JGH Open (Jun 2025)

Peroxisome Proliferator‐Activated Receptor (PPAR) Agonists for Patients With Primary Biliary Cholangitis With Inadequate Response to Ursodeoxycholic Acid (UDCA): A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

  • Maadeha H. Zaidi,
  • Zaroon Haider,
  • FNU Sadia,
  • Muhammad Tayyab,
  • Muhammad Naveed Tariq,
  • Hasaan H. Ans,
  • Muhammad Bilal Javaid,
  • Ahmad Khan,
  • Muhammad Hassan Ahmad,
  • Rahman Rasheed,
  • Uzair Jafar,
  • Huzaifa Ahmad Cheema,
  • Asma'a Munasar Ali Alsubari,
  • Muhammad Shahzil,
  • Essam Rashad,
  • Rehmat Ullah Awan,
  • Hassam Ali,
  • Prasun K. Jalal

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/jgh3.70196
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 9, no. 6
pp. n/a – n/a

Abstract

Read online

ABSTRACT Objective Peroxisome proliferator‐activated receptor (PPAR) agonists are agents used for patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) who do not respond to conventional agents like ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA). This meta‐analysis aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of PPAR agonists, including fibrates and selective PPAR agonists, on biochemical response and safety outcomes in patients with primary biliary cholangitis who were non‐responders to UDCA. Methods We searched various electronic databases, including MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov, to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PPAR agonists to placebo in patients with PBC. Results Our meta‐analysis, including 12 RCTs involving 973 patients, showed that PPAR agonists, including fibrates and selective PPAR agonists, significantly reduce mean alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels from baseline to follow‐up as compared to placebo. They also increase the number of patients with the composite biochemical response (RR 5.51; 95% CI: 2.80, 10.86) and normalize ALP levels with a reduction in pruritus NRS Score and the incidence of pruritus. There was no significant change between the two groups when assessing the mean change in total bilirubin, adverse events, serious adverse events, or mean change in PBC‐40 score. Conclusion In conclusion, our research underscores the potential of novel PPAR agonists in improving biochemical markers in PBC, particularly in patients unresponsive to UDCA. However, further studies with larger sample sizes, longer follow‐up durations, and a focus on patient‐centered outcomes are necessary. Additionally, exploring combination therapies and mechanistic insights will help us fully realize the therapeutic potential of PPAR agonists in PBC.

Keywords