MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415066860 · doi:10.1159/000548894

Comparative Effectiveness of Mycophenolate Mofetil and Tacrolimus as a Second-Line Therapy for Autoimmune Hepatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4415066860 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fahd Almalki, Sarah T. Alarmati, Razan N. Shata, Lama K. Almatrfi, Salma A. Binmahfoodh, Hana T. Alomayri, Ghida’a S. Qurban, Juri A. Alzahrani, Lamar J. Maddawi, Raghad F. Bahakeem, Rawan S. Azooni, Hassan Alwafi, Widya N. Insani

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Principles and Practice · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Diseases and Immunity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMycophenolateTacrolimusRandomized controlled trialMycophenolic acidClinical trialQuality of life (healthcare)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) is a chronic immune-mediated liver disease that usually responds to corticosteroids ± azathioprine (AZA). However, some patients are intolerant or refractory to first-line therapy and require second-line immunosuppression. Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and tacrolimus (TAC) are commonly used alternatives, although comparative evidence is limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of MMF and TAC in adult AIH patients who failed first-line therapy. METHODS: A systematic search of six databases identified 16 eligible studies (n = 705), including retrospective cohorts and one case series. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the MMS (methodological quality and synthesis of case series and case reports) tool. RESULTS: Biochemical remission was achieved in 56% of MMF-treated patients, rising to 66% with ≥6-month follow-up. TAC showed a pooled remission rate of 66%, increasing to 67% when defined by transaminase normalization. MMF was particularly effective in AZA-intolerant patients, while TAC showed better outcomes in steroid-refractory patients. Adverse events differed: MMF was most often associated with gastrointestinal intolerance, whereas TAC was linked to tremor, hypertension, diabetes, and renal impairment. However, statistical analysis showed wide confidence intervals, and there was considerable heterogeneity across studies. CONCLUSION: Both MMF and TAC are effective second-line therapies for AIH. MMF appears safer and better tolerated in AZA-intolerant patients, while TAC showed a modest advantage in efficacy over mycophenolate in steroid-refractory cases. Given the limitations of current evidence, including small sample sizes, heterogeneity, and lack of randomized controlled trials, treatment choice should be individualized until higher quality data are available.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.040
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Principles and PracticeSame topicLiver Diseases and ImmunityFrench-language works237,207