SynthesisJournal of digestive diseases
MMF Is an Effective and Safer Treatment Options for Treatment-Naïve Patients With Autoimmune Hepatitis Compared to Azathioprine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of digestive diseases. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Analysis of the clinical characteristics of 45 cases of autoimmune liver disease in the Xizang population].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAutoimmune Hepatitis (AIH) is a chronic inflammatory liver disease with significant morbidity and mortality if untreated. Current first-line treatment involves corticosteroids and azathioprine (AZA), which are effective but are associated with significant adverse effects and treatment intolerance. Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), an immunosuppressive agent with a potentially better safety profile, has emerged as an alternative. This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of MMF compared to AZA in treatment-naïve AIH patients.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Databases were searched for articles published up to May 2024. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan, employing a random-effects model.
resultsFive studies involving 621 patients were included. MMF showed significantly higher rates of complete biochemical response compared to AZA (odds ratio [OR] 3.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.07-6.40, p < 0.00001) and lower non-response rates (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24-0.85, p = 0.01). Corticosteroid withdrawal rates were also higher in the MMF group (OR 2.89, 95% CI 1.69-4.94, p = 0.0001). Relapse rate and cumulative prednisolone dose were comparable between the two groups. MMF demonstrated a better safety profile, with significantly lower rates of gastrointestinal symptoms (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27-0.79, p = 0.005).
conclusionsMMF shows superior efficacy and tolerability compared to AZA in treatment-naïve AIH patients and may serve as a preferred first-line therapy, offering improved patient adherence and clinical outcomes. Further randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm these findings.
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.