INTRODUCTION: Obeticholic acid (OCA) and fibrates therapy results in biochemical improvement in placebo-controlled trials in patients with primary biliary cholangitis and insufficient response to ursodeoxycholic acid. There is scarce information outside of clinical trials. Therefore, we have assessed the effectiveness and adverse events of these treatments. METHODS: Data from patients included in the ColHai registry treated with OCA, fibrates, or both were recorded during a year, as well as adverse events and treatment discontinuation. RESULTS: Eighty-six patients were treated with OCA, 250 with fibrates (81% bezafibrate; 19% fenofibrate), and 15 with OCA plus fibrates. OCA group had baseline significantly higher alkaline phosphatase (ALP) (P = 0.01) and lower platelets (P = 0.03) than fibrates. Both treatments significantly decreased ALP, gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), and transaminases and improved Globe score. Albumin and immunoglobulin type M improved in the fibrates group. ALP decrease was higher under fibrates, whereas alanine aminotransferase decline was higher under OCA. Although baseline transaminases and GGT were higher in patients with OCA plus fibrates, significant ALP, GGT, alanine aminotransferase, and Globe score improvement were observed during triple therapy. Adverse events were reported in 14.7% of patients (21.3% OCA; 17.6% fenofibrate; 10.7% bezafibrate), mainly pruritus (10.1% with OCA). Discontinuation was more frequent in fenofibrate treatment mainly because of intolerance or adverse events. DISCUSSION: Second-line therapy with OCA or fibrates improves hepatic biochemistry and the GLOBE score in primary biliary cholangitis patients with suboptimal response to ursodeoxycholic acid. Simultaneous treatment with OCA and fibrates improved ALP as well.

Background and Aims: In patients with non-severe acute or chronic autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) without cirrhosis, clinical practice guidelines recommend indistinct use of prednisone or budesonide. However, budesonide is infrequently used in clinical practice. We aimed to describe its use and compare its efficacy and safety with prednisone as first-line options. Approach and Results: This was a retrospective, multicenter study of 105 naive AIH patients treated with budesonide as the first-line drug. The control group included 276 patients treated with prednisone. Efficacy was assessed using logistic regression and validated using inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity score. The median time to biochemical response (BR) was 3.1 months in patients treated with budesonide and 4.9 months in those with prednisone. The BR rate was significantly higher in patients treated with prednisone (87% vs. 49% of patients with budesonide, p < 0.001). The probability of achieving BR, assessed using the inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity score, was significantly lower in the budesonide group (OR = 0.20; 95% CI: 0.11–0.38) at any time during follow-up, and at 6 (OR = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.29–0.89) and 12 months after starting treatment (0.41; 95% CI: 0.23–0.73). In patients with transaminases <2 × upper limit of normal, BR was similar in both treatment groups. Prednisone treatment was significantly associated with a higher risk of adverse events (24.2% vs. 15.9%, p = 0.047). Conclusions: In the real-life setting, the use of budesonide as first-line treatment is low, and it is generally prescribed to patients with perceived less disease activity. Budesonide was inferior to prednisone as a first-line drug but was associated with fewer side effects.

No abstract