Reddy, Anish

ABSTRACT Background and Aims Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is a progressive cholestatic liver disease with a high risk of malignancy and limited therapeutic options. Both the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) recommend structured baseline evaluation, fibrosis staging and longitudinal surveillance. However, real‐world adherence to these practices in North America remains unclear. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 1300 patients with PSC enrolled in the Consortium for Autoimmune Liver Diseases (CALiD) registry between 2018 and 2024 across 19 centres in North America. Guideline adherence was assessed for diagnostic measures at baseline (colonoscopy to establish IBD status and noninvasive fibrosis staging) and longitudinal surveillance (colonoscopy in PSC‐IBD, abdominal imaging for hepatobiliary cancer surveillance and CA 19‐9 testing). Prescribing patterns for ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) were also characterised. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate demographic, clinical and socioeconomic predictors of adherence. Results At diagnosis, 78.8% of eligible patients with available data underwent colonoscopy to establish IBD status, and 45% underwent noninvasive fibrosis staging. During follow‐up, only 30%–35% of patients with PSC‐IBD underwent colonoscopy annually, while abdominal imaging for hepatobiliary cancer surveillance declined from 74% at Year 1 to 51% by Year 4. CA 19‐9 testing was documented in 47% over 5‐year period. UDCA was prescribed in 51% at baseline, with median dose of 12.5 mg/kg/day. Socioeconomic factors, including lower education and household income, were associated with reduced adherence, while cirrhosis strongly predicted completion of surveillance imaging. Conclusions Adherence to guideline‐based care in PSC remains suboptimal in North America Suboptimal adherence was observed for strongly recommended practices with longstanding guideline support (colonoscopy to establish IBD status; annual CRC surveillance in PSC‐IBD) as well as practices where guideline consensus has evolved more recently or where societies differ (baseline fibrosis assessment; hepatobiliary cancer imaging). Efforts to standardise care and address socioeconomic barriers are urgently needed to improve outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the widespread use of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), many patients remain at risk of progression. Emerging data suggest that normalization of alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and total bilirubin (TB)—particularly when TB < 0.6 times the upper limit of normal (× ULN)—is associated with improved outcomes compared with ALP reduction to < 1.5 × ULN. This study investigated the association between ALP normalization in response to UDCA and long-term clinical outcomes in a real-world cohort of patients with PBC. METHODS: We compared complication-free survival in patients achieving an ALP > ULN and < 1.5 × ULN (adequate response) with those with an ALP ≤ ULN on UDCA monotherapy. Complication-free survival was defined as the absence of serious liver-related clinical events. Restricted mean survival time was used to quantify survival time gained. RESULTS: Patients achieving normal ALP and/or TB ≤ 0.6 × ULN demonstrated significantly improved complication-free survival compared with those with an adequate ALP response. Event-free survival was extended by 1.34 years (95% CI: 0.56, 2.11; P = 0.001) for ALP normalization alone, 3.7 years (95% CI: 3.11, 4.29; P < 0.001) for TB ≤ 0.6 × ULN, and 4.51 years (95% CI: 4.13, 4.88; P < 0.001) for those meeting both criteria. The risk of severe clinical events was reduced in patients achieving ALP normalization (hazard ratio [HR] 0.34; 95% CI: 0.15, 0.80; P = 0.01), TB ≤ 0.6 × ULN (HR 0.23; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.55; P = 0.001), or both (HR 0.14; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.38; P < 0.001). High-risk patients, defined by liver stiffness measurement ≥ 10 kPa or clinical, histological, or laboratory evidence of cirrhosis or portal hypertension, derived the greatest benefit. DISCUSSION: Achieving normal ALP and TB ≤ 0.6 × ULN is associated with significantly improved complication-free survival, particularly in high-risk patients. These findings highlight the potential of biochemical thresholds as a meaningful therapeutic goal in PBC management.

Background and Aims: Primary biliary cholangitis is a chronic cholestatic liver disease that may progress to cirrhosis and liver failure. For patients with inadequate response or intolerance to ursodeoxycholic acid, peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor (PPAR) agonists have emerged as second-line options. This study assessed the comparative effectiveness and safety of PPAR agonists in primary biliary cholangitis through a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Approach and Results: A systematic review identified randomized controlled trials evaluating PPAR agonists versus ursodeoxycholic acid, with or without placebo. A frequentist network meta-analysis assessed biochemical response (primary outcome) and ALP normalization (secondary outcome). Pairwise meta-analyses were performed for percentage change in ALP and total bilirubin, and adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. Data were stratified by baseline ALP, and a random-effects model was used. Eight randomized controlled trials (727 participants) evaluating 4 PPAR agonists were included. All agents outperformed placebo in achieving biochemical response and ALP normalization. Bezafibrate ranked highest for the primary outcome; both bezafibrate and seladelpar ranked highest for the secondary outcome. Percentage ALP reduction did not vary by baseline ALP. Total bilirubin changes were similar across arms, and treatment discontinuations due to adverse events were infrequent. Conclusions: PPAR agonists are effective second-line therapies for primary biliary cholangitis. Treatment ranking differences likely reflect variations in outcomes, populations, and drug mechanisms. In the absence of head-to-head trials, network meta-analysis provides important insights into comparative effectiveness. Further studies are warranted to confirm long-term safety and improve the evaluation of patient-centered outcomes.