 4.67, p = 0.648) and HDL-C (WMD: -0.18 mg/dL, 95% CI: -5.23, 4.87, p = 0.944) were not found to be significantly altered by ursodeoxycholic acid administration. In the subgroup of patients with primary biliary cirrhosis, ursodeoxycholic acid reduced total cholesterol (WMD: − 29.86 mg/dL, 95% CI: -47.39, − 12.33, p = 0.001) and LDL-C (WMD: -37.27 mg/dL, 95% CI: -54.16, − 20.38, p < 0.001) concentrations without affecting TG and HDL-C.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis suggests that ursodeoxycholic acid therapy might be associated with significant total cholesterol lowering particularly in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis.

Patterns of disease progression and incidence of complications in primary biliary cholangitis (PBC)

Clinical outcome for patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) is dictated by development of cirrhosis, portal hypertension and its associated complications; including for some, a predisposition toward hepatocellular carcinoma. However rates of clinical progression vary, and accurately identifying disease course is of critical importance to patients, clinicians, as well as industry, who are committed to developing new effective and life-prolonging therapy as well as treating symptoms that appear disproportionate to underlying disease severity. Patients seek reassurance and guidance as to their own prognosis, and clinicians wish to confidently recognise those at highest risk of poor outcomes as equally as they strive to reassure individuals with a more favourable disease trajectory. International registries have facilitated a much greater knowledge of disease incidence and heterogeneity of presenting phenotypes. In so doing they highlight the opportunity to provide a more individualized estimate of the clinical course that patients experience, and have led to a renewed approach to risk stratification; both in terms of 'hard outcomes' and also disease-associated complications in PBC specifically.

Management of Pruritus in Primary Biliary Cholangitis: A Narrative Review

Primary biliary cholangitis is an autoimmune condition characterized by destruction of intrahepatic bile ducts. It causes debilitating symptoms that dramatically affect the patient's quality of life. Pruritus affects 60% to 70% of individuals with primary biliary cholangitis and leads to sleep disturbances, fatigue, depression, and suicidal ideation. A complete search was performed with studies from PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane database, Countway Library, and CINAHL with specific search terms. This narrative review was prepared after a comprehensive literature review. Treating patients with cholestatic pruritus is challenging and may have a profound impact on quality of life. The standard of therapy for primary biliary cholangitis, ursodeoxycholic acid, does not have a beneficial effect in cholestatic pruritus. Patients often do not respond to conventional therapies such as cholestyramine, rifampicin, opioid antagonists, and sertraline. These therapies lack long-term efficacy and have side effects. Patients who have not responded to these initial treatments can be considered for experimental therapies or clinical trials. This review outlines the current and emerging treatment modalities for patients with primary biliary cholangitis who have pruritus.

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.

Optimal drug regimens for primary biliary cirrhosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective

Most comprehensive treatments for PBC include UDCA, combination of methotrexate (MTX), corticosteroids (COT), colchicine (COC) or bezafibrate (BEF), cyclosporin A (CYP), D-penicillamine (DPM), methotrexate (MTX), or azathioprine (AZP). Since the optimum treatment regimen remains inconclusive, we aimed to compare these therapies in terms of patient mortality or liver transplantation (MOLT) and adverse event (AE).

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials until August 2014. We estimated HRs for MOLT and ORs for AE. The sensitivity analysis based on dose of UDCA was also performed.

Results

The search identified 49 studies involving 12 different treatment regimens and 4182 patients. Although no statistical significance can be found in MOLT, COT plus UDCA was ranked highest for efficacy outcome amongst all the treatment regimes. While for AEs, compared with OBS or UDCA, monotherapy with COC (OR 5.6, P < 0.001; OR 5.89, P < 0.001), CYP (OR 3.24, P < 0.001; OR 3.42, P < 0.001), DPM (OR 8.00, P < 0.001; OR 8.45, P < 0.001) and MTX (OR 5.31, P < 0.001; OR 5.61, P < 0.001) were associated with statistically significant increased risk of AEs. No significant differences were found for other combination regimes. Effect estimates from indirect comparisons matched closely to estimates derived from pairwise comparisons. Consistently, in the sensitivity analysis, results closely resembled our primary analysis.

Conclusions

COT plus UDCA was the most efficacious among treatment regimens both for MOLT and AEs.

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.

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.

Cholestatic liver disease

The care of the patient with cholestasis hinges on identifying the etiology, treating reversible causes, and managing chronic cholestatic processes. PBC and PSC are important causes of chronic cholestasis, and are the most common causes of cholestatic liver disease. Effective therapy is available for patients with PBC, whereas none exists for patients with PSC. Awareness of the complications that may be associated with cholestasis and implementing the appropriate management are essential.

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.

Ursodeoxycholic acid improves bilirubin but not albumin in primary biliary cirrhosis: further evidence for nonefficacy

Background/Aim. In randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), although serum bilirubin is frequently reduced, its effect on disease progression and mortality is unclear. As serum albumin is an established independent prognostic marker, one might expect less deterioration of serum albumin values in a UDCA-treated group. We therefore modelled the typical evolution of serum bilirubin and albumin levels over time in UDCA-untreated patients and compared it with the observed levels in UDCA RCTs. Methods. Multilevel modelling was used to relate the evolution of serum albumin to serum bilirubin and time since patient referral. For each considered RCT, the derived model was used to predict the relationship between final mean serum albumin and bilirubin concentration, adjusted for mean serum albumin at referral and followup duration. Results. Five RCTs were eligible in terms of available data, of which two had long followup. In all trials, serum albumin did not significantly differ between UDCA- and placebo-treated patients, despite the UDCA effect on serum bilirubin. Therefore, there is no evidence over time for changes or maintenance of albumin levels for UDCA-treated patients above the levels predicted for placebo-treated patients. Conclusions. Our findings suggest that UDCA does not alter serum albumin in a way that is consistent with its effect on serum bilirubin. Therefore, reductions in serum bilirubin of UDCA-treated PBC do not parallel another validated and independent prognostic marker, further questioning the validity of serum bilirubin reduction with UDCA as a surrogate therapeutic marker.

Treatment of autoimmune liver disease: current and future therapeutic options

Autoimmune liver disease spans three predominant processes, from the interface hepatitis of autoimmune hepatitis to the lymphocytic cholangitis of primary biliary cirrhosis, and finally the obstructive fibrosing sclerotic cholangiopathy of primary sclerosing cholangitis. Although all autoimmune in origin, they differ in their epidemiology, presentation and response to immunosuppressive therapy and bile acid based treatments. With an ongoing better appreciation of disease aetiology and pathogenesis, treatment is set ultimately to become more rational. We provide an overview of current and future therapies for patients with autoimmune liver disease, with an emphasis placed on some of the evidence that drives current practice.

Care of the cholestatic patient

Cholestasis is defined as impairment of bile formation or bile flow. Care of the patient with cholestatic features is dependent on identifying the cause of the cholestasis, initiating appropriate treatment of reversible conditions, and the recognition and management of cholestasis-specific complications. Cholestasis may include extrahepatic ducts and intrahepatic bile ducts, or may be limited to one or the other. Jaundice and pruritus are the hallmarks of cholestasis clinically but biochemical evidence may, and often does, precede the clinical manifestations.

Blood cytokine, chemokine and gene expression in cholestasis patients with intractable pruritis treated with a molecular adsorbent recirculating system: a case series

BACKGROUND

The molecular adsorbent recirculating system (MARS) is an albumin-dialysis modality that has been investigated predominantly in patients with acute and acute-on-chronic liver failure.

OBJECTIVES

To report the clinical efficacy and safety of MARS therapy for intractable pruritus in cholestasis patients with stable chronic liver disease, characterizing the impact of MARS on cytokine levels and on the transcriptome in the blood compartment.

METHODS

MARS therapy was performed on three patients with cholestatic liver disease using 8 h runs for two consecutive days. The expression levels of 65 cytokines⁄chemokines and 24,000 genes were profiled by Luminex (Luminex Corporation, USA) and microarray, respectively.

RESULTS

A quality-of-life assessment demonstrated a marked improvement during therapy, which was sustained in two of three patients. No bleeding or infectious complications were observed. Bile acid levels were markedly reduced following MARS (mean [± SD] pretreatment 478.9±112.2 µmol⁄L versus post-treatment 89.7±68.8 µmol⁄L). Concordant decreases in cytokine⁄chemokine levels were noted for interleukin (IL)-1beta, IL-2, IL-6, IL-8, IL-12 (p40), RANTES, tranforming growth factor-alpha, tumour necrosis factor-alpha and thrombopoietin following MARS. On microarray profiling, biologically relevant concordant changes among all patients were evident for 20 different genes (10 upregulated and 10 downregulated). The upregulation of several potentially immune suppressive⁄regulatory genes (eg, early growth response 3 [EGR-3], ephrin-A2 [EFNA2] and serum amyloid A1 [SAA1]), concurrent with downregulation of genes involved in innate immunity (eg, toll-like receptor 4 interactor with leucine-rich repeats [TRIL]) and inflammation (eg, ephrin receptor B1 [EPHB1]), was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This investigative approach offers new insights into intractable pruritus and suggests future therapeutic targets. The clinical benefit of MARS in cholestasis patients with intractable pruritus may not exclusively result from filtration of pruritogens, but also from systemic changes in cytokine⁄chemokine levels and changes in gene expression of blood cells.

Ursodeoxycholic acid for primary biliary cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Ursodeoxycholic acid is administered to patients with primary biliary cirrhosis, a chronic progressive inflammatory autoimmune-mediated liver disease with unknown aetiology. Despite its controversial effects, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved its usage for primary biliary cirrhosis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of ursodeoxycholic acid in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for eligible randomised trials in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, Clinicaltrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The literature search was performed until January 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials assessing the beneficial and harmful effects of ursodeoxycholic acid versus placebo or 'no intervention' in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data. Continuous data were analysed using mean difference (MD) and standardised mean difference (SMD). Dichotomous data were analysed using risk ratio (RR). Meta-analyses were conducted using both a random-effects model and a fixed-effect model, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Random-effects model meta-regression was used to assess the effects of covariates across the trials. Trial sequential analysis was used to assess risk of random errors (play of chance). Risks of bias (systematic error) in the included trials were assessed according to Cochrane methodology bias domains.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen randomised clinical trials with 1447 patients with primary biliary cirrhosis were included. One trial had low risk of bias, and the remaining fifteen had high risk of bias. Fourteen trials compared ursodeoxycholic acid with placebo and two trials compared ursodeoxycholic acid with 'no intervention'. The percentage of patients with advanced primary biliary cirrhosis at baseline varied from 15% to 83%, with a median of 51%. The duration of the trials varied from 3 to 92 months, with a median of 24 months. The results showed no significant difference in effect between ursodeoxycholic acid and placebo or 'no intervention' on all-cause mortality (45/699 (6.4%) versus 46/692 (6.6%); RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42, I² = 0%; 14 trials); on all-cause mortality or liver transplantation (86/713 (12.1%) versus 89/706 (12.6%); RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.25, I² = 15%; 15 trials); on serious adverse events (94/695 (13.5%) versus 107/687 (15.6%); RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.12, I² = 23%; 14 trials); or on non-serious adverse events (27/643 (4.2%) versus 18/634 (2.8%); RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.56, I² = 0%; 12 trials). The random-effects model meta-regression showed that the risk of bias of the trials, disease severity of patients at entry, ursodeoxycholic acid dosage, and trial duration were not significantly associated with the intervention effects on all-cause mortality, or on all-cause mortality or liver transplantation. Ursodeoxycholic acid did not influence the number of patients with pruritus (168/321 (52.3%) versus 166/309 (53.7%); RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.09, I² = 0%; 6 trials) or with fatigue (170/252 (64.9%) versus 174/244 (71.3%); RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.00, I² = 62%; 4 trials). Two trials reported the number of patients with jaundice and showed a significant effect of ursodeoxycholic acid versus placebo or no intervention in a fixed-effect meta-analysis (5/99 (5.1%) versus 15/99 (15.2%); RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.90, I² = 51%; 2 trials). The result was not supported by the random-effects meta-analysis (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.06 to 4.95). Portal pressure, varices, bleeding varices, ascites, and hepatic encephalopathy were not significantly affected by ursodeoxycholic acid. Ursodeoxycholic acid significantly decreased serum bilirubin concentration (MD -8.69 µmol/l, 95% CI -13.90 to -3.48, I² = 0%; 881 patients; 9 trials) and activity of serum alkaline phosphatases (MD -257.09 U/L, 95% CI -306.25 to -207.92, I² = 0%; 754 patients, 9 trials) compared with placebo or no intervention. These results were supported by trial sequential analysis. Ursodeoxycholic acid also seemed to improve serum levels of gamma-glutamyltransferase, aminotransferases, total cholesterol, and plasma immunoglobulin M concentration. Ursodeoxycholic acid seemed to have a beneficial effect on worsening of histological stage (random; 66/281 (23.5%) versus 103/270 (38.2%); RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.88, I² = 35%; 7 trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review did not demonstrate any significant benefits of ursodeoxycholic acid on all-cause mortality, all-cause mortality or liver transplantation, pruritus, or fatigue in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. Ursodeoxycholic acid seemed to have a beneficial effect on liver biochemistry measures and on histological progression compared with the control group. All but one of the included trials had high risk of bias, and there are risks of outcome reporting bias and risks of random errors as well. Randomised trials with low risk of bias and low risks of random errors examining the effects of ursodeoxycholic acid for primary biliary cirrhosis are needed.

Natural history and management of primary biliary cirrhosis

Primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) is a chronic inflammatory autoimmune disease that mainly targets the cholangiocytes of the interlobular bile ducts in the liver. It is a rare disease with prevalence of less than one in 2000. Its prevalence in developing countries is increasing presumably because of growth in recognition and knowledge of the disease. PBC is thought to result from a combination of multiple genetic factors and superimposed environmental triggers. The contribution of the genetic predisposition is evidenced by familial clustering. Several risk factors, including exposure to infectious agents and chemical xenobiotics, have been suggested. Common symptoms of the disease are fatigue and pruritus, but most patients are asymptomatic at first presentation. The prognosis of PBC has improved because of early diagnosis and use of ursodeoxycholic acid, the only established medical treatment for this disorder. When administered at adequate doses of 13–15 mg/kg/day, up to two out of three patients with PBC may have a normal life expectancy without additional therapeutic measures. However, some patients do not respond adequately to ursodeoxycholic acid and might need alternative therapeutic approaches.

Drug-induced, factitious, & idiopathic diarrhoea

The aetiology of diarrhoea can often be simple to identify, but in some cases may pose a challenge. The diagnosis of drug-induced diarrhoea can easily be sorted based on timing of the symptom with onset of a new drug. Treatment can vary from simply monitoring and eventual resolution with continuation of the drug, to discontinuation of the offending agent. In cases where a drug cannot always be stopped, additional medications can help control the symptom. Factitious diarrhoea can present a diagnostic challenge if the evaluating physician does not suspect its possibility. Typically a careful history, and in some cases, stool testing can provide clues. The diagnosis of idiopathic diarrhoea is often made when exhaustive testing provides no definite aetiology and the goal of management is supportive care and symptomatic treatment.

Approach to a patient with elevated serum alkaline phosphatase

Cholestasis develops either from a defect in bile synthesis, impairment in bile secretion, or obstruction to bile flow, and is characterized by an elevated serum alkaline phosphatase and gamma-glutamyltransferase disproportionate to elevation of aminotransferase enzymes. Key elements to the diagnostic workup include visualization of the biliary tree by cholangiography and evaluation of liver histology. The hope is that recent advances in understanding the genetic factors and immune mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of cholestasis will lead to newer therapeutic interventions in the treatment of these diseases.

Primary biliary cirrhosis

Primary biliary cirrhosis is a chronic autoimmune inflammatory disease of the liver with a striking female preponderance. It has an insidious onset and typically affects middle-aged women. The disease manifests gradually with symptoms of fatigue, pruritis, and increased alkaline phosphatase levels on laboratory evaluation. The hallmark of the disease is the circulating antimitochondrial antibody. Histology is characterized by inflammation of the bile ducts, destruction of cholangiocytes, and subsequent cholestasis, progressing to biliary cirrhosis. The standard treatment for primary biliary cirrhosis is ursodeoxycholic acid, which improves survival, but the disease can still lead to cirrhosis and liver failure over decades.

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.

Management of autoimmune and cholestatic liver disorders

The management of autoimmune and cholestatic liver disorders is a challenging area of hepatology. Autoimmune and cholestatic liver diseases represent a comparatively small proportion of hepatobiliary disorders, yet their appropriate management is of critical importance for patient survival. In this article, management strategies are discussed, including the indications and expectations of pharmacologic therapy, endoscopic approaches, and the role of liver transplantation.

Ursodeoxycholic acid for primary biliary cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Primary biliary cirrhosis is an uncommon autoimmune liver disease with unknown aetiology. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) has been used for primary biliary cirrhosis, but the effects remain controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of UDCA on patients with primary biliary cirrhosis against placebo or no intervention.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCI-EXPANDED, The Chinese Biomedical CD Database, LILACS, and the references of identified studies. The last search was performed in January 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials evaluating UDCA versus placebo or no intervention in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcomes were mortality and mortality or liver transplantation. Binary outcomes were reported as odds ratio (OR) or relative risk (RR) and continuous outcomes as weighted mean difference, all with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Meta-regression was used to investigate the associations between UDCA effects and quality of the trial, UDCA dose, trial duration, and patient's severity of primary biliary cirrhosis. We also used Bayesian meta-analytic approach to estimate the UDCA effect as sensitivity analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen randomised clinical trials evaluating UDCA against placebo or no intervention were identified. Data from three trials have been updated. Nearly half of the trials had high risk of bias. The combined results demonstrated no significant effects favouring UDCA on mortality (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42) and mortality or liver transplantation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.21). The findings were supported by the Bayesian meta-analyses. UDCA did not improve pruritus, fatigue, autoimmune conditions, liver histology, or portal pressure. UDCA seemed to improve biochemical variables, like serum bilirubin, ascites, and jaundice, but the findings were based on few trials with sparse data. The use of UDCA is significantly associated with adverse events, mainly weight gain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review did not demonstrate any benefit of UDCA on mortality and mortality or liver transplantation of patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. The few beneficial effects could not be due to random errors or outcome reporting bias.

Treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis: therapy with choleretic and immunosuppressive agents

Primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) is a chronic cholestatic liver disease of presumed autoimmune etiology affecting predominantly middle-aged women; it is a slowly progressive disease causing loss of intrahepatic bile ducts, resulting in advanced fibrosis, cirrhosis, and liver failure. Many drugs have been studied for treatment, including agents with choleretic and immunosuppressive properties. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) has been evaluated most widely. After liver failure, the only effective treatment is liver transplantation. Effective therapy reduces the need for transplantation and improves life expectancy. For advanced liver disease or incomplete response to UDCA, new therapies to cure or retard the progression of disease in PBC are needed.

Autoimmune liver disease 2007

Autoimmune liver disease (ALD) includes a spectrum of diseases which comprises both cholestatic and hepatitic forms: autoimmune hepatitis (AIH), primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC), primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) and the so called "overlap" syndromes where hepatitic and cholestatic damage coexists. All these diseases are characterized by an extremely high heterogeneity of presentation, varying from asymptomatic, acute (as in a subset of AIH) or chronic (with aspecific symptoms such as fatigue and myalgia in AIH or fatigue and pruritus in PBC and PSC). The detection and characterization of non organ specific autoantibodies plays a major role in the diagnostic approach of autoimmune liver disease; anti nuclear reactivities (ANA) and anti smooth muscle antibodies (SMA) mark type 1 AIH, liver kidney microsomal antibody type 1 (LKM1) and liver cytosol type 1 (LC1) are the serological markers of type 2 AIH; antimitochondrial antibodies (AMA) are associated with PBC, while no specific marker is found in PSC, since anticytoplasmic neutrophil antibodies with perinuclear pattern (atypical p-ANCA or p-ANNA) are also detected in a substantial proportion of type 1 AIH cases. Treatment options rely on immunosoppressive therapy (steroids and azathioprine) in AIH and on ursodeoxycholic acid in cholestatic conditions; in all these diseases liver transplantation remains the only therapeutical approach for the end stage of liver disease.

Cyclosporin A for primary biliary cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Cyclosporin A has been used for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis, but the therapeutic responses in randomised clinical trials have been heterogeneous.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

Relevant 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, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, The Chinese Biomedical Database, and LILACS, and manual searches of bibliographies to June 2006. We contacted authors of trials and the company producing cyclosporin A.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing cyclosporin A with placebo, no intervention, or another drug were included irrespective of blinding, language, year of publication, and publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Our primary outcomes were mortality, and mortality or liver transplantation. Dichotomous outcomes were reported as relative risk (RR) and if appropriate, Peto odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous outcomes were reported as weighted mean difference (WMD) or standardised mean difference (SMD). We examined intervention effects by random-effects and fixed-effect models.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three trials with 390 patients that compared cyclosporin A versus placebo. Two of them were assessed methodologically adequate with low-bias risk. Cyclosporin A did not significantly reduce mortality risk (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.45), and mortality or liver transplantation (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.20). Cyclosporin A significantly improved pruritus (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.14), but not fatigue. Cyclosporin A significantly reduced alanine aminotransferase (WMD -41 U/L, 95% CI -63 to -18) and increased serum albumin level (WMD 1.66 g/L, 95% CI 0.26 to 3.05). Significantly more patients experienced adverse events in the cyclosporin A group than in the placebo group, especially renal dysfunction (Peto odds ratio 5.56, 95% CI 2.52 to 12.27) and hypertension (SMD 0.88, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.48).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence supporting or refuting that cyclosporin A may delay death, death or liver transplantation, or progression of primary biliary cirrhosis. Cyclosporin A caused more adverse events than placebo, like renal dysfunction and hypertension. We do not recommend the use of cyclosporin A outside randomised clinical trials.

Azathioprine for primary biliary cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Azathioprine is used for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis, but the therapeutic responses in randomised clinical trials have been conflicting.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of azathioprine 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, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, The Chinese Biomedical Database, and LILACS, and manual searches of bibliographies to September 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing azathioprine versus placebo, no intervention, or another drug were included irrespective of blinding, language, year of publication, and publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Our primary outcomes were mortality, and mortality or liver transplantation. Dichotomous outcomes were reported as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous outcomes were reported as weighted mean difference (WMD) or standardised mean difference (SMD). We examined the intervention effects by random-effects and fixed-effect models.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two randomised clinical trials with 293 patients. Only one of the trials was regarded as having low bias risk. Azathioprine did not significantly decrease mortality (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.31, 2 trials). Azathioprine did not improve pruritus at one-year intervention (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.84, 1 trial), cirrhosis development, or quality of life. Patients given azathioprine experienced significantly more adverse events than patients given no intervention or placebo (RR 2.44, 95% CI 1.14 to 5.20, 2 trials). The common adverse events were rash, severe diarrhoea, and bone marrow depression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to support the use of azathioprine for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. Researchers who are interested in performing further randomised clinical trials should be aware of the risks of adverse events.

Long-term effects of mid-dose ursodeoxycholic acid in primary biliary cirrhosis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

The effect of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) treatment on survival and liver histological progression of primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) remains uncertain. The aim of this study is to assess the long-term efficacy of mid-dose UDCA treatment for PBC.

METHODS

Electronic databases including Medline, Embase, Cochrane controlled trials register, Science Citation Index, and PUBMED (updated to Nov 2005), and manual bibliographical searches were conducted. A meta-analysis of all long-term randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing mid-dose UDCA with placebo or no treatment was performed.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs and six reports of their extended follow-up including 1,038 patients were assessed. UDCA could significantly improve liver biochemistry, but had no effect on pruritus and fatigue. UDCA could delay the progression of PBC, especially for early-stage patients. Meta-analysis of the seven RCTs including their extended follow-up showed a significant reduction of the incidence of liver transplantation (OR 0.65, p = 0.01), and a marginally significant reduction of the rate of death or liver transplantation (fixed-effect model: OR 0.76, p = 0.05; random-effect model: OR 0.77, p = 0.3) in the UDCA group, except death (OR 1.01, p = 1). In the sensitivity analyses, which included studies administrating placebo as control, long-term studies (> or = 48 months), or large size studies (total number of patients > or = 100), we all found long-term treatment with UDCA could significantly reduce the incidence of liver transplantation, and death or liver transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term treatment with mid-dose UDCA can improve liver biochemistry and survival free of liver transplantation in patients with PBC. In addition, UDCA therapy can delay the histological progression in the early-stage patients.

Extrahepatic manifestations of cholestatic liver diseases: pathogenesis and therapy

Pruritus, fatigue, and metabolic bone disease are frequent complications of cholestatic liver diseases, which can be quite distressing for the patient and can considerably reduce the quality of life. The molecular pathogenesis of these extrahepatic manifestations of cholestasis is poorly understood, and hypotheses to explain these symptoms are being discussed. This article provides treatment recommendations for the complications of cholestasis based on putative pathomechanisms and summarizes recent experimental and clinical data involving management options.

Extrahepatic manifestations of cholestatic liver diseases: pathogenesis and therapy

Pruritus, fatigue, and metabolic bone disease are frequent complications of cholestatic liver diseases, which can be quite distressing for the patient and can considerably reduce the quality of life. The molecular pathogenesis of these extrahepatic manifestations of cholestasis is poorly understood, and hypotheses to explain these symptoms are being discussed. This article provides treatment recommendations for the complications of cholestasis based on putative pathomechanisms and summarizes recent experimental and clinical data involving management options.

Colchicine for primary biliary cirrhosis: a Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group systematic review of randomized clinical trials

OBJECTIVES

Colchicine is used for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis due to its immunomodulatory and antifibrotic potential. The results from randomized clinical trials have, however, been inconsistent. We conducted a systematical review to evaluate the effect of colchicine for primary biliary cirrhosis.

METHODS

We identified randomized clinical trials comparing colchicine with placebo/no intervention. We analyzed effects by fixed and random effects model. We investigated heterogeneity by subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

We included 10 trials involving 631 patients, four of which were high-quality trials. No significant differences were detected between colchicine and placebo/no intervention regarding mortality (relative risk (RR), 1.21; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.71-2.06), mortality or liver transplantation (RR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.67-1.49), liver complications, liver biochemical variables, liver histology, or adverse events. Regarding mortality, an extreme case analysis favoring colchicine did not demonstrate beneficial effects of colchicine, whereas an extreme case analysis favoring placebo/no intervention demonstrated a detrimental effect of colchicine (RR = 2.28; 95% CI, 1.17-4.44). The number of patients without improvement of pruritus significantly decreased in the colchicine group (RR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.87). However, this estimate was based on only 156 patients from three trials.

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support the use of colchicine for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. As we are unable to exclude a risk of increased mortality, we recommend to use colchicine only in randomized clinical trials.

Methotrexate for primary biliary cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Methotrexate, a folic acid antagonist with immunosuppressive properties, has been used to treat patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. The therapeutic responses to methotrexate in randomised clinical trials have been heterogeneous.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

Relevant randomised clinical trials were identified by searching The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (June 2004), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 2004), EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2004), and manual searches of bibliographies. We contacted authors of trials and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing methotrexate with placebo, no intervention, or another drug were included irrespective of blinding, language, year of publication, and publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Our primary outcomes were mortality and mortality or liver transplantation. Dichotomous outcomes were reported as relative risk (RR) and hazard ratio (HR) if applicable. Continuous outcomes were reported as weighted mean difference (WMD). We examined intervention effects by using both a random-effects model and a fixed-effect model. Heterogeneity was investigated by subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four trials (370 patients) that compared methotrexate with placebo with or without ursodeoxycholic acid as co-intervention. One additional trial (87 patients) compared methotrexate with colchicine without and later with ursodeoxycholic acid as co-intervention. The methodological quality of the trials was low. We did not find significant effects of methotrexate on pruritus, fatigue, liver complications, liver biochemistry, liver histology, or adverse events. The pruritus score (WMD - 0.68, 95% CI - 1.11 to - 0.25), the levels of serum alkaline phosphatases (WMD - 0.41, 95% CI - 0.70 to - 0.12) and plasma immunoglobulin M (WMD - 0.47, 95% CI - 0.74 to - 0.20) were significantly lower in the patients receiving methotrexate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Methotrexate increased mortality in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. We do not recommend methotrexate for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis outside randomised trials.

Glucocorticosteroids for primary biliary cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Primary biliary cirrhosis is a chronic progressive cholestatic liver disease of presumed autoimmune etiology, characterised by the destruction of small intrahepatic bile ducts and the eventual development of cirrhosis and liver failure. Its progression may be influenced by immunosuppression. Glucocorticosteroids are potent immunosuppressive agents, but they are associated with significant adverse effects, including osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of glucocorticosteroids versus placebo or no intervention for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Controlled Trials Register,The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the full text of the identified studies were searched until June 2004. The search strategy included terms for primary biliary cirrhosis and glucocorticosteroids (including the names of frequently used preparations). Previous research groups and manufacturers were contacted for additional references. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Double-blind, single-blind, or unblinded randomised clinical trials evaluating any preparation of glucocorticosteroids versus placebo or no intervention in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis diagnosed by abnormal liver function tests and either anti-mitochondrial antibodies or histology were included. Additional agents were allowed if they were administered to both groups equally.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The quality of the randomised clinical trials was evaluated by methodology components (generation of allocation sequence; allocation concealment; blinding; follow up). Analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat method with missing data being accounted for by imputation.

MAIN RESULTS

Only two underpowered trials (reporting 36 and 40 patients) were identified. These differed markedly in their inclusion criteria and treatment protocols. Both stated that they used placebo. However, allocation concealment was unclear. Only one trial reported any patient deaths. No significant improvement in mortality was identified (odds ratio (OR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 1.76). Improvements in serum markers of liver inflammation and liver histology were identified. Potentially prognostically linked markers such as bilirubin and albumin were incompletely reported. Bone mineral density (weighted mean difference -2.84%, 95% CI -4.16 to -1.53) and the number of patients with any adverse event (OR 8.99, 95% CI 2.15 to 37.58) were significantly increased in the glucocorticosteroid group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient data to support or reject the use of glucocorticosteroids for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. It may be appropriate to consider a large prospective randomised clinical trial on this topic.

Long-term ursodeoxycholic acid therapy for primary biliary cirrhosis: a follow-up to 12 years

BACKGROUND

It is uncertain whether ursodeoxycholic acid therapy slows down the progression of primary biliary cirrhosis, according to two meta-analyses. However, the randomized trials evaluated had only a median of 24 months of follow-up.

AIM

To evaluate long-term ursodeoxycholic acid therapy in primary biliary cirrhosis.

METHODS

We evaluated 209 consecutive primary biliary cirrhosis patients, 69 compliant with ursodeoxycholic acid and 140 untreated [mean follow-up 5.79 (s.d. = 4.73) and 4.87 (s.d. = 5.21) years, respectively] with onset of all complications documented. Comparison was made following adjustment for baseline differences according to Cox modelling, Mayo and Royal Free prognostic models.

RESULTS

Bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase concentrations improved with ursodeoxycholic acid (at 36 months, P = 0.007 and 0.018, respectively). Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier analysis showed benefit (P = 0.028), as 44 (31%) untreated and 15 (22%) ursodeoxycholic acid patients died or had liver transplantation. However, there was no difference when adjusted by Cox modelling (P = 0.267), Mayo (P = 0.698) and Royal Free models (P = 0.559). New pruritus or fatigue or other complications were not different, either before or after adjustment for baseline characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term ursodeoxycholic acid therapy did not alter disease progression in primary biliary cirrhosis patients despite a significant improvement in serum bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase consistent with, and similar to, those seen in ursodeoxycholic acid cohorts in randomized trials.

D-penicillamine for primary biliary cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

D-penicillamine is used for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis due to its hepatic copper decreasing and immunomodulatory potentials. The results from randomised clinical trials have been inconsistent.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the beneficial and harmful effects of D-penicillamine for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified trials through electronic searches of The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (September 2003), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2003), MEDLINE (January 1966 to September 2003), EMBASE (January 1980 to September 2003), The Chinese Biomedical CD Database (January 1979 to August 2003), and LILACS (1982 to 2003); through manual searches of bibliographies; and by contacting authors of the trials and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing D-penicillamine with placebo/no intervention or other control intervention irrespective of language, year of publication, and publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of the trials and extracted data, validated by a third reviewer. The primary outcomes were 1) mortality and 2) a combination of those who died or underwent liver transplantation. We analysed dichotomous outcomes as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) by a fixed effect model and a random effects model. We investigated sources of heterogeneity by subgroup analyses and tested the robustness of our findings by sensitivity analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials randomising 706 patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. D-penicillamine compared with placebo/no intervention tended to increase mortality (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.64, fixed; RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.50, random). However, there was substantial heterogeneity. No significant differences were detected regarding the risks of mortality or liver transplantation, pruritus, liver complications, progression of liver histological stage, or the levels of liver biochemical variables (except alanine aminotransferase). D-penicillamine versus placebo/no intervention significantly increased the risk of adverse events (RR 3.11, 95% CI 2.33 to 4.16, fixed; RR 4.18, 95% CI 1.38 to 12.69, random).

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

D-penicillamine did not appear to reduce the risk of mortality, but significantly increased the occurrences of adverse events in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. We do not support the use of D-penicillamine for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis.

Colchicine for primary biliary cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Colchicine has been used for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis because of its immunomodulatory and antifibrotic potential. The therapeutical responses to colchicine in randomised clinical trials were inconsistent.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of colchicine in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified trials through electronic searches of The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE (September 2003), and manual searches of bibliographies. We contacted authors of trials and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing colchicine with any kind of control therapy were included irrespective of language, year of publication, and publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcomes were the number of deaths and the number of death and/or patients who underwent liver transplantation. Dichotomous outcomes were reported as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We examined intervention effects by using both a fixed effect model and a random effects model. Heterogeneity was investigated by subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven randomised clinical trials involving 716 patients with primary biliary cirrhosis fulfilled the inclusion criteria. No significant differences were detected between colchicine and placebo/no intervention on the number of deaths (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.06), the number of deaths and/or patients who underwent liver transplantation (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.49), liver complications, liver biochemical variables, liver histological measurements, and adverse events. Trial methodology was generally low and some trials had high drop-out rate. A best-worst-case-scenario analysis showed no significant effect of colchicine on mortality (RR 0.59, 95%CI 0.30 to 1.15), while a worst-best-case-scenario analysis showed a significant detrimental effect of colchicine on mortality (RR 2.28, 95% CI 1.17 to 4.44). Colchicine significantly decreased the number of patients without improvement of pruritus (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.87). However, this estimate was based on only 156 patients from three trials. The effect of the combined treatment with ursodeoxycholic acid was not significantly different from that of colchicine alone.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find evidence either to support or refute the use of colchicine for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. As we are not able to exclude a detrimental effect of colchicine, we suggest that it is only used in randomised clinical trials.