Cited by 247Pregnancy and Medication ImpactLiver Diseases and ImmunityPregnancy and preeclampsia studies

Efficacy and Safety of Ursodeoxycholic Acid Versus Cholestyramine in Intrahepatic Cholestasis of Pregnancy

Open access
Kondrackiene, Jurate, Beuers, Ulrich, Kupcinskas, Limas·2005·Gastroenterology

Abstract

Background & aims Treatment of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy with ursodeoxycholic acid appears promising, but data are limited so far. The aim of this randomized study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ursodeoxycholic acid in comparison with cholestyramine. Methods Eighty-four symptomatic patients with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy were randomized to receive either ursodeoxycholic acid, 8-10 mg/kg body weight daily (n = 42), or cholestyramine, 8 g daily (n = 42), for 14 days. The primary end point was a reduction of pruritus by more than 50% after 14 days of treatment as evaluated by a pruritus score. Secondary end points were outcome of pregnancy, reduction of serum aminotransferase activities and serum bile acid levels, and drug safety. Intention-to-treat analysis was applied. Results Pruritus was more effectively reduced by ursodeoxycholic acid than cholestyramine (66.6% vs 19.0%, respectively; P < .005). Babies were delivered significantly closer to term by patients treated with ursodeoxycholic acid than those treated with cholestyramine (38.7 +/- 1.7 vs 37.4 +/- 1.5 weeks, respectively, P < .05). Serum alanine and aspartate aminotransferase activities were markedly reduced by 78.5% and 73.8%, respectively, after ursodeoxycholic acid, but by only 21.4%, each, after cholestyramine therapy (P < .01 vs ursodeoxycholic acid). Endogenous serum bile acid levels decreased by 59.5% and 19.0%, respectively (P < .02). Ursodeoxycholic acid, but not cholestyramine was free of adverse effects. Conclusions Ursodeoxycholic acid is safe and more effective than cholestyramine in intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1053/j.gastro.2005.06.019

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kondrackiene, J., Beuers, U., & Kupcinskas, L.
Affiliations
LMU Klinikum (DE)
Venue
Gastroenterology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-09
Volume
129
Issue
3
Pages
894-901
ISSN
0016-5085 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2129748508
Cited by
247
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 18
FWCI
18.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Gastroenterology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Lithuanian University of Health Sciences (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy and Medication Impact
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Liver Diseases and Immunity
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Keywords
intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, ursodeoxycholic acid, cholestyramine, pruritus, transaminases, serum bile acids, drug safety, timing of delivery, pregnancy outcomes
MeSH terms
Adult, Bile Acids and Salts, Cholagogues and Choleretics, Cholestasis, Intrahepatic, Cholestyramine Resin, Female, Humans, Liver Function Tests, Parity, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Pruritus, Recurrence, Safety, Ursodeoxycholic Acid, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review