The effect of ursodeoxycholic acid on the florid duct lesion of primary biliary cirrhosis

Comparative histologic features among liver biopsies with biliary-pattern injury and confirmed clinical diagnoses

Biliary-pattern injury in the liver (eg, duct injury, ductular reaction, cholestasis) can occur in several conditions, including primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), large duct obstruction (LDO), and drug-induced liver injury (DILI). While the histologic changes in these conditions have been individually well described, distinguishing among them remains often challenging, particularly when biopsy samples are limited in size, robust clinical information is unavailable, and/or the pathologist does not feel confident in evaluating liver disease. This study evaluated histologic features that could aid the diagnosis of biliary-pattern injury on biopsy. We reviewed 121 liver biopsies from clinically confirmed cases of PBC, PSC, chronic LDO, or DILI for multiple clinical and histologic parameters. The rates of these histologic findings were then compared among different entities. Onion-skin fibrosis was seen in 14% of PSC in comparison to 0%, 5%, and 0% of PBC, DILI, and chronic LDO (P = 0.031). Florid duct lesions were identified in 21% of PBC compared to 2% of PSC and 0% of DILI and LDO (P = 0.0065). Similarly, 42% of PBC showed lobular granulomas, compared to 7% of PSC, 11% of DILI, and 33% of chronic LDO (P = 0.0001). Cholestasis was more commonly seen in DILI (42%) and chronic LDO (83%) than in PBC (4%) and PSC (16%) (P < 0.0001). Lobular chronic inflammation was found in a significantly higher percentage of PBC and LDO than of PSC and DILI (P = 0.0009). There were significantly fewer cases of PBC showing neutrophils in ductular reaction than PSC, DILI, and LDO (P = 0.0063). Histologic findings that can help suggest a diagnosis in liver biopsies with biliary-pattern injury include florid duct lesions, lobular granulomas, lack of neutrophils in ductular reaction, and lobular chronic inflammation in PBC; onion-skin fibrosis in PSC; cholestasis and feathery degeneration in DILI; and lobular granulomas, lobular chronic inflammation, cholestasis, and feathery degeneration in chronic LDO. These findings are likely most helpful when complicating factors interfere with biopsy interpretation.

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.

Nuclear bile acid signaling through the farnesoid X receptor

Bile acids (BAs) are amphipathic molecules produced from cholesterol by the liver. Expelled from the gallbladder upon meal ingestion, BAs serve as fat solubilizers in the intestine. BAs are reabsorbed in the ileum and return via the portal vein to the liver where, together with nutrients, they provide signals to coordinate metabolic responses. BAs act on energy and metabolic homeostasis through the activation of membrane and nuclear receptors, among which the nuclear receptor farnesoid X receptor (FXR) is an important regulator of several metabolic pathways. Highly expressed in the liver and the small intestine, FXR contributes to BA effects on metabolism, inflammation and cell cycle control. The pharmacological modulation of its activity has emerged as a potential therapeutic strategy for liver and metabolic diseases. This review highlights recent advances regarding the mechanisms by which the BA sensor FXR contributes to global signaling effects of BAs, and how FXR activity may be regulated by nutrient-sensitive signaling pathways.

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.

Ursodeoxycholic acid for primary biliary cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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.

Primary biliary cirrhosis: the future

The answers to these questions are key to understanding the pathogenesis of PBC. Although the study of PBC is significantly retarded by the lack of an adequate animal model, the molecular technology to address these issues is advancing rapidly. In addition, the ability to isolate and culture human biliary epithelial cells greatly facilitates in vitro studies. With the advent of these tools, investigators are well poised to address the important issues of PBC in the future.

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.

Aberrant expression of cytokeratin 7 as a histological marker of progression in primary biliary cirrhosis

AIM

We evaluated the aberrant expression of cytokeratin 7 (CK-7) in hepatocytes as a marker of cholestasis and progression in primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The expression of CK-7 was studied by immunohistochemistry in 83 cases of PBC. This expression was compared with biochemical data, the deposition of copper-associated protein, and previous histological classifications.

RESULTS

In normal liver, CK-7 was expressed exclusively in bile duct epithelial cells (BDE). In PBC, the expression was also observed in hepatocytes. The expression pattern was classified as follows: Grade 0, BDE as in normal; Grade 1, proliferated bile ductules; Grade 2, periportal hepatocytes in addition to proliferated bile ductules; Grade 3, intralobular hepatocytes; Grade 4, the majority of hepatocytes. The grades correlated with serum bilirubin levels but not with serum levels of biliary enzymes. A discrepancy between the CK-7 grading and Ludwig's classification was noted in cases with Stage 1 of the CK-7 grading who were considered Stage 2 or 3 in Ludwig's classification, suggesting that cholestasis and inflammatory activity might be independent events.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that the aberrant expression of CK-7 in hepatocytes may be a marker of chronic cholestasis and progression in PBC.

Cholestatic syndromes

Continued advances in the field of liver cell biology and molecular biology have provided further insights into the normal physiology of bile secretion and the pathogenesis and therapy for cholestatic syndromes. Important new data have also been published about pathogenesis, clinical features, and treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, drug-induced cholestasis, and cholestatic syndromes caused by viral infections.