Xinyu Xiang1, Xiaoli Yang2, Mengyi Shen1, Chen Huang1, Yifeng Liu1, Xiaoli Fan1, Li Yang1. 1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Sichuan University-University of Oxford Huaxi Joint Centre for Gastrointestinal Cancer, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 2. Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China.
Abstract
Aim: To compare the response between the current recommended dosage 13-15 mg/kg/d and 20 mg/kg/d dose of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) patients who do not respond completely to a standard dose of UDCA. Methods: We included 73 patients with poor response and randomized them into two groups to investigate whether increasing the dosage of UDCA was beneficial to nonresponders. Patients assigned to the 13-15 mg/kg/d group continued with standard therapy, and participants in the 18-22 mg/kg/d group switched to the higher dosage (18-22 mg/kg/d), with a follow-up of 12 months for both groups. The primary endpoints were the rate of response at 6 months and drug side effects. Results: According to the Paris 2 criteria, patients receiving 18-22 mg/kg/d UDCA achieved a response rate of 59.4% compared with 36.1% in the standard dosage group (P=0.046) at 6 months, respectively. At 12 months, the high-UDCA-dosage group achieved a response rate of 59.4% compared with 47.2% in the standard dosage group (P=0.295), respectively. Additionally, the risk score predicted by the UK-PBC model was lower in high-dosage UDCA-treated patients than in the standard dosage group (all P < 0.05). Side effects include diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, rash, and newly developed high blood pressure, which were mild and tolerated. Conclusions: Patients treated with the high UDCA dosage showed some advantages over those who continued the standard dosage in terms of biochemical remission and disease progression, indicating that standard therapy with UDCA for 6 months and then another 1 year with high UDCA dosage for nonresponders could be a treatment option before second-line therapy is recommended.
Aim: To compare the response between the current recommended dosage 13-15 mg/kg/d and 20 mg/kg/d dose of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) patients who do not respond completely to a standard dose of UDCA. Methods: We included 73 patients with poor response and randomized them into two groups to investigate whether increasing the dosage of UDCA was beneficial to nonresponders. Patients assigned to the 13-15 mg/kg/d group continued with standard therapy, and participants in the 18-22 mg/kg/d group switched to the higher dosage (18-22 mg/kg/d), with a follow-up of 12 months for both groups. The primary endpoints were the rate of response at 6 months and drug side effects. Results: According to the Paris 2 criteria, patients receiving 18-22 mg/kg/d UDCA achieved a response rate of 59.4% compared with 36.1% in the standard dosage group (P=0.046) at 6 months, respectively. At 12 months, the high-UDCA-dosage group achieved a response rate of 59.4% compared with 47.2% in the standard dosage group (P=0.295), respectively. Additionally, the risk score predicted by the UK-PBC model was lower in high-dosage UDCA-treated patients than in the standard dosage group (all P < 0.05). Side effects include diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, rash, and newly developed high blood pressure, which were mild and tolerated. Conclusions: Patients treated with the high UDCA dosage showed some advantages over those who continued the standard dosage in terms of biochemical remission and disease progression, indicating that standard therapy with UDCA for 6 months and then another 1 year with high UDCA dosage for nonresponders could be a treatment option before second-line therapy is recommended.
Authors: Ulrich Beuers; Simon Hohenester; Lucas J Maillette de Buy Wenniger; Andreas E Kremer; Peter L M Jansen; Ronald P J Oude Elferink Journal: Hepatology Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: P Angulo; E R Dickson; T M Therneau; R A Jorgensen; C Smith; C K DeSotel; S M Lange; M L Anderson; D W Mahoney; K D Lindor Journal: J Hepatol Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: A Parés; L Caballería; J Rodés; M Bruguera; L Rodrigo; A García-Plaza; J Berenguer; D Rodríguez-Martínez; J Mercader; R Velicia Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: H J Van Hoogstraten; M B De Smet; W Renooij; J G Breed; L G Engels; J W Den Ouden-Muller; M C Rijk; A M Smit; R Zwertbroek; W C Hop; G P van Berge Henegouwen; S W Schalm; H R van Buuren Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Willem J Lammers; Gideon M Hirschfield; Christophe Corpechot; Frederik Nevens; Keith D Lindor; Harry L A Janssen; Annarosa Floreani; Cyriel Y Ponsioen; Marlyn J Mayo; Pietro Invernizzi; Pier M Battezzati; Albert Parés; Andrew K Burroughs; Andrew L Mason; Kris V Kowdley; Teru Kumagi; Maren H Harms; Palak J Trivedi; Raoul Poupon; Angela Cheung; Ana Lleo; Llorenç Caballeria; Bettina E Hansen; Henk R van Buuren Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2015-08-07 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Marco Carbone; Stephen J Sharp; Steve Flack; Dimitrios Paximadas; Kelly Spiess; Carolyn Adgey; Laura Griffiths; Reyna Lim; Paul Trembling; Kate Williamson; Nick J Wareham; Mark Aldersley; Andrew Bathgate; Andrew K Burroughs; Michael A Heneghan; James M Neuberger; Douglas Thorburn; Gideon M Hirschfield; Heather J Cordell; Graeme J Alexander; David E J Jones; Richard N Sandford; George F Mells Journal: Hepatology Date: 2015-10-20 Impact factor: 17.425