SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Efficacy, symptoms, and safety of second-line PBC therapies: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aim: The therapeutic landscape for primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) with an inadequate response to ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) is rapidly evolving. With the recent advent of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) agonists and ileal bile acid transporter (IBAT) inhibitors, establishing a comparative hierarchy is urgently needed. We aimed to evaluate the relative efficacy, symptomatic relief, and safety of all second-line PBC therapies. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and recent major hepatology congresses (EASL/AASLD) up to early 2026. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with durations of 12-52 weeks evaluating PPAR agonists (bezafibrate, seladelpar, elafibranor, saroglitazar), farnesoid X receptor (FXR) agonists (obeticholic acid [OCA]), and IBAT inhibitors (linerixibat) against placebo/UDCA. A frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed. Outcomes included biochemical response (POISE criteria, reflecting standard 6- to 12-month clinical evaluation timelines), complete alkaline phosphatase (ALP) normalization (≤1.0x ULN), pruritus improvement (standardized mean difference [SMD]), and safety (serious adverse events [SAEs]). Treatments were ranked using P-scores. Results: Twelve RCTs comprising 1,540 patients (therapy lengths 12-52 weeks) were included. For POISE criteria, bezafibrate ranked highest (Odds Ratio [OR] 77.44, 95% CI 8.96-669.51; P-score 0.89). However, for the stringent endpoint of complete ALP normalization, seladelpar 10 mg was superior (OR 44.12, 95% CI 2.65-733.27; P-score 0.79). Regarding symptomatic relief, seladelpar and linerixibat significantly alleviated pruritus, whereas OCA exacerbated it (SMD +0.50, 95% CI 0.35-0.65). Bivariate cluster analyses integrating efficacy, pruritus relief, and SAEs identified seladelpar 10 mg as possessing the most optimal risk-benefit profile. OCA exhibited the highest discontinuation-free tolerability but lacked robust ALP normalization and anti-pruritic benefits. Conclusion: The treatment paradigm for UDCA-refractory PBC is shifting towards individualized care. While bezafibrate offers unparalleled potency for POISE criteria, seladelpar 10 mg provides the most advantageous clinical balance, achieving deep biochemical remission (ALP normalization) alongside profound pruritus relief and a favorable safety profile. Systematic Review Registeration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=261351, identifier 420261351426.
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.