SynthesisBMJ open gastroenterology2025
What is the optimal first-line treatment of autoimmune hepatitis? A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised trials and comparative cohort studies.
Synthesis in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2025. 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.
- British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines for diagnosis and management of autoimmune hepatitis.Gut · 2025Guideline
- Autoimmune liver diseases in the Asia Pacific region: proceedings of the autoimmune liver disease course at APASL 2025.Hepatology international · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesUncertainty remains about many aspects of first-line treatment of autoimmune hepatitis (AIH).
designSystemic review with meta-analysis (MA). DATA SOURCES: Bespoke AIH Endnote Library, updated to 30 June 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative cohort studies including adult patients with AIH, reporting death/transplantation, biochemical response (BR) and/or adverse effects (AEs). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data pooled in MA as relative risk (RR) under random effects. Risk of bias (ROB) assessed using Cochrane ROB-2 and ROBINS-1 tools.
resultsFrom seven RCTs (five with low and two with some ROB) and 18 cohort studies (12 moderate ROB, six high for death/transplant), we found lower death/transplantation rates in (a) patients receiving pred+/-aza (vs no pred): overall (RR 0.38 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.74)), in patients without symptoms (0.38 (0.19-0.75)), without cirrhosis (0.30 (0.14-0.65)), and with decompensated cirrhosis (RR 0.38 (0.23-0.61)), and (b) patients receiving pred+aza (vs pred alone) (0.38 (0.22-0.65)). Patients receiving higher (vs lower) initial pred doses had similar BR rates (RR 1.07 (0.92-1.24)) and mortality (0.71 (0.25-2.05)) but more AEs (1.73 (1.17-2.55)). Patients receiving bud (vs pred) had similar BR rates (RR 0.99 (0.71-1.39)), with fewer cosmetic AEs (0.46 (0.34-0.62)). Patients receiving mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (vs aza) had similar BR rates (RR 1.32 (0.73-2.38)) and fewer AEs requiring drug cessation (0.20 (0.09-0.43)).
conclusionsMortality is lower in pred-treated (vs untreated) patients, overall and in several subgroups, and in those receiving pred+aza (vs pred). Higher initial pred doses confer no clear benefit and cause more AEs. Bud (vs pred) achieves similar BR rates, with fewer cosmetic AEs. MMF (vs aza) achieves similar BR rates, with fewer serious AEs.
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.