4.3 Article

Primary sclerosing cholangitis response to the combination of fibrates with ursodeoxycholic acid: French-Spanish experience

出版社

ELSEVIER MASSON, CORPORATION OFFICE
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinre.2018.06.009

关键词

Chronic liver diseases; Cholestasis; Liver fibrosis; Cirrhosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & aims: In patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) treatment improves serum liver tests and surrogate markers of prognosis but has no proven effect on survival. Additional therapies are obviously needed. Fibrates, PPAR agonists with anti-cholestatic properties, have a beneficial effect in primary biliary cholangitis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of fibrates in PSC patients. Methods: Retrospectively, we investigated PSC patients treated with fibrates (fenofibrate 200 mg/day or bezafibrate 400 mg/day) for at least 6 months in addition to UDCA, after an incomplete biochemical response (alkaline phosphatase [ALP] >= 1.5 x upper limit of normal) to UDCA. Changes in biochemical parameters and clinical features were assessed. Results: Twenty patients were included (fourteen from Paris and six from Barcelona): median age 43.8 years, median liver stiffness 11 kPa (>= F3). Upon treatment with fibrates (median duration of 1.56 years), liver tests significantly improved, including a reduction of ALP levels by 41% and pruritus significantly decreased. No serious adverse event attributable to fibrates occurred. Discontinuation of fibrates was followed by a clear rebound of ALP. Despite biochemical improvement, liver stiffness significantly increased. Conclusions: Combining UDCA with fibrates results in a significant biochemical improvement and pruritus decrease in PSC patients with incomplete response to UDCA. These results provide a rationale for larger and prospectively designed studies to establish the efficacy and safety of fibrates in PSC. (C) 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据