Skip to main content

Table 3 End-point results of the included studies

From: The role of Ursodeoxycholic acid in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: a systematic review

Study Liver function improvement Histology alleviation
Monotherapy
Laurin et al. [24]* ALT (−30%), ALP (−8%) and γGT (−45%) steatosis improved
Lindor et al. [25] ALT in −31% vs. −29% steatosis in −18% vs. −14%; inflammation in −0 vs. −0.1, fibrosis in 0 vs. 0
Dufour et al. [20] ALT in −36% vs. −2% steatosis in −13% vs. −14%, inflammation in −0.8 vs. −0.02, fibrosis in +0.3 vs. +0.4
Kiyici et al. [26] ALT in −26% vs. −40% ALT in 76.0 vs. 55.1, γGT in 47.8vs 32.2 liver density +20% vs. +35% (in UDCA group between after and before therapy)
Hong Qian, et al. [32] Effective ratio24/26 vs. 23/27 not mentioned
Zhu Hong-juan [27] liver function and symptom in 25/30 vs. 15/30 not mentioned
Ratziu et al. [28] ALT in −28% vs. −2% γGT in −51% vs. +19% fibrosis in −11% vs. +10%#
Leuschner et al. [29] ALT in −41% vs. −35% Brunt score in −14% vs. −14% NAS activity score in −21% vs. −18%
UDCA combined with other drugs
Dufour et al. [20] ALT in −42% vs. −2% AST in −30% vs. +6% steatosis in −1.4 vs. −0.5; inflammation in −2.2 vs. −0.8
Zhuang Xue-shan [30] Effective rate 36/40 vs. 29/42 26/40 vs. 17/42 in steatosis (ultrasound)
Sun Yan [31] ALT in −79 vs. −72, AST in −31 vs. −8, Effective rate 65/76 vs. 37/61 not mentioned
Lv Hong [33] ALT in −45.9 vs. −16.1 AST in −40.1 vs. −29.5 no report in histology
Liu Zhi-ye [34] Effective rate 86/96 vs. 38/54 no report in histology
  1. All comparisons are treatment vs. control. Red indicates statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). *, Data from the UDCA group; the clofibrate group showed no significant changes (not shown) in liver function and histology. #, fibrosis was assessed by FibroTest, not by pathology.