ReviewDer Internist2018
[Primary biliary cholangitis-established and novel therapies].
Review in Der Internist, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC, formerly primary biliary cirrhosis) and insufficient treatment response or risk factors exhibit a remarkably increased risk for disease progression and associated complications. Furthermore, extrahepatic manifestations may considerably reduce quality of life in affected patients.
objectivesThis article presents an overview on standard therapy with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) and further therapeutic options in patients with insufficient treatment response. In addition, symptom-orientated therapies will be presented in a practical and compact way.
methodsThe current European and German guidelines from 2017 in addition to several research papers and expert opinions are the basis for this review.
resultsEvery PBC patient should be treated with UDCA life-long. In case of insufficient response to UDCA, obeticholic acid (OCA) has been approved as second line therapy since 2016. Fibrates and budesonide present off-label options for certain patient subpopulations. Pruritus should initially be treated with colestyramine. In case of insufficient efficacy or intolerance, rifampicin represents the most effective off-label option. If fatigue is present, differential diagnoses shall be excluded and coping strategies combined with regular physical activity can have a positive effect.
conclusionUDCA and OCA are effective and approved drugs for treating PBC. Patients with insufficient treatment response or risk factors have to be treated consequently. Due to the improved anti-cholestatic treatment options, therapies to reduce fatigue and pruritus are increasingly important.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.