ArticleHepatology communications2026
Second-line tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil in difficult-to-treat autoimmune hepatitis.
Article in Hepatology communications, 2026. 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAzathioprine with corticosteroids is the first-line treatment for patients with autoimmune hepatitis (AIH). However, around 20% of patients require treatment alternatives, and second-line therapy for AIH is less well defined due to a lack of randomized controlled trials. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and tacrolimus as second-line therapy.
methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of second-line therapies with MMF or tacrolimus for patients with AIH. Biochemical parameters were collected at the change of therapy, after 6 and 12 months, and at the last follow-up.
resultsIn total, 84/455 (18%) patients with AIH required second-line therapies, and 59 patients received MMF (47 patients) or tacrolimus (12 patients). Complete biochemical remission was achieved at a similar proportion in the tacrolimus group compared with MMF after 12 months (70.0% vs. 51.7%). In the subgroup of patients with insufficient response to first-line therapy, the rate of complete biochemical remission after 12 months was 70% in the tacrolimus group and 31% in the MMF group. Patients in the tacrolimus group had a higher mean ALT values compared with the MMF group and a higher prevalence of cirrhosis at the start of second-line therapy (50% vs. 19.1%).
conclusionsMMF and tacrolimus are effective and well-tolerated second-line therapies for AIH and should be part of the individualized second-line treatment algorithm of AIH. A trial of MMF is warranted after failure of first-line therapy. However, tacrolimus seems to be a safe and effective second-line option in patients with more advanced and aggressive disease.
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.