Minireviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2024.
World J Methodol. Jun 20, 2024; 14(2): 91319
Published online Jun 20, 2024. doi: 10.5662/wjm.v14.i2.91319
Table 1 Summary of studies of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors single agonists in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
Drug class and mechanism
Agent
Trial design
Biochemical response
Histological response
Comments
PPARα (Fatty acid oxidation and Anti-inflammatory)[21,22]Fenofibrate16 patients, 48 wk vs placeboSignificant reduction in triglyceride and liver enzymesDecreased ballooning, grade steatosis, inflammation/fibrosis no changeLimited efficacy
Clofibrate40 patients 1 yr vs UDCAReduced ALTNo change
PPAR β/δ (glucose homeostasis and insulin sensitivity)[23,24]GW5015166 patients, 2 wk vs placeboReduced TG and LDLNo dataAbandoned due to cancer risk in preclinical studies
MBX-8025181 overweight patients, 2 wk vs placeboFavorable lipid profile and decreased liver enzymesNo dataNeed more data
PPARγ (adipogenesis, insulin sensitization, fatty acid oxidation)[25-27]Rosiglitazone63 patients, 52 wk vs placeboNormalized transaminase levels (38% vs 7%, P = 0.005)Improved steatosis (47% vs 16%; P = 0.014), although only half of the patients responded, no change of other histologic parametersWeight gain and painful swollen legs in rosiglitazone arm
PioglitazoneRCT, 61 patients, 12 months placebo or pioglitazone had paired biopsies Improvement of ALT and GGTHepatocellular injury (P = 0.005), Mallory–Denk bodies (P = 0.004), and fibrosis (P = 0.05) were reduced in patients treated with pioglitazoneWeight gain with pioglitazone
RCT, 259 patients pioglitazone vs vitamin E vs placebo 96 wkImprovement of transaminases in the vitamin E and pioglitazone armImprovement in NASH as compared with placebo (pioglitazone P = 0.04), significant reductions in steatosis, lobular inflammation and fibrosis in pioglitazone armWeight gain in pioglitazone group
Table 2 Summary of studies of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors dual and pan agonists in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
Drug class and mechanism
Agent
Trial design
Biochemical response
Histological response
Comments
PPAR α/δ agonist[33]Elafibranor276 patients, Elafibranor 80 mg vs 120 mg vs placebo, 52 wk, GOLDEN trialLiver enzymes, lipids, glucose profiles, and markers of systemic inflammation were significantly reduced in the elafibranor 120-mg groupElafibranor 120 mg was superior to the placebo, with NASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis in 19% versus 12% in the placebo group (P = 0.045), based on a post hoc analysis for the modified definitionNo change in primary outcome in intention to treat analysis
1070 patients, Elafibranor 120 mg vs placebo, 72 wk, RESOLVE IT trialImprovement in TG, ALT, and GGT 138 (19.2%) patients in the Ela group and 52 (14.7%) patients in the placebo group achieved resolution of NASH without worsening of fibrosis (P = 0.066)Despite the absence of safety signals, the RESOLVE-IT trial was discontinued due to the limited effect of Ela on surrogate efficacy endpoints
PPAR α/γ agonist[34-38]Tesaglitazar, Muraglitazar, AleglitazarFavorable lipid profile with muraglitazarNo changeTrials terminated early due to nephrotoxicity, cardiotoxicity and gastrointestinal hemorrhage respectively
Saroglitazar106 patients, 16 wk vs placeboImprovement in ALT and lipid profileNo dataDCGI approved for NAFLD in India
85 patients, 12 wk vs placeboImprovement in ALT and TGSignificant reduction in liver fibrosis (fibroscan)
Pan PPAR agonists[39,40]BezafibrateImprove HbA1c and atherogenic dyslipidemia in miceNo dataMostly animal data. Human studies are ongoing
LanifibranorImprove insulin sensitivity in miceImprove steatosis and fibrosis in liver tissue in mice
Table 3 Summary of trials exploring the efficacy of incretin-based therapies in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis
Ref.
Agent
Comparator
Participants
Duration
Outcomes
Newsome et al[50], 2021Semaglutide 0.1, 0.2 or 0.4 mg s/c once daily PlaceboNASH with F1, F2, or F3 fibrosis stage72 wkNASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis: 40% (0.1 mg), 36% (0.2 mg), 59% (0.4 mg), 33% (placebo); Improvement in fibrosis (P < 0.001 for 0.4 mg vs placebo); 43% (0.4 mg), 33% (placebo) (P = 0.48); Weight loss: 13% (0.4 mg), 1% placebo
Loomba et al[51], 2023Semaglutide 2.4 mg s/c Placebo (1: 2)NASH with compensated cirrhosis 48 wkImprovement in liver fibrosis by ≥ 1 stage without worsening NASH: 11% Semaglutide, 29% placebo (P = 0.087); Resolution of NASH at 48 wk: 34% semaglutide, 21% placebo (P = 0.29); No new safety concerns
Romero-Gomez et al[52], 2023 Efinopegdutide 10 mg s/c once weekly Semaglutide 1 mg s/c once weekly NAFLD with liver fat content (LFC) ≥ 10% 24 wkRelative reduction in LFC from baseline higher with efinopegdutide (72.7%) than semaglutide (42.3%); Similar reduction in body weight
Alkhouri et al[53], 2022Semaglutide 2.4 mg s/c + cilofexor once daily (30 or 100 mg)+ fircosostat (20 mg)Semaglutide alone
Semaglutide+cilofexor/fircosostat
NASH (MRI-PDFF > 10%, elastography ≥ 7 kPa24 wkCombination well tolerated; Greater reduction in liver fat with combination groups vs semaglutide (10%-11% vs 8.6%); Similar weight loss in all the groups
Flint et al[54], 2021 Semaglutide 0.4 mg s/c once daily PlaceboNAFLD, steatosis ≥ 10% (MRI-PDFF), MRE: 2.5-4.63 kPa48 wk≥ 30% reduction in liver steatosis at 24, 48 and 72 wk (64.7%, 76.5%, 73.5%) significantly higher than placebo; Change in liver stiffness in NAFLD not significantly different compared to placebo; Improvement in liver enzymes, body weight and HbA1c
Armstrong et al[55], 2016Liraglutide 1.8 mg/d s/cPlaceboBiopsy proven NASH48 wk39% had resolution of NASH (vs 9% placebo); Progression of fibrosis: 9% Liraglutide, 36% placebo
Khoo et al[56], 2017 Liraglutide 3.0 mg/dDiet and moderate exercise Obesity and NAFLD (Liver fat content > 5% on MRI) 26 wkSimilar reduction in weight, liver fat, liver enzymes in both the groups without any significant difference between the two
Yan et al[57], 2019 Liraglutide 1.8 mg/dInsulin glargine or sitagliptinT2D and NAFLD26 wkLiraglutide and sitagliptin along with metformin reduced body weight, liver fat content, visceral adipose tissue in addition to glycemic control in contrast to Insulin, subcutaneous fat also decreased in liraglutide arm
Bizino et al[58], 2020 Liraglutide 1.8 mg/dPlaceboT2D and NAFLD26 wkLiraglutide reduced significantly more body weight and subcutaneous fat but not visceral fat
Guo et al[59], 2020 Liraglutide 1.8 mg/dInsulin glargine or placeboT2D and NAFLD26 wkLiraglutide plus 2 gm metformin for 26 wk significantly reduced liver, subcutaneous and visceral fat
Zhang et al[60], 2020 Liraglutide 1.8 mg/dPioglitazone T2D and NAFLD24 wkLiraglutide reduced liver fat significantly compare to pioglitazone which could be attributed to weight loss
Liu et al[61], 2020 Exenatide 1.8 mg/d Insulin glargineT2D and NAFLD24 wkBoth reduced liver fat but exenatide led to higher reduction in body weight, visceral fat, liver enzymes
Miyake et al[62], 2022 (Trial Registration: jRCTs061210009)Semaglutide 0.5 mg/wk + Luseogliflozin 2.5 mg/dSemaglutide 0.5 mg/wk T2D and NASH52 wkOngoing study
Gastaldelli et al[63], 2022Dual GIP/GLP-1R agonist: tirzepatide10 mg or 15 mg/wk Insulin degludecT2D and NAFLD52 wkSignificant decrease in liver fat content, visceral and subcutaneous adipose tissue compared to insulin degludec
Kuchay et al[64], 2020 Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1r) agonist (GLP-1 RA)Usual care T2D and NAFLD24 wkDulaglutide significantly reduces liver fat comma gamma glutamyl transpeptidase