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