Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · 2025
Second-Line Treatment for Patients With Primary Biliary Cholangitis: A Systematic Review With Network Meta-Analysis.
Систематический обзорСтатьяNetwork Meta-AnalysisНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Giannini Edoardo G, Pasta Andrea, Calabrese Francesco, Labanca Sara, Marenco Simona, Pieri Giulia, Plaz Torres Maria Corina, Strazzabosco Mario
Аннотация
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Approximately 40% of patients with Primary Biliary Cholangitis (PBC) show incomplete response to ursodeoxycholic acid, thus needing second-line treatment to prevent disease progression. As no head-to-head comparison study is available, we used a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare efficacy and safety of available second-line therapies.
METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review including randomised, placebo-controlled trials of patients with PBC and incomplete response, or intolerance, to ursodeoxycholic acid, and compared relative risks (RRs) for primary (biochemical response at 52-week) and secondary outcomes [incidence of new-onset pruritus and serious adverse events (SAEs)].
RESULTS: The NMA included three studies, each testing obeticholic acid (OCA), seladelpar or elafibranor versus placebo (active therapy/placebo: 379/191 patients). All treatments significantly increased the RR for biochemical response with an advantage of elafibranor versus seladelpar (RR: 4.37, 95% CI: 1.01-18.87). OCA 5-10 mg/10 mg was associated with a higher risk of new-onset pruritus compared to placebo (RR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.09-1.88/RR: 1.79; 95% CI: 1.37-2.33), while seladelpar decreased this risk (RR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.12-0.80). Compared to placebo, OCA 5-10 mg/10 mg was associated with an increased risk of SAE (RR: 3.82; 95% CI: 1.46-10.02/RR 2.67; 95% CI: 1.00-7.08).
CONCLUSIONS: Among second line therapies for patients with PBC, elafibranor is slightly more effective in obtaining biochemical response than seladelpar that, on the other hand, is the only drug associated with a lower incidence of pruritus. While of similar efficacy, OCA was associated with increased pruritus and SAEs. These findings may help personalise second-line treatment in patients with PBC.
METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review including randomised, placebo-controlled trials of patients with PBC and incomplete response, or intolerance, to ursodeoxycholic acid, and compared relative risks (RRs) for primary (biochemical response at 52-week) and secondary outcomes [incidence of new-onset pruritus and serious adverse events (SAEs)].
RESULTS: The NMA included three studies, each testing obeticholic acid (OCA), seladelpar or elafibranor versus placebo (active therapy/placebo: 379/191 patients). All treatments significantly increased the RR for biochemical response with an advantage of elafibranor versus seladelpar (RR: 4.37, 95% CI: 1.01-18.87). OCA 5-10 mg/10 mg was associated with a higher risk of new-onset pruritus compared to placebo (RR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.09-1.88/RR: 1.79; 95% CI: 1.37-2.33), while seladelpar decreased this risk (RR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.12-0.80). Compared to placebo, OCA 5-10 mg/10 mg was associated with an increased risk of SAE (RR: 3.82; 95% CI: 1.46-10.02/RR 2.67; 95% CI: 1.00-7.08).
CONCLUSIONS: Among second line therapies for patients with PBC, elafibranor is slightly more effective in obtaining biochemical response than seladelpar that, on the other hand, is the only drug associated with a lower incidence of pruritus. While of similar efficacy, OCA was associated with increased pruritus and SAEs. These findings may help personalise second-line treatment in patients with PBC.