SynthesisDigestive diseases and sciences2025
Review of Current and Upcoming Second-Line Treatments for Primary Biliary Cholangitis.
Synthesis in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of PPAR agonists in primary biliary cholangitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Pooled it
- Primary Biliary Cholangitis in the Middle East: A Review of Current Challenges and Treatment Approaches.Cureus · 2026Review
- Optimizing Care in Primary Biliary Cholangitis: Current Treatments and the Second-Line Decision.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Review
- Advancing the management of primary biliary cholangitis: From pathogenesis to emerging therapies.World journal of clinical cases · 2025Review
- Second-line therapies in PBC-related cirrhosis: balancing efficacy and safety.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2025Article
- Polypharmacology: new drugs in 2023-2024.Pharmacological reports : PR · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTreatment for primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) was defined by its singular relationship with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) for decades. However, nearly 40% of patients fail to achieve adequate biochemical response with UDCA, necessitating second-line therapies.
aimsThe aim of our review was to assess the efficacy and safety of second-line therapies for PBC from phase three trials.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review of PubMed, Medline, and ClinicalTrials.gov for published phase three trial data of second-line PBC therapies.
resultsFour phase three clinical trial evaluating obeticholic acid, bezafibrate, seladelpar, and elafibranor, were identified. All trials but one defined the treatment endpoints of an alkaline phosphatase (ALP) less than 1.67 times the upper limit of normal (ULN), a 15% decrease of ALP from baseline, and normal total bilirubin (TB) after 12 months. All therapies demonstrated statistically significant achievement of primary endpoints relative to placebo. Reduction in ALP from baseline ranged from 113 to 133.9 U/L (- 34.6% to - 50%) across all trials. Primary endpoint treatment differences relative to placebo ranged between 31 and 47%. ALP normalization rates were described for three treatments and varied between 15 and 67% in treatment cohorts,compared to 0% to 2% of placebo cohorts. Only elafibranor and seladelpar demonstrated significant reduction in total 5D itch scale scores. Discontinuation rates across studies ranged from 1 to 14% due to adverse effects.
conclusionAll reviewed therapies met their respective study endpoints. Effective second-line therapies area available and continue to receive long-term evaluation in patients with PBC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39621183What 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.