BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Minireviews
Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Gastrointest Pharmacol Ther. Sep 5, 2026; 17(3): 120122
Published online Sep 5, 2026. doi: 10.4292/wjgpt.120122
Table 1 Comparative efficacy of nor-ursodeoxycholic acid and ursodeoxycholic acid in patients with different hepatobiliary diseases
Properties
UDCA
Nor-UDCA
Chemical name[1]3-α,7 β-dihydroxy-5 β-cholan-24-oic acid3-α,7 β-dihydroxy-24-nor-5 β-cholan-23-oic acid
Molecular formula[1]C24H40O4C23H3804 (one methylene group less)
Synthesis[1,13]Secondary bile acid formed by intestinal bacteria from primary bile acids and available syntheticallySynthetic sidechain shortened derivative of UDCA
Hydrophilicity[1,13,14]LessMore hydrophilic than UDCA
Cytotoxicity[1,16]Low cytotoxicity in healthy states; but may be toxic in obstructive cholestasis (e.g., bile duct ligated models)Less cytotoxic; ameliorates injury even in obstructive conditions where UDCA is toxic
Dosage[2,9,44]Typically, 13-15 mg/kg/day (e.g., for PBC or PSC)1500 mg/day (approximately equimolar to high dose UDCA)
FXR agonism[1,14]Negligible effects on FXR activationNo effects on FXR. Most Effects are independent of FXR or TGR5 receptors
Effects on TGF-β[19]Reduces TGF levels (moderate anti-fibrotic effect)Significantly reduces TGF-β expression more effectively than UDCA in fibrosis models
Chole-hepatic shunt[1,20]No. It is conjugated with taurine/glycine and remains in the bile until it reaches the intestineYes. Resists conjugation, allowing it to be reabsorbed by bile ducts and return to the liver creating a shunt
Bicarbonate secretion[1,15,20]Moderate increase in bicarbonate secretionSignificant increase (hypercholeresis); the “bicarbonate umbrella” hypothesis suggests efficient choleresis protects hepatocytes and cholangiocytes
Anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic activity on hepatocyte[18,19]Moderate; established in PBC but less effective in other fibrosis modelsSuperior and more potent. Significantly reduces hydroxyproline and collagen in models like Mdr2-/- and TAA-induced fibrosis
Effects on bile duct ligated mice[16]Detrimental as it increases biliary pressure and may lead to bile infarcts or necrosisProtective. It reduces liver injury and markers of cholestasis compared to UDCA
Current indications[1]FDA approved: PBC, gallstone dissolution and intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancyInvestigational: MASLD and PSC. Approved in India for MASLD by Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation
Adverse events[2,9]Generally well tolerated; diarrhea, weight gain, hair thinningSimilar safety profile in trials; mild gastrointestinal symptoms reported
Pregnancy safety[43,44]Safe (category B); widely used for ICPUnknown
Contraindications[1,44]Complete biliary obstruction, acute cholecystitis, calcified gallstonesHypersensitivity (theoretical: Complete obstruction, though animal models suggest it is safer than UDCA)
Table 2 Nor-ursodeoxycholic acid in pre-clinical animal studies and randomised controlled trials on patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and primary sclerosing cholangitis
Ref.
Study subjects
Patient phenotype
Treatment
Outcome
Buko et al[19]Thioacetamide-induced liver fibrosis in rat modelExperimental in animal model of liver fibrosisFibrotic rats were administered UDCA (80 mg/kg) and nor-UDCA (equimolar 80 mg/kg)Nor-UDCA decreased liver hydroxyproline content and TGF-β expression. Liver fibrosis regression was more pronounced in UDCA-treated rats
Fickert et al[16]Bile duct ligated miceExperimental animal model of cholestasis0.5% UDCA vs nor-UDCA in Abcb (-/-) mice with bile duct ligated miceUDCA is toxic to bile duct ligated mice however, nor-UDCA ameliorated liver injury
Marchianò et al[23]Western diet-fed rat model with hepatic steatosisExperimental animal study in liver steatosisUDCA vs nor-UDCA in rat model with steatosisUDCA and nor-UDCA both protected against steatosis and fibrosis but failed to ameliorate hepatic ballooning and nor-UDCA use was associated development of dyslipidemia
Sombetzki et al[22]Murine model of schistosomiasisExperimental animal study with liver fibrosisUDCA vs nor-UDCA in schistosoma mansoni infected liverNor-UDCA affected surface expression of MHC in macrophage and exerts anti-fibrotic property
Traussnigg et al[2]NAFLDA double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase II dose-finding trial198 patients randomised to 1:1:1 to receive 500 mg/day nor-UDCA vs 1500 mg/day nor-UDCA vs placebo in patients with NAFLDA dose-dependent reduction in ALT between baseline and end of treatment was observed with nor-UDCA vs placebo, with a significant effect in the 1500 mg group (mean change -27.8%, 95%CI: -34.7 to -14.4; P < 0.0001). Ninety nine and 112 side effects were reported in 63 subjects and 64 subjects, respectively
Panuganti et al[9]MASLDPhase III double blind randomised controlled trial110 received nor-UDCA (1500 mg/day) and 55 received placeboAt 12 weeks: ALT normalization in nor-UDCA group: 89% vs 76% in placebo group (P = 0.022). Fibrosis improvement: 57% in nor-UDCA group vs 40% in placebo (P = 0.035). Major limitations of this study include the absence of established parameters of liver fibrosis and steatosis as a trial endpoint, i.e., paired liver biopsy, and MR-PDFF. The effects on metabolic parameters were not elaborated in the study and they included a small number of patients. Impact of de-novo hyperglycemia and dyslipidemia during the study deserved a special mention and discussion in the trial
Fickert et al[10]PSCRandomised control trial161 patients PSC with or without UDCA randomized for 12 weeks of nor-UDCA with 4 weeks follow-upNor-UDCA group showed significant reduction in ALP levels as compared to the placebo: -12.3%, -17.3%, and -26.0% in the 500, 1000, and 1500 mg/day groups (P = 0.029, P = 0.003, and P < 0.0001 respectively)


Write to the Help Desk