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.

Bezafibrate for primary biliary cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis is complicated. There are studies suggesting that bezafibrate, alone or in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), is effective in the treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis, but no systematic review has summarised the evidence yet. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of bezafibrate in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. SEARCH METHODS: 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, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and full text searches were conducted until November 2011. The searches in Chinese Bio-medical Literature Database, China Network Knowledge Information, Chinese Science Journal Database, Chinese Medical Citation Index, Wanfang Database, and full text searches were conducted until January 2011. Manufacturers and authors were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised clinical trials comparing bezafibrate at any dose or regimen in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis with placebo or no intervention, or with another drug. Any concomitant interventions were allowed if received equally by all treatment groups in a trial. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted data. RevMan Analysis was used for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) or risk difference (RD), and of continuous data with mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological domains were used to assess risk of systematic errors (bias). Trial sequential analysis was used to control for random errors (play of chance). MAIN RESULTS: Six trials with 151 Japanese patients were included. All trials had high risk of bias. Four trials compared bezafibrate plus UDCA with no intervention plus UDCA (referenced as bezafibrate versus no intervention in the remaining text), and two trials compared bezafibrate with UDCA. No patient died and no patient developed liver-related complications in any of the included trials. Bezafibrate was without significant effects on the occurrence of adverse events compared with no intervention (5/32 (16%) versus 0/28 (0%)) (RR 5.40, 95% CI 0.69 to 42.32; 3 trials with 60 patients; I² = 0%) or with UDCA (2/32 (6%) versus 0/37 (0%)) (RR 6.19, 95% CI 0.31 to 122.05; 2 trials with 69 patients; I² = 0%). Bezafibrate significantly decreased the activity of serum alkaline phosphatases compared with no intervention (MD -186.04 U/L, 95% CI -249.03 to -123.04; 4 trials with 79 patients; I² = 34%) and when compared with UDCA (MD -162.90 U/L, 95% CI -199.68 to -126.12; 2 trials with 48 patients; I² = 0%). These results were supported by trial sequential analyses. Bezafibrate compared with no intervention significantly decreased plasma immunoglobulin M (MD -164.00 mg/dl, 95% CI -259.47 to -68.53; 3 trials with 50 patients; I² = 46%) and serum bilirubin concentration (MD -0.19 mg/dl, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.00; 2 trials with 34 patients; I² = 0%). However, the latter two results were not supported by trial sequential analyses. Bezafibrate compared with no intervention had no significant effect on the activity of serum gamma-glutamyltransferase (MD -1.22 U/L, 95% CI -11.97 to 9.52; 4 trials with 79 patients; I² = 42%) and serum alanine aminotransferase (MD -5.61 U/L, 95% CI -24.50 to 13.27; 2 trials with 35 patients; I² = 34%). Bezafibrate compared with UDCA had no significant effect on the activity of serum gamma-glutamyltransferase (MD 38.44 U/L, 95% CI -180.67 to 257.55; 2 trials with 49 patients; I² = 89%), serum alanine aminotransferase (MD -2.34 U/L, 95% CI -34.73 to 30.06; 2 trials with 49 patients; I² = 95%), and plasma immunoglobulin M concentration (MD -20.23 mg/dl, 95% CI -218.71 to 178.25; 2 trials with 41 patients; I² = 90%) in random-effects model meta-analyses, but bezafibrate significantly decreased the activity of serum gamma-glutamyltransferase (MD -58.18, 95% CI -76.49 to -39.88; 2 trials with 49 patients; I² = 89%), serum alanine aminotransferase (MD -13.94, 95% CI -18.78 to -9.09; 2 trials with 49 patients; I² = 95%), and plasma immunoglobulin M concentration (MD -99.90, 95% CI -130.72 to -69.07; 2 trials with 41 patients; I² = 90%) in fixed-effect model meta-analyses. One patient had bezafibrate withdrawn due to an adverse event compared to no intervention (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.16; 2 trials with 60 patients; I² = 0%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review did not demonstrate any effect of bezafibrate versus no intervention on mortality, liver-related morbidity, adverse events, and pruritus in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. Furthermore, we found no significant effects of bezafibrate on mortality, liver-related morbidity, or adverse events when compared with ursodeoxycholic acid, None of the trials assessed quality of life or fatigue. The data seem to indicate a possible positive intervention effect of bezafibrate on some liver biochemistry measures compared with the control group, but the observed effects could be due to systematic errors or random errors. We need more randomised clinical trials on the effects of bezafibrate on primary biliary cirrhosis with low risks of systematic errors and random errors.

Bisphosphonates for osteoporosis in primary biliary cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonates are widely used for treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Patients with primary biliary cirrhosis often have osteoporosis - either postmenopausal or secondary to the liver disease. No systematic review or meta-analysis has assessed the effects of bisphosphonates for osteoporosis in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of bisphosphonates for osteoporosis in primary biliary cirrhosis. SEARCH METHODS: 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, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and full text searches were conducted until November 2011. Manufacturers and authors were contacted for additional studies during the conductance of the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised clinical trials of bisphosphonates in primary biliary cirrhosis compared with placebo or no intervention, or another bisphosphonate, or any other drug. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted data. RevMan Analysis was used for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) or risk difference (RD) and of continuous data with mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD), all with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological components were used to assess risk of systematic errors (bias). Trial sequential analysis was also used to control for random errors (play of chance). MAIN RESULTS: Six trials were included. Three trials with 106 participants, of which two trials with high risk of bias, did not demonstrate significant effects of bisphosphonates (etidronate or alendronate) versus placebo or no intervention regarding mortality (RD 0.00; 95% CI -0.12 to 0.12, I² = 0%), fractures (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.29 to 2.66, I² = 0%), or adverse events (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.49 to 2.04). Two trials with 62 participants with high risk of bias compared one bisphosphonate (etidronate or alendronate) versus another (alendronate or ibandronate) and found no significant difference regarding mortality (RD -0.03; 95% CI -0.14 to 0.07, I² = 0%), fractures (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.18 to 5.06, I² = 0%), or adverse events (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.49 to 2.04, I² = 0%). Bisphosphonates had no significant effect on liver-related mortality, liver transplantation, or liver-related morbidity compared with placebo or no intervention, or another bisphosphonate. Bisphosphonates had no significant effect on bone mineral density compared with placebo or no intervention, or another bisphosphonate. Bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no intervention seem to decrease the urinary amino telopeptides of collagen I (NTx) concentration (MD -16.93 nmol bone collagen equivalents/mmol creatinine; 95% CI -23.77 to -10.10; 2 trials with 88 patients; I² = 0%) and serum osteocalcin (SMD -0.81; 95% CI -1.22 to -0.39; 3 trials with 100 patients; I² = 34 %) concentration. The former result was supported by trial sequential analysis, but not the latter. Alendronate compared with another bisphosphonate (ibandronate) had no significant effect on serum osteocalcin concentration (MD -3.61 ng/ml, 95% CI -9.41 to 2.18; 2 trials with 47 patients; I² = 82%) in a random-effects meta-analysis, but it significantly decreased serum osteocalcin (MD -4.40 ng/ml, 95% CI -6.75 to -2.05; 2 trials with 47 patients; I² = 82%), the procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (MD -8.79 ng/ml, 95% CI -15.96 to -1.63; 2 trials with 47 patients; I² = 38%), and NTx concentration (MD -14.07 nmol bone collagen equivalents/mmol creatinine, 95% CI -24.23 to -3.90; 2 trials with 46 patients; I²=0%) in a fixed-effect model. The latter two results were not supported by trial sequential analyses. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of patients having bisphosphonates withdrawn due to adverse events compared with placebo or no intervention (RD -0.04; 95% CI -0.21 to 0.12; 2 trials with 46 patients; I² = 0%), or another bisphosphonate (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.14 to 2.17; 2 trials with 62 patients; I² = 0%). One trial with 32 participants and with high risk of bias compared etidronate versus sodium fluoride without finding significant difference regarding mortality, fractures, adverse events, or bone mineral density. Etidronate compared with sodium fluoride significantly decreased serum osteocalcin, urinary hydroxyproline, and parathyroid hormone concentration. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence to support or refute the use of bisphosphonates for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. The data seem to indicate a possible positive intervention effect of bisphosphonates on decreasing urinary amino telopeptides of collagen I concentration compared with placebo or no intervention with no risk of random error. There is need for more randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of bisphosphonates for osteoporosis on patient-relevant outcomes in primary biliary cirrhosis.

Hormone replacement for osteoporosis in women with primary biliary cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Women with primary biliary cirrhosis often suffer from postmenopausal osteoporosis due to their age, or osteoporosis secondary to their liver disease, or treatments provided for their liver disease. Hormone replacement increases bone mineral density and reduces fractures in postmenopausal women. On the other hand, hormone replacement increases the risk of various adverse events. We could not identify any meta-analyses or systematic reviews on hormone replacement in women with primary biliary cirrhosis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of hormone replacement for osteoporosis in women with primary biliary cirrhosis. SEARCH METHODS: 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, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and full text searches were conducted until November 2011. Manufacturers and authors were contacted during the review conductance. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised clinical trials of hormone replacement in primary biliary cirrhosis administered by any route, or regimen, or dose compared with placebo or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted data. RevMan Analysis was used for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) or risk difference (RD) and of continuous data with mean difference (MD), all with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological domains were used to assess risk of systematic errors (bias). Trial sequential analysis was used to control for random errors (play of chance). MAIN RESULTS: Two trials with 49 participants were included. One trial had low risk of bias. The other trial had high risk of bias. Hormone replacement had no effect on all-cause mortality (RD 0.00; 95% CI -0.11 to 0.11, I² = 0%) and fractures (RD -0.08; 95% CI -0.24 to 0.07, I² = 0%). Hormone replacement significantly increased adverse events and number of patients having hormone replacement withdrawn due to adverse events (RR 5.26; 95% CI 1.26 to 22.04, I² = 0%). Hormone replacement had no significant effect on lumbar spine bone mineral density (MD 1.25 g/cm² yearÖ¿¹; 95% CI -0.91 to 3.42, I² = 0%). On the other hand, a significant increase in proximal femur bone mineral density was observed in the control group (MD 2.24 g/cm² yearÖ¿¹; 95% CI 0.74 to 3.74, I² = 0%). Hormone replacement had no significant effect on liver-related mortality, liver transplantation, or liver-related morbidity. Hormone replacement had no significant effect on serum bilirubin concentration (MD 4.60 µmol/L; 95% CI -3.42 to 12.62, I² = 0%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence to support the use of hormone replacement for women with primary biliary cirrhosis. It seems that hormone replacement is connected with a significant increase in the occurrence of adverse events.

Role of serotonin in development of esophageal and gastric fundal varices.

AIM: to determine the effect of free serotonin concentrations in plasma on development of esophageal and gastric fundal varices. METHODS: this prospective study included 33 patients with liver cirrhosis and 24 healthy controls. Ultrasonography and measurement of serotonin concentration in plasma were carried out in both groups of subjects. The upper fiber panendoscopy was performed only in patients with liver cirrhosis. RESULTS: the mean plasma free serotonin levels were much higher in liver cirrhosis patients than in healthy controls (219.0 ± 24.2 nmol/L vs 65.4 ± 18.7 nmol/L, P < 0.0001). There was no significant correlation between serotonin concentration in plasma and the size of the esophageal varices according to Spearman coefficient of correlation (r(s) = -0.217, P > 0.05). However, the correlation of plasma serotonin concentration and gastric fundal varices was highly significant (r(s) = -0.601, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: free serotonin is significant in pathogenesis of portal hypertension especially in development of fundal varices, indicating the clinical value of serotonergic receptor blockers in these patients.

Plasma and platelet serotonin levels in patients with liver cirrhosis.

AIM: To analyze the relationship between plasma and platelet serotonin levels and the degree of liver insufficiency. METHODS: The prospective study included 30 patients with liver cirrhosis and 30 healthy controls. The degree of liver failure was assessed according to the Child-Pugh classification. Platelet and platelet poor plasma serotonin levels were determined. RESULTS: The mean plasma serotonin level was higher in liver cirrhosis patients than in healthy subjects (215.0 +/- 26.1 vs 63.1 +/- 18.1 nmol/L; P < 0.0001). The mean platelet serotonin content was not significantly different in patients with liver cirrhosis compared with healthy individuals (4.8 +/- 0.6; 4.2 +/- 0.3 nmol/platelet; P > 0.05). Plasma serotonin levels were significantly higher in Child-Pugh grade A/B than in grade C patients (246.8 +/- 35.0 vs 132.3 +/- 30.7 nmol/L; P < 0.05). However, platelet serotonin content was not significantly different between Child-Pugh grade C and grade A/B (4.6 +/- 0.7 vs 5.2 +/- 0.8 nmol/platelet; P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Plasma serotonin levels are significantly higher in patients with cirrhosis than in the controls and represent the degree of liver insufficiency. In addition, platelet poor plasma serotonin estimation is a better marker for liver insufficiency than platelet serotonin content.