Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Artículo

dc.creatorAmpuero Herrojo, Javieres
dc.creatorGallego Durán, Rocíoes
dc.creatorMaya Miles, Douglases
dc.creatorMontero, Rocíoes
dc.creatorGato, Sheilaes
dc.creatorRojas, Ángelaes
dc.creatorGil, Antonioes
dc.creatorMuñoz, Rocíoes
dc.creatorRomero Gómez, Manueles
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-19T15:28:16Z
dc.date.available2022-10-19T15:28:16Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.citationAmpuero Herrojo, J., Gallego-Durán, R., Maya-Miles, D., Montero, R., Gato, S., Rojas, Á.,...,Romero Gómez, M. (2022). Systematic review and meta-analysis: analysis of variables influencing the interpretation of clinical trial results in NAFLD. Journal of Gastroenterology, 57 (5), 357-371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-022-01860-0.
dc.identifier.issn0944-1174es
dc.identifier.issn1435-5922es
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11441/138132
dc.description.abstractBackground NAFLD clinical trials have shown suboptimal results, particularly for liver fibrosis, despite the robust preclinical drug development. We aimed to assess the histological response after the experimental treatment versus placebo by carrying out a meta-analysis of NAFLD clinical trials. Methods After a systematic review of NAFLD clinical trials to May 2021, applying strict selection criteria, the following primary outcomes were observed: (a) NASH resolution, with no worsening of fibrosis when available; (b) fibrosis improvement  ≥ 1 stage, with no worsening of NAS when available; (c) worsening of NAS; (d) worsening of liver fibrosis  ≥ 1 stage, including the progression to cirrhosis on histopathology. Other histological, clinical, and biochemical outcomes were considered secondary endpoints. Heterogeneity was explored by subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and univariable meta-regression. Results Twenty-seven randomized clinical trials were included. The pooled efficacy for NASH resolution receiving experimental therapy was 19% (95%CI 15–23; I2 96.2%) compared with placebo 10% (95%CI 7–12; I2 85.8%) (OR 1.66 (95%CI 1.24–2.21); I2 57.8%), while it was 26% (95%CI 22–29); I2 90%)) versus 18% (95%CI 15–21; I2 59%)) for fibrosis improvement (OR 1.34 (95%CI 1.13–1.58); I2 25.4%). For these outcomes, the therapy showed higher efficacy in trials longer than 48 weeks, with  < 60% of diabetic population, and when it targeted FXR, PPAR, and antidiabetic mechanisms, and with a NAS  < 5 for NASH resolution. Also, NASH (OR 0.57 (95%CI 0.39–0.84); I2 67%) and fibrosis worsening (OR 0.65 (95%CI 0.46–0.92); I2 61.9%) were prevented with the therapy. Conclusion This meta-analysis provides information about the efficacy of the therapy versus placebo by comparing different and combined trial outcomes such as NASH resolution, fibrosis improvement, and NAS and fibrosis worsening. Changes in the experimental design and selection criteria of the clinical trials might be suitable to increase the efficacy.es
dc.description.sponsorshipConsejería de Salud , Junta de Andalucíaes
dc.description.sponsorshipMinisterio de Economíaes
dc.description.sponsorshipInstituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII)es
dc.format.extent15 p.es
dc.language.isoenges
dc.publisherSPRINGERes
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Gastroenterology, 57 (5), 357-371.
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.subjectNAFLDes
dc.subjectFibrosises
dc.subjectNASHes
dc.subjectPlaceboes
dc.subjectDruges
dc.titleSystematic review and meta-analysis: analysis of variables influencing the interpretation of clinical trial results in NAFLDes
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees
dcterms.identifierhttps://ror.org/03yxnpp24
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiones
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversidad de Sevilla. Departamento de Medicinaes
dc.relation.projectIDPI-0075–2014es
dc.relation.projectIDPI16/01842es
dc.relation.projectIDPI17/00535es
dc.relation.projectIDPI19/01404es
dc.relation.projectIDPI19/00589es
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00535-022-01860-0es
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00535-022-01860-0es
dc.journaltitleJournal of Gastroenterologyes
dc.publication.volumen57es
dc.publication.issue5es
dc.publication.initialPage357es
dc.publication.endPage371es

FicherosTamañoFormatoVerDescripción
Systematic review.pdf2.675MbIcon   [PDF] Ver/Abrir  

Este registro aparece en las siguientes colecciones

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional
Excepto si se señala otra cosa, la licencia del ítem se describe como: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional