BACKGROUND: Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a common cause of chronic liver disease. There is a major need to understand the efficacy of different pharmacological agents for the treatment of NASH. AIM: To assess the relative rank-order of different pharmacological interventions in fibrosis improvement and NASH resolution. METHODS: A comprehensive search of several databases was conducted by an experienced librarian. We included randomised controlled-trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacological interventions in patients with biopsy-proven NASH. The primary outcome was ≥1 stage improvement in fibrosis. The secondary outcome was NASH resolution. RESULTS: A total of 26 RCTs with 23 interventions met the eligibility criteria. Lanifibranor and obeticholic acid had the highest probability of being ranked the most effective intervention for achieving ≥1 stage of fibrosis improvement (SUCRA 0.78) and (SUCRA 0.77), respectively. For NASH resolution, semaglutide, liraglutide and vitamin E plus pioglitazone had the highest probability of being ranked the most effective intervention for achieving NASH resolution (SUCRA 0.89), (SUCRA 0.84) and (SUCRA 0.83), respectively. Lanifibranor, obeticholic acid, pioglitazone and vitamin E were significantly better than placebo in achieving ≥1 stage of fibrosis improvement. Conversely, semaglutide, liraglutide, vitamine E plus pioglitazone, pioglitazone, lanifibranor and obeticholic acid were significantly better than placebo in achieving NASH resolution. CONCLUSION: These data provide relative rank-order efficacy of various NASH therapies in terms of their improvements in liver fibrosis and NASH resolution. Therapies that have been shown to improve NASH resolution may be combined with therapies that have an antifibrotic effect to further boost treatment response rate in future.
BACKGROUND: Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a common cause of chronic liver disease. There is a major need to understand the efficacy of different pharmacological agents for the treatment of NASH. AIM: To assess the relative rank-order of different pharmacological interventions in fibrosis improvement and NASH resolution. METHODS: A comprehensive search of several databases was conducted by an experienced librarian. We included randomised controlled-trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacological interventions in patients with biopsy-proven NASH. The primary outcome was ≥1 stage improvement in fibrosis. The secondary outcome was NASH resolution. RESULTS: A total of 26 RCTs with 23 interventions met the eligibility criteria. Lanifibranor and obeticholic acid had the highest probability of being ranked the most effective intervention for achieving ≥1 stage of fibrosis improvement (SUCRA 0.78) and (SUCRA 0.77), respectively. For NASH resolution, semaglutide, liraglutide and vitamin E plus pioglitazone had the highest probability of being ranked the most effective intervention for achieving NASH resolution (SUCRA 0.89), (SUCRA 0.84) and (SUCRA 0.83), respectively. Lanifibranor, obeticholic acid, pioglitazone and vitamin E were significantly better than placebo in achieving ≥1 stage of fibrosis improvement. Conversely, semaglutide, liraglutide, vitamine E plus pioglitazone, pioglitazone, lanifibranor and obeticholic acid were significantly better than placebo in achieving NASH resolution. CONCLUSION: These data provide relative rank-order efficacy of various NASH therapies in terms of their improvements in liver fibrosis and NASH resolution. Therapies that have been shown to improve NASH resolution may be combined with therapies that have an antifibrotic effect to further boost treatment response rate in future.
Authors: Naga Chalasani; Zobair Younossi; Joel E Lavine; Michael Charlton; Kenneth Cusi; Mary Rinella; Stephen A Harrison; Elizabeth M Brunt; Arun J Sanyal Journal: Hepatology Date: 2017-09-29 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Claudia O Zein; Lisa M Yerian; Prema Gogate; Rocio Lopez; John P Kirwan; Ariel E Feldstein; Arthur J McCullough Journal: Hepatology Date: 2011-08-24 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Arun J Sanyal; Naga Chalasani; Kris V Kowdley; Arthur McCullough; Anna Mae Diehl; Nathan M Bass; Brent A Neuschwander-Tetri; Joel E Lavine; James Tonascia; Aynur Unalp; Mark Van Natta; Jeanne Clark; Elizabeth M Brunt; David E Kleiner; Jay H Hoofnagle; Patricia R Robuck Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-04-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Vlad Ratziu; Stephen A Harrison; Sven Francque; Pierre Bedossa; Philippe Lehert; Lawrence Serfaty; Manuel Romero-Gomez; Jérôme Boursier; Manal Abdelmalek; Steve Caldwell; Joost Drenth; Quentin M Anstee; Dean Hum; Remy Hanf; Alice Roudot; Sophie Megnien; Bart Staels; Arun Sanyal Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Stephen A Harrison; Mustafa R Bashir; Cynthia D Guy; Rong Zhou; Cynthia A Moylan; Juan P Frias; Naim Alkhouri; Meena B Bansal; Seth Baum; Brent A Neuschwander-Tetri; Rebecca Taub; Sam E Moussa Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Stephen A Harrison; Sigurd Torgerson; Paul Hayashi; John Ward; Steven Schenker Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Han Ah Lee; Young Chang; Pil Soo Sung; Eileen L Yoon; Hye Won Lee; Jeong-Ju Yoo; Young-Sun Lee; Jihyun An; Do Seon Song; Young Youn Cho; Seung Up Kim; Yoon Jun Kim Journal: Clin Mol Hepatol Date: 2022-07-01
Authors: Jonathan G Stine; Ian R Schreibman; Alison J Faust; Jessica Dahmus; Benjamin Stern; Christopher Soriano; Gloriany Rivas; Breianna Hummer; Scot R Kimball; Nate R Geyer; Vernon M Chinchilli; Rohit Loomba; Kathryn Schmitz; Christopher Sciamanna Journal: Hepatology Date: 2022-01-22 Impact factor: 17.298
Authors: Alvaro Santos-Laso; María Gutiérrez-Larrañaga; Marta Alonso-Peña; Juan M Medina; Paula Iruzubieta; María Teresa Arias-Loste; Marcos López-Hoyos; Javier Crespo Journal: Biomedicines Date: 2021-12-26