Number needed to treat with ursodeoxycholic acid therapy to prevent liver transplantation or death in primary biliary cholangitis

Objective: The clinical benefit of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) has never been reported in absolute measures. The aim of this study was to assess the number needed to treat (NNT) with UDCA to prevent liver transplantation (LT) or death among patients with PBC. Methods: The NNT was calculated based on the untreated LT-free survival and HR of UDCA with respect to LT or death as derived from inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted Cox proportional hazard analyses within the Global PBC Study Group database. Results: We included 3902 patients with a median follow-up of 7.8 (4.1-12.1) years. The overall HR of UDCA was 0.46 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.52) and the 5-year LT-free survival without UDCA was 81% (95% CI 79 to 82). The NNT to prevent one LT or death within 5 years (NNT5y) was 11 (95% CI 9 to 13). Although the HR of UDCA was similar for patients with and without cirrhosis (0.33 vs 0.31), the NNT5y was 4 (95% CI 3 to 5) and 20 (95% CI 14 to 34), respectively. Among patients with low alkaline phosphatase (ALP) (≤2× the upper limit of normal (ULN)), intermediate ALP (2-4× ULN) and high ALP (>4× ULN), the NNT5y to prevent one LT or death was 26 (95% CI 15 to 70), 11 (95% CI 8 to 17) and 5 (95% CI 4 to 8), respectively. Conclusion: The absolute clinical efficacy of UDCA with respect to LT or death varied with baseline prognostic characteristics, but was high throughout. These findings strongly emphasise the incentive to promptly initiate UDCA treatment in all patients with PBC and may improve patient compliance

Levels of alkaline phosphatase and bilirubin are surrogate end points of outcomes of patients with primary biliary cirrhosis:an international follow-up study

Noninvasive surrogate end points of long-term outcomes of patients with primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) are needed to monitor disease progression and evaluate potential treatments. We performed a meta-analysis of individual patient data from cohort studies to evaluate whether patients' levels of alkaline phosphatase and bilirubin correlate with their outcomes and can be used as surrogate end points. We performed a meta-analysis of data from 4845 patients included in 15 North American and European long-term follow-up cohort studies. Levels of alkaline phosphatase and bilirubin were analyzed in different settings and subpopulations at different time points relative to the clinical end point (liver transplantation or death). Of the 4845 patients, 1118 reached a clinical end point. The median follow-up period was 7.3 years; 77% survived for 10 years after study enrollment. Levels of alkaline phosphatase and bilirubin measured at study enrollment (baseline) and each year for 5 years were strongly associated with clinical outcomes (lower levels were associated with longer transplant-free survival). At 1 year after study enrollment, levels of alkaline phosphatase that were 2.0 times the upper limit of normal (ULN) best predicted patient outcome (C statistic, 0.71) but not significantly better than other thresholds. Of patients with alkaline phosphatase levels ≤ 2.0 times the ULN, 84% survived for 10 years compared with 62% of those with levels >2.0 times the ULN (P 1.0 times the ULN (P < .0001). Combining levels of alkaline phosphatase and bilirubin increased the ability to predict patient survival times. We confirmed the predictive value of alkaline phosphatase and bilirubin levels in multiple subgroups, such as patients who had not received treatment with ursodeoxycholic acid, and at different time points after study enrollment. Levels of alkaline phosphatase and bilirubin can predict outcomes (liver transplantation or death) of patients with PBC and might be used as surrogate end points in therapy trial

Supplementary Material for: Public Perceptions of Disease Severity but Not Actionability Correlate with Interest in Receiving Genomic Results: Nonalignment with Current Trends in Practice

<b><i>Purpose:</i></b> Frameworks highlighting disease actionability and severity are evolving to address the need to organize results from genome-wide analyses. This approach represents a paradigm shift from consultations focused on one or more genes to multiple genes for multiple disorders. Empirical input from the general population is lacking, yet seems essential for understanding how to maximize patient autonomy and satisfaction in the decision-making process. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We conducted a cross-sectional online survey with a representative sample of 900 US adults and assessed the participants' perceptions and attitudes toward disease actionability and severity, ranking hypothetical scenarios for these properties, and explored correlations with interest in learning test results. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Most respondents (>85%) rated actionability and severity as useful concepts; 46.6% indicated actionability alone would be adequate for decision making. Over half of them (53.8%) reported being very/extremely confident in their ability to score for actionability and severity. The participants' scoring of medical scenarios varied significantly between individuals. Scores for severity but not actionability were correlated with interest in learning genetic results. Subsets of the respondents projected wanting all results (30%) or no results (16%). The use of expert-created lists was acceptable to 43%. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The respondents from the general population were confident in making their own decisions. The responses suggested different priorities than current expert-driven approaches. The emphasis on binning genes may be missing a complementary, simplifying approach of grouping patients based upon their all/none interest in genomic results. This study illuminates important differences between the general public and genetic experts