4.7 Article

Treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis with tetrathiomolybdate: results of a double-blind trial

Journal

TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH
Volume 155, Issue 3, Pages 123-130

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.trsl.2009.09.009

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Orphan Products Office [FD-02590-02]
  2. General Clinical Research Center of the University of Michigan Hospitals
  3. National Institutes of Health [MO1-RR000042]
  4. Clinical and Translational Science Awards [U11-RR024986]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The results of a double-blind trial of tetrathiomolybdate therapy and standard of care, versus placebo and standard of care treatment, in primary biliary cirrhosis patients are presented. Baseline studies of liver function, various safety variables, ceruloplasmin, a liver biopsy for histologic analysis, and for various cytokine analyses were carried out. Patients were observed every 4 months for up to 2 years of treatment by a hepatologist for clinical evaluation and repeat of all the baseline studies except liver biopsy, which was repeated at 2 years. The primary end points were improvement in 2 liver function tests and in 1 inflammatory cytokine. Fifteen placebo patients were followed for an average of 13 months, and 13 tetrathiomolybdate patients were followed for an average of 14 months. The predefined primary end points for efficacy were met. Tetrathiomolybdate was well tolerated. Because tetrathiomolybdate has been shown in numerous animal studies to inhibit autoimmune and inflammatory processes, and because primary biliary cirrhosis is an autoimmune attack on bile ducts, these positive findings on efficacy of tetrathiomolybdate therapy in primary biliary cirrhosis fit with the animal studies and suggest the need for a longer clinical trial to examine transplant-free survival. (Translational Research 2010; 155:123-130)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available