v
Search
Advanced Search

Publications > Journals > Journal of Clinical and Translational Hepatology > Article Full Text

  • OPEN ACCESS

Calcineurin Inhibitors in the Treatment of Adult Autoimmune Hepatitis: A Systematic Review

  • Martine AMC Baven-Pronk1,2,# ,
  • Joffre M. Hew2,#,
  • Maaike Biewenga2,
  • Maarten E. Tushuizen2,
  • Aad P. van den Berg3,
  • Gerd Bouma4,
  • Johannes T. Brouwer5,
  • Bart van Hoek2,*  and
  • Dutch Autoimmune Hepatitis Study Group
 Author information
Journal of Clinical and Translational Hepatology   2022;10(6):1155-1166

doi: 10.14218/JCTH.2021.00535

Abstract

Background and Aims

A considerable number of autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) patients completely or partially fail on first-line treatment. Several studies on the use of calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) in the treatment of AIH have been published without focusing on indication. The aim was to assess the efficacy of CNIs in the treatment of adult AIH patients, specifically focusing on indication: first-line intolerant and with first-line insufficient response (failure to achieve or maintain remission), and with second versus third-line treatment.

Methods

A literature search included studies on the use of CNIs in adult AIH. Patients with past or present use of CNIs from the Dutch AIH group cohort were added. The primary endpoint was biochemical remission while using CNIs. Secondary endpoints were biochemical response, treatment failure, and adverse effects.

Results

Twenty studies from the literature and nine Dutch patients were included describing the use of cyclosporine in 59 and tacrolimus in 219 adult AIH patients. The CNI remission rate was 53% in patients with insufficient response to first-line treatment and 67% in patients intolerant to first-line treatment. CNIs were used as second-line treatment in 73% with a remission rate of 52% and as third-line treatment in 22% with a remission rate of 26%. Cyclosporine was discontinued in 13% and tacrolimus in 11% of patients because of adverse events.

Conclusions

CNIs as rescue treatment in adult AIH patients are reasonably effective and safe both with insufficient response or intolerance to previous treatment. Prospective studies are needed.

Graphical Abstract

Keywords

Autoimmune hepatitis, Cyclosporine, Tacrolimus, Calcineurin inhibitor

Introduction

Autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) is characterized by hypergammaglobulinemia, autoantibodies and interface hepatitis.1,2 Current first-line treatment consists of prednisolone (PRED) and azathioprine (AZA) leading to remission with acceptable side effects in most patients. However, a considerable number of all patients fail first-line treatment because of intolerable side effects or insufficient response (failure to achieve or maintain remission).3 In noncirrhotic patients with intolerable side effects of PRED, budesonide is an excellent option.3,4 For patients with intolerable AZA side effects 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP), 6-thioguanine (6-TG) or mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) are alternatives.3,5–7 Patients with hepatotoxicity from AZA because of a skewed metabolism can be treated by adding allopurinol or switching to 6-TG.7,8 There are a number of alternative therapies,9 but many, like methotrexate, infliximab, rituximab, sirolimus, and everolimus, have been used as salvage treatments only in small case series.10–14

There is much more experience with the use of the calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) cyclosporine (CYC) and tacrolimus (TAC) in AIH. In a real-world analysis, the reported use of MMF was most frequent, followed by CNIs.9 Calcineurin inhibitors act through suppression of activated T cells via inhibition of the intracytoplasmic enzyme calcineurin, blocking nuclear transcription of proinflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-2.15 Several systematic reviews were published focusing on the efficacy and safety of second and third-line immunosuppressive therapy for AIH in adults, including CNIs. However, interpretation of data was hampered by heterogeneity of outcome measures and dosing and the reason for conversion to a CNI differed.16–21 The aim of this systematic review, which includes novel results of the Dutch national case series, was to assess the efficacy of CNIs in the treatment of adult AIH patients. We distinguished those with intolerance for first-line treatment, those with insufficient response to first-line treatment, and patients with CNIs as second-line versus third-line treatment.

Methods

Literature search

A literature search of Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane database for relevant studies was performed using combinations of the terms “autoimmune hepatitis,” “chronic active hepatitis,” “calcineurin inhibitor,” “cyclosporin,” “ciclosporine,” “Neoral,” “tacrolimus.” “Prograf,” and “Advagraf.” The exact search strategy is shown in Supplementary File 1). The last search was performed in October 2021. Meeting abstracts were excluded. Reference lists of relevant studies were screened for appropriate articles.

Article selection

Studies written in English, Dutch, German, or French describing the use of a CNI in the treatment of AIH patients 18 years of age or older and with sufficient data on treatment with CNIs were included. Treatment-naïve patients and patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC)22 or primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC)23 variant syndromes before starting a CNI were excluded.

Data extraction

The data extracted from the studies included the type of CNI, sample size, sex, age, disease duration before CNI, treatment duration before CNI, medications before CNI, reason for starting CNI (e.g. intolerance or insufficient response), line of treatment (i.e. second or third), dosage of CNI, dosing based on trough levels (i.e. yes or no, lower and upper limit), duration of CNI treatment, co-medication with CNI, adverse effects and result of CNI treatment (definitions see below), reasons for stopping CNI treatment and duration of follow-up after starting CNI. Authors were not contacted for missing data. Quality of the studies was assessed using the GRADE approach.24

Case series

From the larger Dutch AIH group cohort, all patients with probable and definite AIH according to the international criteria, ≥18 years of age, and with past or present use of CNIs before April 2018 were included in the analysis.2 The larger Dutch AIH group cohort in April 2018 consisted of over 1,300 patients with AIH and AIH variant (overlap) syndromes of all academic and large nonacademic centers in the Netherlands. Informed consent was obtained from each patient included in the study, and the study protocol conformed to the ethical guidelines of latest revision of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki as reflected in a priori approval by the institution’s human research committee.

Definitions

Treatment failure, response, and remission were defined according to the 2019 AASLD guidelines.25 As IgG and/or gamma globulin changes in articles were seldom reported after diagnosis and during treatment, they were not included in the definitions. Intolerance was stopping because of related side effects. Insufficient response was failure to achieve or maintain remission as determined by the treating physician or as stated in the articles. Treatment failure was a rise in, or stable aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) or intolerance. Biochemical response was a drop in AST and ALT below twice the upper limit of the reference or at least a 50% reduction in AST and ALT, without remission. Biochemical remission was normalization of AST and ALT. Efficacy of CNI treatment in the studies was reassessed according to the definitions as far as possible, which could lead to a discrepancy between the original study and results reported in this systematic review. Response to CNIs in the Dutch case series was determined by chart review. Follow-up was defined as time from starting CNI treatment until the last visit. Second-line treatment was defined as starting CNI treatment after treatment with corticosteroids with or without a thiopurine. Third-line treatment was defined as starting CNI after treatment with a second thiopurine, MMF or other immunosuppressants.

Endpoints

The primary endpoint was biochemical remission while using CNI. The secondary endpoints were biochemical response or treatment failure while using CNI.

Statistical analysis

Fisher’s exact test, chi-square test for trend and the Mann-Whitney U test were used with p <0.05 as the level of statistical significance. SPSS v.21 was used for the statistical analysis.

Results

A total of 20 studies were identified and included in this systematic review. Eleven studies reported the use of CYC in 58 patients, and 11 report the use of TAC in 211 patients (Fig. 1).15,26–44 Details of the GRADE scoring across the studies per outcome are summarized in Supplementary Table 1. The quality of the evidence was rated very low for all outcomes. From the Dutch AIH group cohort, nine patients with past or present use of CNI were identified. Eight were treated with TAC and one with CYC and are included in Table 1.

Flow chart of the literature search for the publications included in the systematic review.
Fig. 1  Flow chart of the literature search for the publications included in the systematic review.
Table 1

Baseline characteristics, pretreatment and treatment details, and treatment outcomes of the Dutch case series

Cyclosporine (n=1)
Tacrolimus (n=8)
First-line treatment intolerance (n=1)First-line treatment intolerance (n=3)First-line treatment insufficient response (n=5)
Baseline characteristics
  Sex (male/female)0/10/33/2
  Age at diagnosis (years)2056 (36–65)28 (26–63)
  Disease duration (years)87 (2–12)8 (2–16)
  IgG/gamma globulin elevated at diagnosis12/2 (100%)3/4 (75%)
  ANA12/3 (67%)3/5 (60%)
  ASMA13/3 (100%)4/5 (80%)
  SLA01/1 (100%)0/2 (0%)
  LKM00/2 (0%)0/3 (0%)
  AMA00/3 (0%)0/4 (0%)
  Liver biopsy at diagnosis13/3 (100%)5/5 (100%)
  Interface hepatitis12/3 (67%)5/5 (100%)
  Plasma cell infiltrate12/3 (67%)5/5 (100%)
  Biliary changes11/3 (33%)3/4 (75%)
  Cirrhosis at diagnosis00/3 (0%)1/5 (20%)
Pretreatment details
  Max AZA dosage (mg/day)50100 (75–100)100 (50–200)
  PRED/Budesonide (N)1/02/25/4
Pretreatment duration (months)12 (1–5)18 (4–184)
  Second-line treatment before CNI, reason for start CNINo1 MMF, insufficient response; 1 MMF, intoleranceNo
CNI treatment details
  Treatment duration (months)948 (1–34)27 (14–60)
  Maximum dose4.5 (mg/kg/day)4 (1–5) (mg/day)4.5 (3–8) (mg/day)
  Through level (ng/mL)100–4004–154–15
  Co-medicationPRED, BUD2 PRED; 1 PRED, BUD3 PRED; 2 PRED, BUD
  Stopped022
Result of CNI treatment
  Remission001 (20%)
  Response004 (80%)
  Treatment failure13 (100%)0
Long-term outcome of CNI treatment
  Remission/response CNI005 (100%)
  Stable disease120
  Progression, decompensated cirrhosis010
  Follow-up (months)9826 (8–34)27 (14–60)

Cyclosporine

Eleven studies described the use of CYC in 58 patients. Five were case reports26–28,30,37 and six were case series.15,29,31,32,43,44 In three case series, the patients treated with CYC were a portion of the entire case series. Data in these studies was variably reported for the entire case series, only the patients treated with CYC or only the pretreated patients.15,32,44 In the Dutch cohort one patient using CYC was identified (Table 1). Taken together a total of 59 patients on CYC were described, 39 women (66%), 20 men (34%). Table 2 describes data on the initial treatment before starting CYC, and Table 3 describes data while on CYC treatment. In seven studies and the Dutch cohort, CYC dosage was adjusted based on through levels.15,27–30,32,43 Overall 59% of the patients reached remission, 22% had a response without remission, 12% had treatment failure on CYC, and 7% of CYC treatment responses could not be determined from the provided data. All 21 patients with known time to remission reached remission within 6 months after initiation of CYC. Treatment with CYC was discontinued in 32 patients (54%). Reasons for discontinuing were intolerable side effects in nine patients (15%), persistent remission in seven (12%), insufficient response in five (8%), and on the patient’s own initiative in one (2%). In 10 patients, the reason for discontinuation could not be determined.

Table 2

Systematic review of cyclosporine in adult AIH patients: data on treatment before starting cyclosporine

StudyNAge min-max (year)PretreatmentTreatment duration before start CNI min-max (months)Reason for starting CNI
Mistilis1985151PRED/AZA59Intolerance
Person1993131PRED/AZA15Insufficient response
Sherman1994427–524 PRED/AZA6–364 Insufficient responses
Lawrence1994139PRED/AZA25Insufficient response
Senturk1995133PRED/AZA8Insufficient response
Fernandes1999519–622 PRED; 3 PRED/AZA3–125 Insufficient responses
Malekzadeh20011016–447 PRED; 3 PRED/AZA?5 Insufficient responses; 5 Intolerance
Wah-Kheong2012150PRED/AZA23Intolerance
Pape†‡2019919–663 PRED/AZA; 5 PRED/AZA, MMF; 1 PRED/AZA, 6-MP?5 Insufficient responses; 4 Intolerance
Noguchi2020830–552 PRED; 6 mPRED1–38 Insufficient responses
Roberts20201735 (median)15 PRED/AZA; 1 PRED/6-MP; 1 PRED; 3 MMF?12 Insufficient responses; 5 Intolerance
Dutch cohort1201 PRED/AZA11 Intolerance
Summary5916–6650 CYC as second-line treatment; 9 CYC as third-line treatment42 Insufficient responses; 17 Intolerance
Table 3

Systematic review of cyclosporine in adult AIH patients: data on cyclosporine treatment

StudynAge min-max (year)Start dosage min-max (mg/kg/day)Through level min-max (ng/mL)Co-medicationTreatment duration min-max (months)Adverse effectsResult of treatmentFollow-up min-max (months)
Mistilis19851513NoPRED24Rise in CreatinineResponse24
Person1993131?80–130PRED/AZA21NoRemission39
Sherman1994427–523180–2201 No; 3 PRED/AZA4–264 Gingival hyperplasia; 1 Paresthesia; 1 Rise in creatinine2 Remission; 1 Response; 1 Treatment failure4–26
Lawrence19941392.5200No9NoResponse9
Senturk19951333100–300No151 Rise in creatinineRemission15
Fernandes1999519–622–5No2 No; 3 PRED12–632 Hypertrichosis; 2 Gingival hyperplasia; 1 Varicella zoster4 Remission; 1 Response12–63
Malekzadeh20011016–442–5100–300??–6Yes4 Remission; 5 Response; 1 Treatment failureUnknown
Wah-Kheong2012150?NoPRED9NoRemission9
Pape†§2019919–661.2–3.8?3 No; 4 PRED; 1 AZA; 1 BUD?Headache; Flu-like symptoms; Gingival hyperplasia4 Remission; 1 Treatment failure; 4??
Noguchi2020830–552–5150–2002 PRED; 6 mPRED1–173 Tremor; 1 Rise in creatinine; 1 Thrombo-cytopenia; 1 CMV reactivation8 Remission7–118
Roberts20201735 (median)120 (median, mg/day)No?240 (median)4 Rise in creatinine; 4 Gingival hyperplasia; 3 Skin disorders; 3 Infection; 2 Hypertension; 1 Neurological10 Remission; 4 Response; 3 Treatment failure308 (median)
Dutch cohort1204.5100–400PRED94No1 Treatment failure98
Summary5916–668 No; 12 PRED; 6 mPRED; 4 PRED/AZA; 1 AZA; 1 BUD; 27?35 Remission; 13 Response; 7 Treatment failure; 4?

Cyclosporine: adverse effects

In most studies, adverse effects were reported collectively, not per patient, and multiple adverse effects could occur in one patient. Supplementary Figure 1 shows the minimal number of patients per side effect reported. Eleven of the 87 patients (13%) discontinued CYC because of intolerable adverse effects, one with uncontrollable hypertension, one with paresthesia, one with bloody diarrhea, one with flu-like symptoms, one with kidney failure, one with thrombocytopenia. The reason was not reported in five patients.

Tacrolimus

Eleven studies described the use of TAC in a total of 211 patients. One was a case report39 and 10 were case series.15,33–36,38,40–42,44 In five case series, the patients treated with TAC were a part of the entire case series. Data in these studies was variably reported for the entire case series or only for patients treated with TAC.15,34,39,40,44 In the Dutch cohort, eight patients with past or present use of TAC were identified and are included in Table 1. Taken together a total of 219 AIH patients on TAC were described, including 151 women (69%) and 56 men (26%) The sex of 12 patients could not be determined.

Table 4 describes data on the initial treatment before starting TAC, and Table 5 describes data while on TAC treatment. In seven studies and the current Dutch case series, the TAC dosage was adjusted based on through levels.15,33,35,36,38,41,42 Overall, 59% of the patients reached remission, 15% had a response without remission, and 14% had treatment failure on TAC. Twelve percent of TAC treatment responses could not be determined from the provided data. All 24 patients with a known time to remission reached remission within 12 months after initiation of TAC. Treatment with TAC was discontinued in 39 patients (18%). The reasons for discontinuing TAC were intolerable adverse effects in 24 patients (11%), an insufficient response to TAC treatment in nine (4%), persistent remission in two (1%), because of an adjustment of the diagnosis (from AIH to AIH-PSC variant syndrome) in two (1%), and TAC was stopped on the patient’s own initiative in two (1%).

Table 4

Systematic review of tacrolimus in adult AIH patients: data on treatment before starting tacrolimus

StudynAge min-max (year)PretreatmentTreatment duration before start CNI min-max (months)Reason for starting CNI
Aqel20041144–8410 PRED/AZA, 1 PRED6–1411 Insufficient responses
Chatur20055Adult5 PRED? AZA?Not specified
Larsen2007916–646 PRED/AZA, 3 PRED/MMF39 Insufficient responses
Tannous20111340.6 (mean)??Not specified
Than20161716–705 PRED/AZA, 3 PRED/AZA, CYC, 3 PRED/AZA, MMF, 1 PRED, 1 BUD, 1 AZA, 1 PRED/AZA, 6-MP, CYC, 1 PRED/AZA, 6-MP, MMF, CYC, 1 PRED/AZA, 6-MP, MMF?16 Insufficient responses; 1 Intolerance
Rubin20161611 PRED/AZA, MMF421 Insufficient response
Al Taii20172315–4923 PRED, 19 AZA, 10 MMF, 9 BUD?23 Insufficient responses
Efe20178710–6780 AZA, PRED, or BUD; 7 AZA, PRED or BUD, MMF3–18253 Insufficient responses; 34 Intolerance
Pape†§2019621–572 PRED/AZA, 2 PRED/AZA, MMF, 1 PRED/6-TG, MMF; 1 PRED/AZA, 6-TG?5 Insufficient responses; 1 Intolerance
Ferre-Aracil2020234820 PRED, 3 BUD, 22 Thiopurine, 5 MMF, 1 CYCMedian 24, IQR 8420 Insufficient responses; 3 Intolerance
Roberts20201617 (median)15 AZA, PRED, or BUD; 1 6-MP, PRED or BUD; 11 MMF?15 Insufficient responses; 1 Intolerance
Dutch cohort826–651 BUD/AZA, MMF, 1 PRED/AZA, MMF, 1 PRED/AZA, 5 PRED/AZA, BUD1–1845 Insufficient responses; 3 Intolerance
Summary21910–84153 TAC as second-line treatment; 53 TAC as third-line treatment; 13?1–184158 Insufficient responses; 43 Intolerance; 18 Not specified
Table 5

Systematic review of tacrolimus in adult AIH patients: data on tacrolimus treatment

StudynAge min-max (year)Start dosage min-max (mg/day)Through level min-max (ng/mL)Co-medicationTreatment duration min-max (months)Adverse effectsResult of treatmentFollow-up min-max (months)
Aqel20041144–841<69 PRED/AZA; 1 PRED; 1 PRED/Sirolimus1–364 Headache; 1 Hypertension; 1 Tremor; 1 Generalized edema; 1 Vivid dreams9 Remission; 2 Treatment failure?–36
Chatur20055Adult1–4No3 PRED; 2 PRED/MMF6–?1 Abdominal pain; 1 Tremor1 Remission; 3 Response; 1 Treatment failure10–54
Larsen2007916–642–4<66 PRED/AZA; 3 PRED/MMF12–371 Tremor3 Remission; 6 Response12–37
Tannous20111340.62–6??1–651 Nausea and vomiting; 1 Hair loss; 1 HUS; 1 SSC11 Remission; 2 Treatment failure1–65
Than20151716–700.5–5<66 PRED; 5 PRED/AZA; 2 AZA; 2 BUD/MMF; 1 BUD/AZA; 1 PRED/MMF12–1362 Headache; 1 Tremor; 1 Psychosis; 1 Abdominal pain; 1 Nausea and vomiting5 Remission; 3 Treatment failure; 9?12–204
Rubin20161615No1 PRED/MMF121 Renal failure1 Treatment failure39–147
Al Taii20172315–495 (mean)??35 (median)2 Gastrointestinal hemorrhage*6 Remission; 10 Response; 7 Treatment failure?
Efe20178710–671–8No20 No; 8 MMF; 59??4 Neurologic; 2 Hypertension and generalized edema; 2 Gastrointestinal; 1 Hair loss; 1 Renal failure65 Remission; 10 Treatment failure; 12?7–190
Pape†¶2019621–571–5?1 No; 5 PRED?3 Tremor; 2 Nausea; 1 Diarrhea; 1 Vertigo5 Remission; 1??
Ferre-Aracil20202348??2 No; 16 Steroids; 6 MMF; 6 Thiopurine16 (median, IQR 20)3 Tremor; 2 Headache; 1 Diabetes; 1 Hypertension; 1 Diarrhea; 1 Neuropathy and ototoxicity18 Remission; 1 Treatment failure; 4?3–242
Roberts20201617 (median)2.0 (median)No?102 (median)9 Neurological#; 3 Fatigue; 2 Infection; 2 Rise in creatinine; 2 Skin disorders; 1 Hyperkalemia6 Remission; 10 Response102 (median)
Dutch cohort826–651–84–155 PRED; 3 PRED → BUD1–603 Tremor; 3 Headache; 1 Abdominal pain; 1 Nausea; 1 Diarrhea; 1 Insomnia1 Remission; 4 Response; 3 Treatment failure8–60
Summary21910–841–84–1523 No; 20 PRED/AZA; 20 PRED; 8 MMF; 7 PRED/MMF; 3 PRED → BUD; 2 AZA; 2 MMF/BUD; 1 AZA/BUD; 1 PRED /Sirolimus; 95?1–136130 Remission; 33 Response; 30 Treatment failure; 26?1–204

Tacrolimus: adverse effects

In most studies, adverse effects were reported collectively, not per patient, and multiple adverse effects could occur in one patient. Some studies only reported major events or reasons for stopping TAC treatment. Supplementary Figure 2 shows the minimal number of patients per side effect reported. Twenty four of the 219 patients (11%) stopped using TAC because of intolerable adverse effects, five patients with gastrointestinal adverse effects (diarrhea,/abdominal pain or unspecified), five with neurological adverse effects (unspecified), three with hypertension and/or tremor and/or edema, two with renal failure, two with gastrointestinal hemorrhage, one with headache and vomiting, one with headache and tremor, one with hair loss, one with hemolytic uremic syndrome, one with a squamous cell carcinoma. The reason was not specified in two patients.

Insufficient response versus intolerance to first-line treatment

A total of 200 patients were treated with a CNI because of an insufficient response to first-line treatment (Tables 2 and 4). Remission was reached in 105 patients (53%), 37 (19%) had a response without remission and 13 (7%) had treatment failure on CNI. In 45 patients (22%), the result of CNI treatment could not be linked to the reason for starting a CNI or could not be determined from the provided data (Fig. 2). A total of 60 patients were treated with a CNI because of intolerance to first-line treatment (Table 2 and Table 4). Remission was reached in 40 patients (67%), one patient (2%) had a response without remission, and 6 (10%) had treatment failure on CNI. In 13 patients (22%) result of CNI treatment could not be linked to the reason for starting a CNI or could not be determined from the provided data (Fig. 2). There were no significant differences in remission rate, response rate, treatment failure (chi-square for trend, p=0.498), treatment duration (median 22.5 vs. 29 months, p=0.934) or follow-up (median 24 vs. 25 months, p=0.726) between patients treated with CNI because of insufficient response to first-line treatment and because of intolerance to first-line treatment (Fig. 2).

Results of calcineurin inhibitor treatment.
Fig. 2  Results of calcineurin inhibitor treatment.

Insufficient response versus intolerance, and second-line versus third-line treatment.

Second versus third-line treatment

A total of 203 patients (73%) received CNIs as second-line treatment (Tables 2 and 4). Remission was reached in 106 patients (52%), 20 (10%) had a response and 20 (10%) had treatment failure. In 57 patients (28%), the result of CNI treatment could not be linked to the line of treatment or could not be determined from the provided data (Fig. 2). A total of 62 patients (22%) received CNIs as third-line treatment (Tables 2 and 4). Remission was reached in 16 patients (26%), 10 (16%) had a response, and four (6%) had treatment failure. In 32 patients (52%) the result of CNI treatment could not be linked to the line of treatment or could not be determined from the provided data (Fig. 2).

There was no significant difference in the numbers of patients receiving CYC as second- (n=50, 85%) or third-line (n=9, 15%) treatment compared with the number of patients receiving TAC as second- (n=153, 74%) or third-line (n=53, 26%) treatment (p=0.116). Patients receiving CNI as second-line treatment had a significantly higher remission rate compared with patients receiving CNI as third-line treatment. In patients receiving CNI as third-line treatment the outcome was significantly more often unknown compared with the outcomes of patients receiving CNI as second-line treatment (chi-square for trend, p<0.001; Fig. 2).

Discussion

This systematic review of the literature, with the addition of a novel Dutch case series, summarizes and evaluates the use of CNIs in the treatment of over 250 difficult-to-treat adult AIH patients over the last decades. Although several systematic reviews were published on CNIs in the treatment of adult AIH, interpretation of the published data is hampered by heterogeneity of the outcome measures.16–21 In this systematic review, we addressed that problem by redefining the treatment outcomes in the articles according to established definitions.16–20 In studies describing the use of MMF in the treatment of AIH, the reason for starting MMF (e.g. intolerance or insufficient response to first-line treatment) appeared to be an important factor.5,45,46 A recently published position statement also emphasized the importance of the reason for changing treatment.47 Importantly, in this current systematic review there was no difference in response to CNI treatment in patients with intolerance to treatment versus patients with insufficient response to first-line treatment.

The efficacy of both CYC and TAC in the treatment of adult AIH patients seems fairly good, with remissions rates of 59% for both CYC and TAC. If reported, most remissions were achieved within the first year of treatment, which is prognostically favorable.25 CNI monotherapy was used in a minority, 14% in CYC patients and 11% on TAC, while most patients were treated in combination with corticosteroids and/or another immunosuppressants (Tables 3 and 5). In patients using CNIs because of insufficient response to first-line treatment, the remission rate was 53% (Fig. 2). Two previously published reviews reported pooled remission rates of 41% and 32% on MMF.21,48 Compared with MMF, CNIs seem more effective in that group, but there is no available head-to-head comparison.

In patients using CNIs for intolerance to first-line treatment remission rate was 67% (Fig. 2), which seems less effective compared to MMF with pooled remission rates in first-line intolerant patients of 74% and 82%.21,48 As the adverse effect profile of MMF is also more favorable than that of TAC,49 it seems rational to use MMF as second-line treatment in patients with intolerance to first-line treatment, although TAC can certainly be considered in such patients. CNIs were predominately used as second-line treatment, which seemed to be more effective than as third-line treatment, but interpretation is hampered by the fact that data on treatment outcome was more often missing in the third-line treatment group.

Figure 3 summarizes the options after first-line treatment failure. Despite this, a small number of patients will fail CNI treatment because of intolerance (13 % CYC and 11% TAC) or failure to achieve or maintain remission. If treatment failure occurs when CNIs were used as second-line treatment, MMF is the most logical next option, regardless of the reason (intolerance or insufficient response) for switching to CNIs. MMF is the most investigated alternative. As discussed above, it achieves reasonable remission rates, and it is the most used second-line treatment in a real world analysis.9,21,48 If treatment failure occurs when CNIs are used as third-line treatment, and unless MMF has not already been used, patients depend on salvage therapies like methotrexate, infliximab, rituximab, sirolimus, and everolimus.10–14 It is recommended to send patients to specialized centers for second and third-line or salvage treatment.

Treatment options after first-line treatment failure.
Fig. 3  Treatment options after first-line treatment failure.

There is extensive experience and safety data with the use of CNIs in liver and other organ transplantation. Of the CNIs, TAC currently is the drug of choice in almost 90% of liver transplantations because of easier drug monitoring, better long-term graft and patient survival with less rejection compared to CYC, and the availability of a once-daily prolonged-release formula, which has a positive impact on patient adherence.50 Currently, most treating physicians probably prefer TAC over CYC if a CNI is needed in AIH, but there are no published head-to-head comparisons in AIH patients.

Safety

Overall, CNI treatment seems to be well tolerated in adult AIH patients. Thirteen percent stopped using CYC and 11% stopped using TAC because of intolerable adverse effects, including only three patients because of renal problems. Minor adverse effects were more prevalent, but can often be controlled by adjustment of the dosage. One reason why CNIs were so well tolerated may be the relatively low through levels maintained compared with the levels obtained in solid organ, including liver, transplantation. Most studies of the use of TAC mainly aimed for through levels of < 6 ng/mL. In the Dutch cohort, the target through levels were below 6 ng/mL in five of the eight patients. The target levels were higher in three patients, but were still below 15 ng/mL. One of the three patients had dose-related adverse effects that were controlled by lowering the dose. Therefore, initially aiming at a TAC trough level of 3–7 ng/mL seems reasonable, especially if combined with other immunosuppression.

Limitations

Despite the more granular data compared with other reviews on the subject, this systematic review, including a novel Dutch case series, has some limitations. The very low rating of the data per outcome according to the GRADE approach (Supplementary Table 1) introduces a high risk of publication and selection bias. All the selected studies were case reports or case series. There is only one case report with treatment failure as a result of CNI treatment, possibly reflecting underreporting of such cases. Most publications reported the results of retrospective studies, resulting in heterogeneity and missing data. Baseline characteristics and treatment outcome were often reported independently, making it impossible to analyze the influence of patient characteristics, such as cirrhosis or sex, on treatment outcome and follow-up was often short. Despite the limitations, conclusions could be drawn from the combined data that may be important for guiding the choices that need to be made in difficult-to-treat AIH. The data may also be the basis for future prospective studies that are currently being planned.

Conclusions

Despite the limitations mentioned and bearing in mind that the quality of the evidence is low, it can be concluded that:

  • CNIs appear effective in patients failing first-line treatment, with remission rates of 59% for CYC and TAC.

  • CNIs seem to be more effective than MMF in patients with an insufficient response to first-line treatment, with remission rates of 53%.

  • CNIs seem to be less effective than MMF in patients intolerant to first-line treatment, but is has a remission rate of 67%.

  • CNIs seemed to be more effective as second-line treatment than as third-line treatment. Interpretation was hampered by missing data and selection bias.

  • CNI treatment in adult AIH appeared to be well tolerated.

Supporting information

Supplementary Table 1

Quality assessment of evidence per outcome using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

(DOCX)

Supplementary Fig. 1

Adverse effects of cyclosporine treatment.

(PPTX)

Supplementary Fig. 2

Adverse effects of tacrolimus treatment.

(PPTX)

Supplementary File 1

Search strategy.

(PDF)

Abbreviations

6-MP: 

6-mercaptopurine

6-TG: 

6-thioguanine

AIH: 

autoimmune hepatitis

ALT: 

alanine aminotransferase

AST: 

aspartate aminotransferase

AZA: 

azathioprine

CNI: 

calcineurin inhibitor

CYC: 

cyclosporine

MMF: 

mycophenolate mofetil

PBC: 

primary biliary cholangitis

PRED: 

prednisolone

PSC: 

primary sclerosing cholangitis

TAC: 

tacrolimus

Declarations

Acknowledgement

We thank the members of the Dutch Autoimmune Hepatitis Group for contributing to this article and fruitful discussions. Apart from the above-mentioned authors, members of the group are YS de Boer (Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit); JPH Drenth and S Pape (Radboud UMC Nijmegen); NM van Gerven (Rode Kruis ziekenhuis; Beverwijk); KJ van Erpecum (UMCU Utrecht); JW den Ouden and A. Bhalla (Hagaziekenhuis den Haag); JM Vrolijk (Rijnstate hospital Arnhem); GH Koek (MUMC, Maastricht); MMJ Guichelaar (Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede); EJ van der Wouden (Isala Hospital Zwolle); JJM van Meyel and LC Baak (OLVG, Amsterdam); R.C. Verdonk (St. Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein); M Klemt-Kropp (Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep Alkmaar); MAMT Verhagen (Diakonessenhuis, Utrecht); JPh Kuijvenhoven (Spaarne Gasthuis Haarlem); and HM de Jonge (Jeroen Bosch ziekenhuis den Bosch).

Data sharing statement

The data for this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Funding

None to declare.

Conflict of interest

ME Tushuizen has been an editorial board member of Journal of Clinical and Translational Hepatology since 2021, and B van Hoek has been an editorial board member of Journal of Clinical and Translational Hepatology since 2022. The other authors have no conflict of interests related to this publication.

Authors’ contributions

Study conceptualization and design (MAMC Baven-Pronk, JM Hew Jr, B van Hoek), study supervision (B van Hoek), data collection and provision (JM Hew Jr, M Biewenga, ME Tushuizen, AP van der Berg, G Bouma, JT Brouwer), data analysis and interpretation (MAMC Baven-Pronk, JM Hew Jr), statistical analysis (MAMC Baven-Pronk), manuscript drafting (MAMC Baven-Pronk, JM Hew Jr), manuscript critical revision for important intellectual content (M Biewenga, ME Tushuizen, AP van der Berg, G Bouma, JT Brouwer, B van Hoek), final draft approval (MAMC Baven-Pronk, JM Hw Jr, M Biewenga, ME Tushuizen, AP van der Berg, G Bouma, JT Brouwer, B van Hoek).

References

  1. Soloway RD, Summerskill WH, Baggenstoss AH, Geall MG, Gitnićk GL, Elveback IR, et al. Clinical, biochemical, and histological remission of severe chronic active liver disease: a controlled study of treatments and early prognosis. Gastroenterology 1972;63(5):820-833 PubMed/NCBI
  2. Alvarez F, Berg PA, Bianchi FB, Bianchi L, Burroughs AK, Cancado EL, et al. International Autoimmune Hepatitis Group Report: review of criteria for diagnosis of autoimmune hepatitis. J Hepatol 1999;31(5):929-938 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  3. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Autoimmune hepatitis. J Hepatol 2015;63(4):971-1004 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  4. Manns MP, Woynarowski M, Kreisel W, Lurie Y, Rust C, Zuckerman E, European AIH-BUC-Study Group, et al. Budesonide induces remission more effectively than prednisone in a controlled trial of patients with autoimmune hepatitis. Gastroenterology 2010;139(4):1198-1206 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  5. Baven-Pronk AM, Coenraad MJ, van Buuren HR, de Man RA, van Erpecum KJ, Lamers MM, et al. The role of mycophenolate mofetil in the management of autoimmune hepatitis and overlap syndromes. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011;34(3):335-343 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  6. Hübener S, Oo YH, Than NN, Hübener P, Weiler-Normann C, Lohse AW, et al. Efficacy of 6-Mercaptopurine as Second-Line Treatment for Patients With Autoimmune Hepatitis and Azathioprine Intolerance. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;14(3):445-453 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  7. van den Brand FF, van Nieuwkerk CMJ, Verwer BJ, de Boer YS, de Boer NKH, Mulder CJJ, et al. Biochemical efficacy of tioguanine in autoimmune hepatitis: a retrospective review of practice in the Netherlands. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2018;48(7):761-767 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  8. de Boer YS, van Gerven NM, de Boer NK, Mulder CJ, Bouma G, van Nieuwkerk CM. Allopurinol safely and effectively optimises thiopurine metabolites in patients with autoimmune hepatitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2013;37(6):640-646 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  9. Liberal R, de Boer YS, Andrade RJ, Bouma G, Dalekos GN, Floreani A, et al. Expert clinical management of autoimmune hepatitis in the real world. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2017;45(5):723-732 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  10. Burak KW, Urbanski SJ, Swain MG. Successful treatment of refractory type 1 autoimmune hepatitis with methotrexate. J Hepatol 1998;29(6):990-993 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  11. Weiler-Normann C, Schramm C, Quaas A, Wiegard C, Glaubke C, Pannicke N, et al. Infliximab as a rescue treatment in difficult-to-treat autoimmune hepatitis. J Hepatol 2013;58(3):529-534 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  12. Burak KW, Swain MG, Santodomingo-Garzon T, Lee SS, Urbanski SJ, Aspinall AI, et al. Rituximab for the treatment of patients with autoimmune hepatitis who are refractory or intolerant to standard therapy. Can J Gastroenterol 2013;27(5):273-280 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  13. Chatrath H, Allen L, Boyer TD. Use of sirolimus in the treatment of refractory autoimmune hepatitis. Am J Med 2014;127(11):1128-1131 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  14. Ytting H, Larsen FS. Everolimus treatment for patients with autoimmune hepatitis and poor response to standard therapy and drug alternatives in use. Scand J Gastroenterol 2015;50(8):1025-1031 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  15. Pape S, Nevens F, Verslype C, Mertens C, Drenth JPH, Tjwa ETTL. Profiling the patient with autoimmune hepatitis on calcineurin inhibitors: a real-world-experience. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;32(6):727-732 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  16. Roberts SK, Kemp W. Salvage Therapies for Autoimmune Hepatitis: A Critical Review. Semin Liver Dis 2017;37(4):343-362 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  17. Terziroli Beretta-Piccoli B, Mieli-Vergani G, Vergani D. Autoimmune hepatitis: Standard treatment and systematic review of alternative treatments. World J Gastroenterol 2017;23(33):6030-6048 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  18. De Lemos-Bonotto M, Valle-Tovo C, Costabeber AM, Mattos AA, Azeredo-da-Silva ALF. A systematic review and meta-analysis of second-line immunosuppressants for autoimmune hepatitis treatment. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;30(2):212-216 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  19. Hanouneh M, Ritchie MM, Ascha M, Ascha MS, Chedid A, Sanguankeo A, et al. A review of the utility of tacrolimus in the management of adults with autoimmune hepatitis. Scand J Gastroenterol 2019;54(1):76-80 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  20. Vierling JM, Kerkar N, Czaja AJ, Mack CL, Adams D, Assis DN, et al. Immunosuppressive Treatment Regimens in Autoimmune Hepatitis: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Supporting American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases Guidelines. Hepatology 2020;72(2):753-769 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  21. Abdollahi M, Ekrami NK, Ghojazadeh M, Boezen HM, Somi M, Alizadeh BZ. Tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil as second-line treatment in autoimmune hepatitis: Is the evidence of sufficient quality to develop recommendations?. World J Gastroenterol 2020;26(38):5896-5910 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  22. Chazouillères O, Wendum D, Serfaty L, Montembault S, Rosmorduc O, Poupon R. Primary biliary cirrhosis-autoimmune hepatitis overlap syndrome: clinical features and response to therapy. Hepatology 1998;28(2):296-301 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  23. Gohlke F, Lohse AW, Dienes HP, Löhr H, Märker-Hermann E, Gerken G, et al. Evidence for an overlap syndrome of autoimmune hepatitis and primary sclerosing cholangitis. J Hepatol 1996;24(6):699-705 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  24. Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Henry D, Hill S, GRADE Working Group, et al. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Serv Res 2004;4(1):38 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  25. Mack CL, Adams D, Assis DN, Kerkar N, Manns MP, Mayo MJ, et al. Diagnosis and Management of Autoimmune Hepatitis in Adults and Children: 2019 Practice Guidance and Guidelines From the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology 2020;72(2):671-722 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  26. Mistilis SP, Vickers CR, Darroch MH, McCarthy SW. Cyclosporin, a new treatment for autoimmune chronic active hepatitis. Med J Aust 1985;143(10):463-465 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  27. Person JL, McHutchison JG, Fong TL, Redeker AG. A case of cyclosporine-sensitive, steroid-resistant, autoimmune chronic active hepatitis. J Clin Gastroenterol 1993;17(4):317-320 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  28. Lawrence SP, Sherman KE, Lawson JM, Goodman ZD. A 39 year old man with chronic hepatitis. Semin Liver Dis 1994;14(1):97-105 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  29. Sherman KE, Narkewicz M, Pinto PC. Cyclosporine in the management of corticosteroid-resistant type I autoimmune chronic active hepatitis. J Hepatol 1994;21(6):1040-1047 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  30. Senturk H. Treatment of corticosteroid-azathioprine resistant autoimmune hepatitis with cyclosporin A. Indian J Gastroenterol 1995;14(3):110-111 PubMed/NCBI
  31. Fernandes NF, Redeker AG, Vierling JM, Villamil FG, Fong TL. Cyclosporine therapy in patients with steroid resistant autoimmune hepatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 1999;94(1):241-248 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  32. Malekzadeh R, Nasseri-Moghaddam S, Kaviani MJ, Taheri H, Kamalian N, Sotoudeh M. Cyclosporin A is a promising alternative to corticosteroids in autoimmune hepatitis. Dig Dis Sci 2001;46(6):1321-1327 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  33. Aqel BA, Machicao V, Rosser B, Satyanarayana R, Harnois DM, Dickson RC. Efficacy of tacrolimus in the treatment of steroid refractory autoimmune hepatitis. J Clin Gastroenterol 2004;38(9):805-809 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  34. Chatur N, Ramji A, Bain VG, Ma MM, Marotta PJ, Ghent CN, et al. Transplant immunosuppressive agents in non-transplant chronic autoimmune hepatitis: the Canadian association for the study of liver (CASL) experience with mycophenolate mofetil and tacrolimus. Liver Int 2005;25(4):723-727 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  35. Larsen FS, Vainer B, Eefsen M, Bjerring PN, Adel Hansen B. Low-dose tacrolimus ameliorates liver inflammation and fibrosis in steroid refractory autoimmune hepatitis. World J Gastroenterol 2007;13(23):3232-3236 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  36. Tannous MM, Cheng J, Muniyappa K, Farooq I, Bharara A, Kappus M, et al. Use of tacrolimus in the treatment of autoimmune hepatitis: a single centre experience. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011;34(3):405-407 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  37. Wah-Kheong C, Jaganathan V, Sanjiv M. Cyclosporine rescue therapy in autoimmune liver cirrhosis: a case report. Turk J Gastroenterol 2012;23(5):599-603 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  38. Than NN, Wiegard C, Weiler-Normann C, Füssel K, Mann J, Hodson J, et al. Long-term follow-up of patients with difficult to treat type 1 autoimmune hepatitis on Tacrolimus therapy. Scand J Gastroenterol 2016;51(3):329-336 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  39. Rubin JN, Te HS. Refractory Autoimmune Hepatitis: Beyond Standard Therapy. Dig Dis Sci 2016;61(6):1757-1762 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  40. Efe C, Hagström H, Ytting H, Bhanji RA, Müller NF, Wang Q, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Mycophenolate Mofetil and Tacrolimus as Second-line Therapy for Patients With Autoimmune Hepatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;15(12):1950-1956.e1 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  41. Al Taii H, Hanouneh MA, Hanouneh I, Lopez R, Zein N, Alkhouri N. The use of tacrolimus in refractory autoimmune hepatitis in children and adults: a single center experience. Scand J Gastroenterol 2017;52(2):157-158 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  42. Ferre-Aracil C, Riveiro-Barciela M, Trapero-Marugán M, Rodríguez-Perálvarez M, Llovet LP, Téllez L, et al. Tacrolimus as an Effective and Durable Second-Line Treatment for Chronic Autoimmune Hepatitis: A Multicentric Study. Dig Dis Sci 2021;66(8):2826-2832 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  43. Noguchi F, Chu PS, Taniki N, Yoshida A, Morikawa R, Yamaguchi A, et al. Long-Term Observation of Cyclosporine as Second-Line Therapy in Adults for Severe Acute Autoimmune Hepatitis. Hepatology 2021;73(6):2594-2597 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  44. Roberts SK, Strasser SI, Nicoll AJ, Kemp W, Majeed A, Mitchell J, ALA Clinical Research Network, et al. Efficacy and safety profile of calcineurin inhibitor salvage therapy in autoimmune hepatitis. Scand J Gastroenterol 2020;55(11):1309-1317 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  45. Hennes EM, Oo YH, Schramm C, Denzer U, Buggisch P, Wiegard C, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil as second line therapy in autoimmune hepatitis?. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103(12):3063-3070 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  46. Sharzehi K, Huang MA, Schreibman IR, Brown KA. Mycophenolate mofetil for the treatment of autoimmune hepatitis in patients refractory or intolerant to conventional therapy. Can J Gastroenterol 2010;24(10):588-592 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  47. Lohse AW, Sebode M, Joslash;rgensen MH, Ytting H, Karlsen TH, Kelly D, et al. Second-line and third-line therapy for autoimmune hepatitis: A position statement from the European Reference Network on Hepatological Diseases and the International Autoimmune Hepatitis Group. J Hepatol 2020;73(6):1496-1506 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  48. Santiago P, Schwartz I, Tamariz L, Levy C. Systematic review with meta-analysis: mycophenolate mofetil as a second-line therapy for autoimmune hepatitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2019;49(7):830-839 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  49. Dharancy S, Iannelli A, Hulin A, Declerck N, Schneck AS, Mathurin P, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil monotherapy for severe side effects of calcineurin inhibitors following liver transplantation. Am J Transplant 2009;9(3):610-613 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  50. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Liver transplantation. J Hepatol 2016;64(2):433-485 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  • Journal of Clinical and Translational Hepatology
  • pISSN 2225-0719
  • eISSN 2310-8819
Back to Top

Calcineurin Inhibitors in the Treatment of Adult Autoimmune Hepatitis: A Systematic Review

Martine AMC Baven-Pronk, Joffre M. Hew, Maaike Biewenga, Maarten E. Tushuizen, Aad P. van den Berg, Gerd Bouma, Johannes T. Brouwer, Bart van Hoek, Dutch Autoimmune Hepatitis Study Group
  • Reset Zoom
  • Download TIFF