SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2024
Pegbelfermin for reducing transaminase levels in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: a dose-response meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of efruxifermin for patients with NASH/MASH: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative Analysis of Resmetirom vs. FGF21 Analogs vs. GLP-1 Agonists in MASLD and MASH: Network Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.Biomedicines · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The efficacy of Pegbelfermin (PGBF) in treating non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted a dose-response meta-analysis to explore the effect and pattern of PGBF at different dosages and treatment durations on transaminase reduction in NASH patients. Methods: We conducted searches on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov, and supplemented the search with gray literature and manual searches. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of PGBF in NASH patients were included. Risk of bias was assessed by Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. We used random-effects models, generalized least squares regression, constrained maximum likelihood, and restricted cubic splines to explore the dose-response relationship. Egger's linear regression was employed to assess publication bias. The study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023448024. Results: Four RCT studies from the period 2018-2023, involving 546 participants, were included. No participants discontinued PGBF treatment due to adverse events. High-dose PGBF treatment significantly reduced transaminase levels in NASH patients compared to the low-dose group (ALT %: MD = 14.94, 95% CI = 2.11-27.77; AST %: MD = 9.05, 95% CI = 3.17-14.92). Longer treatment duration further decreased transaminase levels (ALT%: MD = 8.81, 95% CI = 4.07-13.56; AST%: MD = 6.72, 95% CI = 2.62-10.81). Egger's test did not reveal significant publication bias ( Conclusion: There is a positive correlation between PGBF dosage and transaminase reduction within a certain range, showing an overall non-linear dose-response relationship. This finding provides guidance for the clinical application of PGBF. Clinicians should be mindful of the dosage ceiling at 30 mg/week and monitor changes in transaminase levels after 28 weeks for timely adjustments in PGBF dosage. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, CRD42023448024. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=448024.
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.