Journal of digestive diseases · 2025
MMF Is an Effective and Safer Treatment Options for Treatment-Naïve Patients With Autoimmune Hepatitis Compared to Azathioprine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Anwar Muhammad Tayyab, Shahzil Muhammad, Arif Taha Bin, Khaqan Muhammad Ali, Co Edzel Lorraine, Hasan Fariha, Tarar Rameez, Naeem Hamza, Farooq Sibgha, Jaan Ali, Chaudhary Ammad Javaid, Jahagirdar Vinay, Salgia Reena
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Autoimmune Hepatitis (AIH) is a chronic inflammatory liver disease with significant morbidity and mortality if untreated. Current first-line treatment involves corticosteroids and azathioprine (AZA), which are effective but are associated with significant adverse effects and treatment intolerance. Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), an immunosuppressive agent with a potentially better safety profile, has emerged as an alternative. This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of MMF compared to AZA in treatment-naïve AIH patients.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Databases were searched for articles published up to May 2024. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan, employing a random-effects model.
RESULTS: Five studies involving 621 patients were included. MMF showed significantly higher rates of complete biochemical response compared to AZA (odds ratio [OR] 3.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.07-6.40, p < 0.00001) and lower non-response rates (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24-0.85, p = 0.01). Corticosteroid withdrawal rates were also higher in the MMF group (OR 2.89, 95% CI 1.69-4.94, p = 0.0001). Relapse rate and cumulative prednisolone dose were comparable between the two groups. MMF demonstrated a better safety profile, with significantly lower rates of gastrointestinal symptoms (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27-0.79, p = 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: MMF shows superior efficacy and tolerability compared to AZA in treatment-naïve AIH patients and may serve as a preferred first-line therapy, offering improved patient adherence and clinical outcomes. Further randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm these findings.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Databases were searched for articles published up to May 2024. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan, employing a random-effects model.
RESULTS: Five studies involving 621 patients were included. MMF showed significantly higher rates of complete biochemical response compared to AZA (odds ratio [OR] 3.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.07-6.40, p < 0.00001) and lower non-response rates (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24-0.85, p = 0.01). Corticosteroid withdrawal rates were also higher in the MMF group (OR 2.89, 95% CI 1.69-4.94, p = 0.0001). Relapse rate and cumulative prednisolone dose were comparable between the two groups. MMF demonstrated a better safety profile, with significantly lower rates of gastrointestinal symptoms (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27-0.79, p = 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: MMF shows superior efficacy and tolerability compared to AZA in treatment-naïve AIH patients and may serve as a preferred first-line therapy, offering improved patient adherence and clinical outcomes. Further randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm these findings.