SynthesisDigestion2025
Comparative Efficacy of Mycophenolate Mofetil vs. Azathioprine in Autoimmune Hepatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Digestion, 2025. 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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAzathioprine (AZA) is the standard treatment for both induction and maintenance of response in autoimmune hepatitis (AIH). However, lifelong administration is often required, and the combination therapy of prednisolone and azathioprine raises significant concerns regarding efficacy and tolerability, especially given the high relapse rates following AZA cessation. Consequently, there is a need to explore alternative treatment options. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) versus AZA, combined with prednisolone, for treating AIH.
methodsPubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched to identify randomized clinical trials and cohort studies comparing AZA and MMF for treating AIH. Four studies compared steroid withdrawal and complete biochemical response (CBR) between the MMF and AZA groups. Subgroup analyses were performed based on age (above and below 50 years) and IgG levels (above and below 2400 mg/dL). RevMan (version 5.4) software was used for meta-analysis.
resultsFour studies (three cohort studies and one RCT) comprising 505 patients were included in the final analysis. The pooled analysis showed a statistically significant association between the MMF group and increased CBR compared with the AZA group (RR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.03 to 2.01, p-value = 0.03), with no significant difference between the two groups regarding steroid withdrawal. Subgroup analysis by age revealed a significant association between the MMF group and increased CBR in patients over 50 years (RR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.00-2.64, p-value = 0.05). IgG subgroup analysis revealed a significant association between the MMF group and increased biochemical remission compared with the AZA group in patients with IgG levels of less than 2400 mg/dL (RR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.00-2.64, p-value = 0.05).
conclusionThe use of MMF was significantly associated with increased CBR compared to AZA in patients with AIH. Additionally, there was no significant association between the two groups regarding steroid withdrawal. Further research is needed to fully elucidate the optimal treatment strategy for AIH patients across different subpopulations.
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.