Rudic Jelena S, Poropat Goran, Krstic Miodrag N, Bjelakovic Goran, Gluud Christian
Department of Hepatology, Clinic of Gastroenterology, Clinical Centre of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Dec 12;12(12):CD000551. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000551.pub3.
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.
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of ursodeoxycholic acid in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis.
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.
Randomised clinical trials assessing the beneficial and harmful effects of ursodeoxycholic acid versus placebo or 'no intervention' in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis.
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.
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.
熊去氧胆酸用于原发性胆汁性肝硬化患者,这是一种病因不明的慢性进行性炎症性自身免疫介导的肝病。尽管其效果存在争议,但美国食品药品监督管理局已批准其用于原发性胆汁性肝硬化。
评估熊去氧胆酸对原发性胆汁性肝硬化患者的有益和有害作用。
我们在Cochrane肝胆组对照试验注册库、Cochrane图书馆中的Cochrane系统评价对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE、EMBASE、科学引文索引扩展版、拉丁美洲和加勒比卫生科学数据库、Clinicaltrials.gov以及世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台中检索符合条件的随机试验。文献检索截至2012年1月。
评估熊去氧胆酸与安慰剂或“无干预”相比对原发性胆汁性肝硬化患者有益和有害作用的随机临床试验。
两位作者独立提取数据。连续数据采用均值差(MD)和标准化均值差(SMD)进行分析。二分数据采用风险比(RR)进行分析。采用随机效应模型和固定效应模型进行Meta分析,并给出95%置信区间(CI)。采用随机效应模型Meta回归评估各试验中协变量的影响。采用试验序贯分析评估随机误差(机遇作用)风险。根据Cochrane方法学偏倚领域评估纳入试验中的偏倚风险(系统误差)。
纳入了16项随机临床试验,共1447例原发性胆汁性肝硬化患者。1项试验偏倚风险低,其余15项试验偏倚风险高。14项试验将熊去氧胆酸与安慰剂进行比较,2项试验将熊去氧胆酸与“无干预”进行比较。基线时晚期原发性胆汁性肝硬化患者的比例从15%到83%不等,中位数为51%。试验持续时间从3个月到92个月不等,中位数为24个月。结果显示,熊去氧胆酸与安慰剂或“无干预”在全因死亡率(45/699(6.4%)对46/692(6.6%);RR 0.97,95%CI 0.67至1.42,I² = 0%;14项试验)、全因死亡率或肝移植(86/713(12.1%)对89/706(12.6%);RR 0.96,95%CI 0.74至1.25,I² = 15%;15项试验)、严重不良事件(94/695(13.5%)对107/687(15.6%);RR 0.87,95%CI 0.68至1.12,I² = 23%;14项试验)或非严重不良事件(27/643(4.2%)对18/634(2.8%);RR 1.46,95%CI 0.83至2.56,I² = 0%;12项试验)方面的效果无显著差异。随机效应模型Meta回归显示,试验的偏倚风险、入组时患者的疾病严重程度、熊去氧胆酸剂量和试验持续时间与全因死亡率或全因死亡率或肝移植的干预效果无显著相关性。熊去氧胆酸对瘙痒患者数量(168/321(52.3%)对166/309(53.7%);RR 0.96,95%CI 0.84至1.09,I² = 0%;6项试验)或疲劳患者数量(170/252(64.9%)对174/244(71.3%);RR 0.90,95%CI 0.81至1.00,I² = 62%;4项试验)无影响。两项试验报告了黄疸患者数量,在固定效应Meta分析中显示熊去氧胆酸与安慰剂或无干预相比有显著效果(5/99(5.1%)对15/99(15.2%);RR 0.35,95%CI 0.14至0.90,I² = 51%;2项试验)。随机效应Meta分析未支持该结果(RR 0.56,95%CI 0.06至4.95)。门静脉压力、静脉曲张、曲张静脉出血、腹水和肝性脑病未受熊去氧胆酸显著影响。与安慰剂或无干预相比,熊去氧胆酸显著降低血清胆红素浓度(MD -8.69 µmol/l,95%CI -13.90至 -3.48,I² = 0%;881例患者;9项试验)和血清碱性磷酸酶活性(MD -257.09 U/L,95%CI -306.25至 -207.92,I² = 0%;754例患者,9项试验)。这些结果得到试验序贯分析的支持。熊去氧胆酸似乎还能改善γ-谷氨酰转移酶、转氨酶、总胆固醇和血浆免疫球蛋白M浓度的血清水平。熊去氧胆酸似乎对组织学分期恶化有有益作用(随机;66/281(23.5%)对103/270(38.2%);RR 0.62,95%CI 0.44至0.88,I² = 35%;7项试验)。
本系统评价未证明熊去氧胆酸对原发性胆汁性肝硬化患者的全因死亡率、全因死亡率或肝移植、瘙痒或疲劳有任何显著益处。与对照组相比,熊去氧胆酸似乎对肝脏生化指标和组织学进展有有益作用。纳入的试验除1项外均有高偏倚风险,且存在结果报告偏倚风险和随机误差风险。需要开展偏倚风险低且随机误差风险低的随机试验来研究熊去氧胆酸对原发性胆汁性肝硬化的影响。