Trial of penicillamine in advanced primary biliary cirrhosis

Mechanisms and molecules: What are the treatment targets for primary biliary cholangitis?

Treatment of primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) is not always sufficient to prevent progression to hepatic decompensation and/or need for liver transplant. Adjuvant therapy with obeticholic acid may provide additional biochemical improvements in some patients, but it is not well-tolerated by patients with significant itch or advanced cirrhosis. Thus, new and creative approaches to treating patients with PBC are important to identify. This review discusses major potential therapeutic targets in PBC and provides examples of some specific agents currently in development for the treatment of PBC. Targets are broadly classified into those which strive to modify bile, inflammation, cell survival, or fibrosis. In bile, shrinking the size of the bile acid pool or modifying the quality of the bile by making it more hydrophilic or enriched in phosphatidylcholine may ameliorate cholestatic injury. Biliary epithelial cell survival may be extended by fortifying the bicarbonate umbrella or improving cell membrane integrity. Autoimmunity and cholangitis have the potential to be improved via regulation of the immune system. Targeting cytokines, immune checkpoints, and anti-mitochondrial antibodies are examples of a more focused immunosuppression approach. Stem cell therapy and lymphocyte trafficking inhibition are more novel methods of broad immune regulation. Anti-fibrotic therapies are also potentially useful for preventing progression of PBC. The nuclear hormone receptors, farnesoid X receptor (FXR) and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) regulate many of these pathways: cholestasis, inflammation, and fibrosis, which is why they are being enthusiastically pursued as potential therapeutic targets in PBC.

A Tutorial on Evaluating the Time-Varying Discrimination Accuracy of Survival Models Used in Dynamic Decision Making

Many medical decisions involve the use of dynamic information collected on individual patients toward predicting likely transitions in their future health status. If accurate predictions are developed, then a prognostic model can identify patients at greatest risk for future adverse events and may be used clinically to define populations appropriate for targeted intervention. In practice, a prognostic model is often used to guide decisions at multiple time points over the course of disease, and classification performance (i.e., sensitivity and specificity) for distinguishing high-risk v. low-risk individuals may vary over time as an individual's disease status and prognostic information change. In this tutorial, we detail contemporary statistical methods that can characterize the time-varying accuracy of prognostic survival models when used for dynamic decision making. Although statistical methods for evaluating prognostic models with simple binary outcomes are well established, methods appropriate for survival outcomes are less well known and require time-dependent extensions of sensitivity and specificity to fully characterize longitudinal biomarkers or models. The methods we review are particularly important in that they allow for appropriate handling of censored outcomes commonly encountered with event time data. We highlight the importance of determining whether clinical interest is in predicting cumulative (or prevalent) cases over a fixed future time interval v. predicting incident cases over a range of follow-up times and whether patient information is static or updated over time. We discuss implementation of time-dependent receiver operating characteristic approaches using relevant R statistical software packages. The statistical summaries are illustrated using a liver prognostic model to guide transplantation in primary biliary cirrhosis.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

FUNDING

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Translating an understanding of the pathogenesis of hepatic fibrosis to novel therapies

The response to injury is one of wound healing and fibrogenesis, which ultimately leads to fibrosis. The fibrogenic response to injury is a generalized one across virtually all organ systems. In the liver, the injury response, typically occurring over a prolonged period of time, leads to cirrhosis (although it should be pointed out that not all patients with liver injury develop cirrhosis). The fact that many different diseases result in cirrhosis suggests a common pathogenesis. The study of hepatic fibrogenesis over the past 2 decades has been remarkably active, leading to a considerable understanding of this process. It clearly has been shown that the hepatic stellate cell is a central component in the fibrogenic process. It also has been recognized that other effector cells are important in the fibrogenic process, including resident fibroblasts, bone marrow-derived cells, fibrocytes, and even perhaps cells derived from epithelial cells (ie, through epithelial to mesenchymal transition). A key aspect of the biology of fibrogenesis is that the fibrogenic process is dynamic; thus, even advanced fibrosis (or cirrhosis) is reversible. Together, an understanding of the cellular basis for liver fibrogenesis, along with multiple aspects of the basic pathogenesis of fibrosis, have highlighted many exciting potential therapeutic opportunities. Thus, although the most effective antifibrotic therapy is simply treatment of the underlying disease, in situations in which this is not possible, specific antifibrotic therapy is likely not only to become feasible, but will soon become a reality. This review highlights the mechanisms underlying fibrogenesis that may be translated into future antifibrotic therapies and to review the current state of clinical development.

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.

Chlorambucil for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Molecular mechanisms of ursodeoxycholic acid toxicity & side effects: ursodeoxycholic acid freezes regeneration & induces hibernation mode

Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) is a steroid bile acid approved for primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC). UDCA is reported to have “hepato-protective properties”. Yet, UDCA has “unanticipated” toxicity, pronounced by more than double number of deaths, and eligibility for liver transplantation compared to the control group in 28 mg/kg/day in primary sclerosing cholangitis, necessitating trial halt in North America. UDCA is associated with increase in hepatocellular carcinoma in PBC especially when it fails to achieve biochemical response (10 and 15 years incidence of 9% and 20% respectively). “Unanticipated” UDCA toxicity includes hepatitis, pruritus, cholangitis, ascites, vanishing bile duct syndrome, liver cell failure, death, severe watery diarrhea, pneumonia, dysuria, immune-suppression, mutagenic effects and withdrawal syndrome upon sudden halt. UDCA inhibits DNA repair, co-enzyme A, cyclic AMP, p53, phagocytosis, and inhibits induction of nitric oxide synthatase. It is genotoxic, exerts aneugenic activity, and arrests apoptosis even after cellular phosphatidylserine externalization. UDCA toxicity is related to its interference with drug detoxification, being hydrophilic and anti-apoptotic, has a long half-life, has transcriptional mutational abilities, down-regulates cellular functions, has a very narrow difference between the recommended (13 mg/kg/day) and toxic dose (28 mg/kg/day), and it typically transforms into lithocholic acid that induces DNA strand breakage, it is uniquely co-mutagenic, and promotes cell transformation. UDCA beyond PBC is unjustified.

Primary biliary cirrhosis and liver transplantation

Primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) is an immune-mediated chronic progressive inflammatory liver disease, predominantly affecting middle-aged women, characterized by the presence of antimitochondrial antibodies (AMAs), which can lead to liver failure. Genetic contributions, environmental factors including chemical and infectious xenobiotics, autoimmunity and loss of tolerance have been aggressively investigated in the pathogenesis of PBC, however, the actual impact of these factors is still controversial. Survival of PBC patients has been largely improved with the widespread use of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), however, one third of patients still do not respond to the treatment and proceed to liver cirrhosis, requiring liver transplantation as a last resort for cure. The outcome of liver transplantation is excellent with 5- and 10-year survival rates around 80% and 70%, respectively, while along with long survival, the recurrence of the disease has become an important outcome after liver transplantation. Prevalence rates of recurrent PBC rage widely between 1% and 35%, and seem to increase with longer follow-up. Center-specific issues, especially the use of protocol biopsy, affect the variety of incidence, yet, recurrence itself does not affect patient and graft survival at present, and retransplantation due to recurrent disease is extremely rare. With a longer follow-up, recurrent disease could have an impact on patient and graft survival.

The diagnosis and treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis

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

Methotrexate for primary biliary cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Pharmacological treatment of biliary cirrhosis with ursodeoxycholic acid

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Primary biliary cirrhosis is a cholestatic liver disease that at one time was the leading indication for liver transplantation. Treatment with ursodeoxycholic acid has clearly improved the natural history of primary biliary cirrhosis.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

The treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis with a focus on ursodeoxycholic acid is covered. Papers related to treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis and associated conditions, using a variety of drugs but with a focus on ursodeoxycholic acid, are included. The papers reviewed date from 1984 - 2009.

WHAT WILL THE READER GAIN

The reader will gain an up-to-date understanding of current treatment strategies for primary biliary cirrhosis using ursodeoxycholic acid and an appreciation of what conditions are improved with this therapy and what associated conditions are not.

TAKE-HOME MESSAGE

Ursodeoxycholic acid in a dose of 13 - 15 mg/kg/day should be considered in all patients with primary biliary cirrhosis who have abnormal liver enzymes.

Primary biliary cirrhosis

Primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) is an immune-mediated chronic cholestatic liver disease with a slowly progressive course. Without treatment, most patients eventually develop fibrosis and cirrhosis of the liver and may need liver transplantation in the late stage of disease. PBC primarily affects women (female preponderance 9–10:1) with a prevalence of up to 1 in 1,000 women over 40 years of age. Common symptoms of the disease are fatigue and pruritus, but most patients are asymptomatic at first presentation. The diagnosis is based on sustained elevation of serum markers of cholestasis, i.e., alkaline phosphatase and gamma-glutamyl transferase, and the presence of serum antimitochondrial antibodies directed against the E2 subunit of the pyruvate dehydrogenase complex. Histologically, PBC is characterized by florid bile duct lesions with damage to biliary epithelial cells, an often dense portal inflammatory infiltrate and progressive loss of small intrahepatic bile ducts. Although the insight into pathogenetic aspects of PBC has grown enormously during the recent decade and numerous genetic, environmental, and infectious factors have been disclosed which may contribute to the development of PBC, the precise pathogenesis remains enigmatic. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) is currently the only FDA-approved medical treatment for PBC. 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. The mode of action of UDCA is still under discussion, but stimulation of impaired hepatocellular and cholangiocellular secretion, detoxification of bile, and antiapoptotic effects may represent key mechanisms. One out of three patients does not adequately respond to UDCA therapy and may need additional medical therapy and/or liver transplantation. This review summarizes current knowledge on the clinical, diagnostic, pathogenetic, and therapeutic aspects of PBC.

Current and future anti-fibrotic therapies for chronic liver disease

Chronic injury results in a wound healing response that eventually leads to fibrosis. The response is generalized, with features common among multiple organ systems. In the liver, various different types of injury lead to fibrogenesis, implying a common pathogenesis. Although several specific therapies for patients who have different liver diseases have been successfully developed, including antiviral therapies for those who have hepatitis B and hepatitis C virus infection, specific and effective antifibrotic therapy remains elusive. Over the past 2 decades, great advances in the understanding of fibrosis have been made and multiple mechanisms underlying hepatic fibrogenesis uncovered. Elucidation of these mechanisms has been of fundamental importance in highlighting novel potential therapies. Preclinical studies have indicated several putative therapies that might abrogate fibrogenesis. This article emphasizes mechanisms underlying fibrogenesis and reviews available and future therapeutics.

Interaction trees with censored survival data

We propose an interaction tree (IT) procedure to optimize the subgroup analysis in comparative studies that involve censored survival times. The proposed method recursively partitions the data into two subsets that show the greatest interaction with the treatment, which results in a number of objectively defined subgroups: in some of them the treatment effect is prominent while in others the treatment may have a negligible or even negative effect. The resultant tree structure can be used to explore the overall interaction between treatment and other covariates and help identify and describe possible target populations on which an experimental treatment demonstrates desired efficacy. We follow the standard CART (Breiman, et al., 1984) methodology to develop the interaction tree structure. Variable importance information is extracted via random forests of interaction trees. Both simulated experiments and an analysis of the primary billiary cirrhosis (PBC) data are provided for evaluation and illustration of the proposed procedure.

Primary biliary cirrhosis

Primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) is a chronic and slowly progressive cholestatic liver disease of autoimmune etiology characterized by injury of the intrahepatic bile ducts that may eventually lead to liver failure. Affected individuals are usually in their fifth to seventh decades of life at time of diagnosis, and 90% are women. Annual incidence is estimated between 0.7 and 49 cases per million-population and prevalence between 6.7 and 940 cases per million-population (depending on age and sex). The majority of patients are asymptomatic at diagnosis, however, some patients present with symptoms of fatigue and/or pruritus. Patients may even present with ascites, hepatic encephalopathy and/or esophageal variceal hemorrhage. PBC is associated with other autoimmune diseases such as Sjogren's syndrome, scleroderma, Raynaud's phenomenon and CREST syndrome and is regarded as an organ specific autoimmune disease. Genetic susceptibility as a predisposing factor for PBC has been suggested. Environmental factors may have potential causative role (infection, chemicals, smoking). Diagnosis is based on a combination of clinical features, abnormal liver biochemical pattern in a cholestatic picture persisting for more than six months and presence of detectable antimitochondrial antibodies (AMA) in serum. All AMA negative patients with cholestatic liver disease should be carefully evaluated with cholangiography and liver biopsy. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) is the only currently known medication that can slow the disease progression. Patients, particularly those who start UDCA treatment at early-stage disease and who respond in terms of improvement of the liver biochemistry, have a good prognosis. Liver transplantation is usually an option for patients with liver failure and the outcome is 70% survival at 7 years. Recently, animal models have been discovered that may provide a new insight into the pathogenesis of this disease and facilitate appreciation for novel treatment in PBC.

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.

Systematic review and meta-analysis: D-Penicillamine vs. placebo/no intervention in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis--Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group

BACKGROUND

D-Penicillamine is used for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis due to its ability to decrease hepatic copper and modulate the immune response. The results on effects of D--penicillamine in randomized-clinical trials of primary biliary cirrhosis patients are inconsistent.

AIM

To systematically evaluate the benefits and harms of D-penicillamine for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis.

METHODS

We have performed a systematic review with meta-analyses of randomized-clinical trials to evaluate the effects of D-penicillamine for primary biliary cirrhosis. The primary outcomes are mortality and mortality or liver transplantation. We analysed the data by fixed-effect and random-effect models.

RESULTS

Seven randomized trials including 706 patients were analysed. d-Penicillamine was without significant effects on mortality (RR 1.08, 95% CI: 0.82-1.43, P = 0.56), mortality or liver transplantation (RR 1.11, 95% CI: 0.74-1.68, P = 0.62), pruritus, liver complications, progression of liver histological stage and liver biochemical variables. D--Penicillamine significantly decreased serum alanine aminotransferase activity (weighted mean difference -45 IU/L, 95% CI: -75 to -15, P < 0.05) and led to significantly more adverse events (RR 4.18, 95% CI: 1.38-12.69, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

D-Penicillamine did not appear to reduce the risk of mortality or morbidity, and led to more adverse events in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis.

New therapies in hepatitis C virus and chronic liver disease: antifibrotics

Fibrotic liver disease occurs after any of the various forms of injury to the liver. Fibrosis is a critical factor leading to hepatic dysfunction and portal hypertension and its complications. The fibrogenic cascade is complex but leads to accumulation of extracellular matrix proteins, followed by nodular fibrosis, tissue contraction, and alteration in blood flow. A critical concept emerging is that activation of effector cells, which produce extracellular matrix, underlies the fibrogenic process. The aggregate data has not only helped lead to an understanding of the pathophysiologic basis of hepatic fibrogenesis, but it has also provided an important context with which to base novel antifibrotic therapy.

Medical treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis and primary sclerosing cholangitis

Chronic cholestasis is the main feature of primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), the most common chronic cholestatic liver diseases in adults. Although the etiology of both diseases remains poorly understood, auto-immune processes appear to be important, particularly in PBC. PBC and PSC usually slowly progress to cirrhosis,liver failure, and death, unless liver transplantation is performed. Ursodeoxycholic acid(UDCA), a hydrophilic dihydroxy bile acid, is the only drug currently approved for the treatment of patients with PBC and is also used in patients with PSC. In addition to UDCA, patients with PSC should be referred to endoscopic dilatation of major bile duct stenoses. Several potential mechanisms of action of UDCA have been proposed, including intracellular modulation of signaling events and secretion. Various immunosuppressive drugs have been evaluated alone or in combination with UDCA-especially for the treatment of PBC. Of these drugs,the topical corticosteroid budesonide, together with UDCA, appears promising in the treatment of early stage PBC, but data remain insufficient to warrant use of budesonide outside of controlled studies.

D-penicillamine for primary sclerosing cholangitis

BACKGROUND

Primary sclerosing cholangitis is a cholestatic disease. D-penicillamine is suggested as a treatment option due to its copper reducing and immunomodulatory potential.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of D-penicillamine for patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Eligible trials were identified through searches of The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (August 2005), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (1950 to August 2005), EMBASE (1980 to August 2005), Science Citation Index EXPANDED (1945 to August 2005), and reference lists of relevant articles. Authors of trials and pharmaceutical companies known to produce D-penicillamine were also contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing D-penicillamine in any dose, duration, and route of administration versus placebo, no intervention, or other intervention(s). Trials were included irrespective of publication status, year of publication, language, or blinding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors selected the trials, extracted data, and evaluated the methodological quality of the trials with respect to the generation of allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, and follow-up. The results were reported by intention-to-treat analysis. The outcomes were presented as relative risk (RR) or weighted mean difference (WMD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

One randomised trial was identified and included in the review. It was of low methodological quality. The trial compared D-penicillamine versus placebo in 70 patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Compared with placebo, D-penicillamine therapy had no significant effect on mortality (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.64), liver transplantation (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.17), hepatic histologic progression (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.74), or cholangiographic deterioration (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.79). D-penicillamine led to a significant improvement in the serum aspartate aminotransferase (WMD -23.00 U/L; 95% CI -30.66 to -15.34), but not in serum bilirubin level (WMD 0.40 mg/L; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.99) and serum alkaline phosphatases activity (WMD 44.00 U/L; 95% CI -37.89 to 125.89). There were significantly more adverse events in patients receiving D-penicillamine (P = 0.013).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is not sufficient evidence to support or refute the use of D-penicillamine for patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. We do not recommend the use of D-penicillamine for patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis outside randomised 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.

Antifibrotic therapy in chronic liver disease

The response to injury is one of wound healing and, subsequently, fibrosis. This response is generalized, occurring in diverse organ systems. Injury and wounding in the liver ultimately lead to cirrhosis in many patients (although not all patients), and are the result of many different diseases. The fact that various diseases result in cirrhosis suggests a common pathogenesis. Study over the past 2 decades has shed considerable light on the pathogenesis of fibrosis and cirrhosis. A growing body of literature indicates that the hepatic stellate cell is a central component in the fibrogenic process. Stellate cells undergo a transformation during injury that has been termed activation. Activation is complex and multifaceted, but one of its most prominent features is the synthesis of large amounts of extracellular matrix, resulting in deposition of scar or fibrous tissue. The fibrogenic process is dynamic; it is noteworthy that even advanced fibrosis (or cirrhosis) is reversible. The best antifibrotic therapy is treatment of the underlying disease. For example, eradication of hepatitis B or C virus can lead to the reversal of fibrosis. In situations in which treating the underlying process is not possible, specific antifibrotic therapy is desirable. A number of specific antifibrotic therapies have been tried, but have been met with poor or mediocre success. However, elucidation of the mechanisms responsible for fibrogenesis, with particular emphasis on stellate cell biology, has highlighted many putative novel therapies. This article emphasizes mechanisms underlying fibrogenesis, and reviews current antifibrotic therapies as well as potential future approaches.

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.

[Primary biliary liver cirrhosis and overlap syndrome. Diagnosis and therapy]

Primary biliary cirrhosis represents a chronic cholestatic liver disease of unknown etiology. It primarily affects females, is associated with extrahepatic immune-mediated syndromes, shows an immunogenetic association with HLA DR8, and displays serum autoantibodies, which makes an autoimmune etiology likely. The diagnosis is reached in patients with elevated alkaline phosphatase, gamma glutamyl transferase and bilirubin levels who exhibit normal bile ducts upon ultrasound examination, and in whom specific antimitochondrial autoantibodies are detectable. Half of all PBC patients additionally show specific antinuclear autoantibodies. Immunosuppressive therapy is ineffective; steroids, transplant immunosuppressants, colchicine, d-penicillamine and methotrexate are of limited clinical benefit. Ursodeoxycholic acid has few side effects and leads to a biochemical response and a delay of disease progression in most cases. When ursodeoxycholic acid therapy is ineffective an overlap syndrome with autoimmune hepatitis can be present, which can respond to steroid treatment. The only curative option is liver transplantation which should be considered when bilirubin levels exceed 100 microM/l.

Fenofibrate for patients with asymptomatic primary biliary cirrhosis

AIM

Primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) is a chronic, cholestatic disease of autoimmune etiology, the histology of which shows a destruction of the intrahepatic bile duct and portal inflammation. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) is now used as a first-line drug for asymptomatic PBC (aPBC) because it is reported that UDCA decreases mortality and prolongs the time of liver transplantation. However, only 20-30% of patients respond fully to UDCA. Recently, lipoprotein-lowering agents have been found to be effective for PBC. The aim of this study was to examine the safety and efficacy of fenofibrate, a member of the fibrate class of hypolipidemic and anti-inflammatory agent via peroxysome proliferatory-activated receptor alpha, in patients with aPBC.

METHODS

Fenofibrate was administered for twelve weeks in nine patients with aPBC who failed to respond to UDCA. UDCA was used along with fenofibrate during the study. The data from aPBC patients were analyzed to assess the biochemical effect of fenofibrate during the study.

RESULTS

The serum levels of alkaline phosphatase (ALP) (285+/-114.8 IU/L) and immunoglobulin M (IgM) (255.8+/-85.9 mg/dl) significantly decreased to 186.9+/-76.2 IU/L and 192.9+/-67.5 mg/dL respectively, after fenofibrate treatment in patients with aPBC (P<0.05). Moreover, the titer of antimitochondrial antibody (AMA) also decreased in 4 of 9 patients with aPBC. No adverse reactions were observed in any patients.

CONCLUSION

Fenofibrate appears to be significantly effective in treating patients with aPBC who respond incompletely to UDCA alone. Although the mechanism of fenofibrate on aPBC has not yet been fully clarified, combination therapy using fenofibrate and UDCA might be related to the anti-immunological effects, such as the suppression of AMA production as well as its anti-inflammatory effect.

Fenofibrate for patients with asymptomatic primary biliary cirrhosis

AIM: Primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) is a chronic, cholestatic disease of autoimmune etiology, the histology of which shows a destruction of the intrahepatic bile duct and portal inflammation. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) is now used as a first-line drug for asymptomatic PBC (aPBC) because it is reported that UDCA decreases mortality and prolongs the time of liver transplantation. However, only 20-30% of patients respond fully to UDCA. Recently, lipoprotein-lowering agents have been found to be effective for PBC. The aim of this study was to examine the safety and efficacy of fenofibrate, a member of the fibrate class of hypolipidemic and anti-inflammatory agent via peroxysome proliferatory-activated receptor α, in patients with aPBC.

METHODS: Fenofibrate was administered for twelve weeks in nine patients with aPBC who failed to respond to UDCA. UDCA was used along with fenofibrate during the study. The data from aPBC patients were analyzed to assess the biochemical effect of fenofibrate during the study.

RESULTS: The serum levels of alkaline phosphatase (ALP) (285 ± 114.8 IU/L) and immunoglobulin M (IgM) (255.8 ± 85.9 mg/dl) significantly decreased to 186.9 ± 76.2 IU/L and 192.9 ± 67.5 mg/dL respectively, after fenofibrate treatment in patients with aPBC (P < 0.05). Moreover, the titer of antimitochondrial antibody (AMA) also decreased in 4 of 9 patients with aPBC. No adverse reactions were observed in any patients.

CONCLUSION: Fenofibrate appears to be significantly effective in treating patients with aPBC who respond incompletely to UDCA alone. Although the mechanism of fenofibrate on aPBC has not yet been fully clarified, combination therapy using fenofibrate and UDCA might be related to the anti-immunological effects, such as the suppression of AMA production as well as its anti-inflammatory effect.

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.

Primary biliary cirrhosis: specific treatment

No single agent or combination of agents has been shown to unequivocally delay the need for liver transplantation or reduce mortality in patients with PBC. Given this uncertainty, what, if any, specific therapy should be recommended? The agents with the strongest scientific proof of efficacy in well-designed clinical trials are ursodiol, azathioprine, and cyclosporine. Ursodiol is clearly the least toxic of these three. Other agents, such as methotrexate, have shown impressive results in anecdotal studies but have never been adequately tested in randomized clinical trials. Thus, based on the current evidence, imperfect as it is, ursodiol appears to be the safest and potentiaily the most effective specific therapy for patients with PBC. Azathioprine and methotrexate may be the best alternatives for patients who cannot tolerate or do not respond to ursodiol therapy, primarily because their safety has been established in large and lengthy clinical trials. Cylosporine could be considered in patients who fail other treatments (Table 3). We can hope that a safe, highly-effective treatment for patients with PBC will ultimately be discovered. Trials to unequivocally demonstrate the efficacy of new agents will have to be extremely well designed, however, and will require large numbers of patients followed for an extended period of time.

Primary biliary cirrhosis

Primary biliary cirrhosis is a chronic cholestatic liver disease of adults. This disorder is characterised histologically by chronic non-suppurative destruction of interlobular bile ducts leading to advanced fibrosis, cirrhosis, and liver failure. The precise aetiopathogenesis of primary biliary cirrhosis remains unknown, although dysregulation of the immune system and genetic susceptibility both seem to be important. Affected patients are typically middle-aged women with abnormal serum concentrations of alkaline phosphatase. Presence of antimitochondrial antibody in serum is almost diagnostic of the disorder. Identification of primary biliary cirrhosis is important, because effective treatment with ursodeoxycholic acid has been shown to halt disease progression and improve survival without need for liver transplantation. However, therapeutic options for disease-related complications-including fatigue and metabolic bone disease-remain unavailable. Mathematical models have been developed that accurately predict the natural history of primary biliary cirrhosis in individuals. Despite advances in understanding of the disease, it remains one of the major indications for liver transplantation worldwide.

Ursodeoxycholic acid for primary biliary cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Primary biliary cirrhosis is a rare autoimmune liver disease and an effective treatment has been difficult to establish. Some randomised clinical trials have found an effect of ursodeoxycholic acid for primary biliary cirrhosis.

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate the beneficial effects and adverse effects of peroral ursodeoxycholic acid for primary biliary cirrhosis versus placebo or no intervention.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Controlled Trials Register of The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the full text of the identified studies were searched until April 2001. The electronic searches were done by entering the search terms 'ursodeoxycholic acid', 'UDCA', 'primary biliary cirrhosis', and 'PBC'.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials evaluating ursodeoxycholic acid administered perorally at any dose versus placebo or no intervention in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis diagnosed by any method. Only trials using an adequate method for randomisation were included, regardless of blinding and language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The methodologic quality of the randomised clinical trials was evaluated by components and the Jadad-score. The following outcomes were extracted: mortality, liver transplantation, pruritus, other clinical symptoms (jaundice, portal pressure, (bleeding) oesophageal varices, ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, hepato-renal syndrome, autoimmune conditions), liver biochemistry, liver function, liver biopsy findings, quality of life, and adverse events. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat method.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 16 randomised clinical trials evaluating ursodeoxycholic acid against placebo (n = 15) or no intervention (n = 1) in 1422 patients were identified. The median Jadad-score was 3 (range 1-5). A number of trials described as double blind had problems with the blinding. Neither mortality (odds ratio = 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.48), liver transplantation (odds ratio = 0.83; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.32), mortality or liver transplantation (odds ratio = 0.90; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.26), pruritus, fatigue, autoimmune conditions, quality of life, liver histology, or portal pressure were significantly affected by ursodeoxycholic acid (given in doses of 8-15 mg/kg/day for three months to five years). However, ursodeoxycholic acid significantly (P < 0.05) reduced ascites, jaundice, and biochemical variables such as serum bilirubin and liver enzymes. Ursodeoxycholic acid was not significantly associated with adverse events. Including data after patients had been switched onto open label ursodeoxycholic acid confirmed the findings regarding the lack of a significant effect of ursodeoxycholic acid on mortality and mortality or liver transplantation. A significant (P = 0.04) effect was, however, observed on the incidence of liver transplantation (odds ratio = 0.68; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.98).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Ursodeoxycholic acid has a marginal therapeutic effect for primary biliary cirrhosis. On the positive side, ursodeoxycholic acid has few side effects. The general usage of ursodeoxycholic acid for primary biliary cirrhosis needs reevaluation.

Basal and post-methionine serum homocysteine and lipoprotein abnormalities in patients with chronic liver disease

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein abnormalities are commonly found in chronic liver diseases (CLDs), particularly hypercholesterolemia in primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC). However, affected patients may not be at increased risk of coronary heart disease. Cirrhotic patients display impaired methionine clearance, and an increased level of homocysteine, a methionine metabolite, is an independent risk factor for coronary heart disease. Thus, we hypothesized that the low risk of coronary heart disease in patients with CLD may be related to low serum levels of homocysteine. The aim of this study was to test this hypothesis after methionine load and to describe the serum lipoprotein profile in patients with PBC and in patients with hepatocellular liver disease.

METHODS

Fifteen female patients (mean age, 58.2 +/- 11.7 years) with PBC, 15 female patients (mean age, 54.5 +/- 9.6 years) with other causes of CLD, and 15 healthy sex- and age-matched controls were given L-methionine (50 mg/kg of ideal body weight). Basal fasting serum homocysteine level and 2, 4, and 6 hours of post-methionine load were determined using high-performance liquid chromatography with a fluorometric detector. Levels of fasting serum cholesterol, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein (HDL), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)), and apoprotein B were also determined.

RESULTS

Results showed that mean basal and post-methionine load (6 hours) serum homocysteine levels were statistically significantly higher in the patients with PBC and with CLD than in the control group (P=0.04) and that levels of serum cholesterol, LDL, HDL, and apoprotein B were significantly higher in the PBC patients than in the other two groups (P < or = 0.05). There was no correlation between any of these parameters and the severity of liver disease. Serum HDL was significantly lower in the CLD group (P < or = 0.05) and correlated with severity of liver disease. There was no significant difference in serum cholesterol, LDL, or apoprotein B between the CLD group and the controls. Serum triglyceride and Lp(a) levels were similar for all three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to previous reports, the site of the methionine metabolic impairment was found to be below the homocysteine synthesis level. For most patients with CLD, factors other than serum homocysteine or Lp(a) are responsible for the reduction in the risk of coronary heart disease. Further studies with larger samples are needed.

Peripheral blood T-cell responses to pyruvate dehydrogenase complex in primary biliary cirrhosis: role of antigen-presenting dendritic cells

Patients with primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) are usually characterized by the presence of antibody to pyruvate dehydrogenase complex (PDC) in the sera and PDC-specific T cells in the liver. However, most of the patients with PBC do not show peripheral blood T cells response to PDC. In this study, we re-evaluated the peripheral blood T cell responses to PDC in PBC using antigen-presenting dendritic cells (DCs). Twenty-four patients with PBC (AMA-positive: 16; AMA-negative: 8) and 13 normal controls were enrolled in the study. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and highly enriched populations of T cells were stimulated with either only PDC or DCs plus PDC or PDC-pulsed DC plus PDC. Antibodies to different components of PDC were estimated by an immunoblotting technique. PBMC from only one out of ten AMA-positive PBC patients proliferated when cultured with only PDC. However, peripheral blood T cells from ten out of ten AMA-positive PBC patients and three out of ten AMA-negative PBC patients, but none of the five normal controls showed PDC-specific proliferation when cultured with PDC-pulsed DCs. Two of these three AMA-negative PBC patients, although negative for AMA, were positive for antibodies to other components of PDC. PDC-specific T cells are present in the peripheral blood from most of the patients with PBC. This is the first report on the effectiveness of antigen-pulsed DCs for the elucidation of autoantigen-specific immune response in human autoimmune diseases.