EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of cholestatic liver diseases

Article Outline

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Diagnostic approach to cholestasis
• 3. Primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC)
  • 3.1. Diagnosis of PBC
    • 3.1.1. Laboratory tests
    • 3.1.2. Histology
    • 3.1.3. Imaging
  • 3.2. Treatment of PBC
    • 3.2.1. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA)
    • 3.2.2. Corticosteroids and other immunosuppressive agents
    • 3.2.3. Anti-fibrotic agents
    • 3.2.4. Other drugs
    • 3.2.5. Liver transplantation
• 4. PBC–AIH overlap syndrome
  • 4.1. Diagnosis
  • 4.2. Treatment
• 5. Primary sclerosing cholangitis
  • 5.1. Diagnosis of PSC
    • 5.1.1. Signs and symptoms
    • 5.1.2. Biochemical tests
    • 5.1.3. Autoantibodies
    • 5.1.4. Liver biopsy
    • 5.1.5. Imaging
    • 5.1.6. Small duct PSC
    • 5.1.7. PSC in children
    • 5.1.8. Differential diagnosis of PSC versus secondary forms of sclerosing cholangitis
  • 5.2. Follow-up of PSC
    • 5.2.1. Inflammatory bowel disease and risk of colon cancer
    • 5.2.2. Hepatobiliary malignancies in PSC
  • 5.3. Treatment of PSC
    • 5.3.1. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA)
    • 5.3.2. Immunosuppressive and other agents
    • 5.3.3. ERCP and endoscopic therapy
    • 5.3.4. Liver transplantation
• 6. PSC–AIH overlap syndrome
  • 6.1. Diagnosis
  • 6.2. Therapy
• 7. Immunoglobulin G4-associated cholangitis
  • 7.1. Diagnosis
  • 7.2. Treatment
• 8. Genetic cholestatic liver diseases
  • 8.1. Cystic fibrosis-associated liver disease
    • 8.1.1. Diagnosis
    • 8.1.2. Therapy
  • 8.2. Progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis
    • 8.2.1. Classification
    • 8.2.2. Therapy
  • 8.3. Benign recurrent intrahepatic cholestasis
  • 8.4. Alagille syndrome
• 9. Drug-induced cholestatic liver disease
  • 9.1. Diagnosis
  • 9.2. Pathogenetic mechanisms and most frequent drugs
  • 9.3. Treatment
• 10. Cholestatic disorders in pregnancy
  • 10.1. Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP)
    • 10.1.1. Diagnosis
    • 10.1.2. Therapy
  • 10.2. Diagnosis and treatment of obstructive cholestasis during pregnancy
  • 10.3. Drugs for cholestatic conditions during pregnancy
• 11. Management of extrahepatic manifestations
  • 11.1. Pruritus
  • 11.2. Fatigue
  • 11.3. Osteoporosis
  • 11.4. Fat-soluble vitamin substitution
  • 11.5. Varices and hepatocellular carcinoma
• Conflicts of interest disclosure
• References
• Copyright

Keywords: Primary biliary cirrhosis, Primary sclerosing cholangitis, Overlap syndrome, Immunoglobulin G4-associated cholangitis, Drug-induced cholestatic liver disease, Genetic cholestatic liver disease, Cholestatic liver diseases in pregnancy, Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, Fatigue, Pruritus

Abbreviations: AIH, autoimmune hepatitis, AIP, autoimmune pancreatitis, AMA, antimitochondrial antibodies, AP, alkaline phosphatase in serum, ASMA, anti-smooth muscle antibodies, BRIC, benign recurrent intrahepatic cholestasis, CCA, cholangiocarcinoma, CF, cystic fibrosis, CFALD, cystic fibrosis-associated liver disease, CPG, Clinical Practice Guidelines, CT, computed tomography, DILI, drug-induced liver injury, EASL, European Association for the Study of the Liver, ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, EUS, endoscopic ultrasound, FDG-PET, (¹⁸F)-fluoro-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography, FXR, farnesoid X receptor, γGT, γ-glutamyltranspeptidase in serum, HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma, IAC, immunoglobulin G4-associated cholangitis, IAIHG, International Autoimmune Hepatitis Group, IBD, inflammatory bowel disease, IgG, immunoglobulin G in serum, IgG4, immunoglobulin G4 in serum, MRCP, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, NASH, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, PBC, primary biliary cirrhosis, PDC-E2, E2 subunit of the pyruvate dehydrogenase complex, PSC, primary sclerosing cholangitis, PIIINP, procollagen-3-aminoterminal propeptide, UC, ulcerative colitis, ULN, upper limit of normal, US, ultrasound

Back to Article Outline

1. Introduction 

EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) on the management of cholestatic liver diseases define the use of diagnostic, therapeutic and preventive modalities, including non-invasive and invasive procedures, in the management of patients with cholestatic liver diseases. They are intended to assist physicians and other healthcare providers as well as patients and interested individuals in the clinical decision-making process by describing a range of generally accepted approaches for the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of specific cholestatic liver diseases. The clinical care for patients with cholestatic liver diseases has advanced considerably during recent decades thanks to growing insight into pathophysiological mechanisms and remarkable methodological and technical developments in diagnostic procedures as well as therapeutic and preventive approaches. Still, various aspects in the care of patients with cholestatic disorders remain incompletely resolved. The EASL CPG on the management of cholestatic liver diseases aim to provide current recommendations on the following issues:

A panel of experts selected by the EASL Governing Board in May 2008 wrote and discussed these guidelines between June and November 2008. These guidelines have been produced using evidence from PubMed and Cochrane database searches before 1 October, 2008. Where possible, the level of evidence and recommendation are cited (Table 1a, Table 1b). The evidence and recommendations in these guidelines have been graded according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE system) [1]. The strength of recommendations thus reflects the quality of underlying evidence which has been classified in one of three levels: high [A], moderate [B] or low-quality evidence [C]. The GRADE system offers two grades of recommendation: strong [1] or weak [2] (Table 1b). The CPG thus consider the quality of evidence: the higher, the more likely a strong recommendation is warranted; the greater the variability in values and preferences, or the greater the uncertainty, the more likely a weaker recommendation is warranted. Where no clear evidence exists, guidance is based on the consensus advice of expert opinion in the literature and the writing committee.

Table 1a. Categories of evidence.

Table 1b. Evidence grading (adapted from the GRADE system [1]).

Back to Article Outline

2. Diagnostic approach to cholestasis 

Cholestasis is an impairment of bile formation and/or bile flow which may clinically present with fatigue, pruritus and, in its most overt form, jaundice. Early biochemical markers in often asymptomatic patients include increases in serum alkaline phosphatase (AP) and γ-glutamyltranspeptidase (γGT) followed by conjugated hyperbilirubinemia at more advanced stages. Cholestasis may be classified as intrahepatic or extrahepatic. Intrahepatic cholestasis may result from hepatocellular functional defects or from obstructive lesions of the intrahepatic biliary tract distal from bile canaliculi. Cholestasis may also be related to mixed mechanisms in diseases such as lymphoma [2]. By convention, cholestasis is considered chronic if it lasts >6 months. Most chronic cholestatic diseases are purely intrahepatic, whereas sclerosing cholangitis may affect small and large intrahepatic and/or extrahepatic bile ducts. Asymptomatic patients are generally identified when routine laboratory tests are being performed or during work-up for another disease when an increase is noted in the serum level of AP and/or γGT. Isolated serum γGT elevation has little specificity for cholestasis, and may also result from enzyme induction in response to alcohol or drug intake. Isolated serum AP elevation is seen in cholestatic liver diseases including certain rare disorders (e.g., progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis (PFIC) 1 & 2, bile acid synthesis defects), but may also result from rapid bone growth (e.g., in children), bone disease (e.g., Paget’s disease), or pregnancy. The cut-off levels of serum AP and γGT requiring diagnostic work-up are debated: AP levels higher than 1.5 times the upper limit of normal (ULN) and γGT levels >3× ULN have been proposed. The differential diagnosis of cholestatic disorders can be wide (Table 2a, Table 2b). Nevertheless, the first critical step is to differentiate intra- and extrahepatic cholestasis.

Table 2a. Causes of intrahepatic cholestasis in adulthood.

Table 2b. Causes of intrahepatic cholestasis in infancy and childhood [2].

Metabolic disease

– with biliary tract involvement: α1-antitrypsin storage disease, cystic fibrosis

– without biliary tract involvement: galactosemia, tyrosinemia, fatty acid oxidation defects, lipid and glycogen storage disorders, peroxisomal disorders

– specific defects in biliary function:

disorders of bile acid biosynthesis and conjugation

disorders of canalicular secretion (PFIC)

Paucity of bile ducts

– syndromic: Alagille syndrome (Jagged 1 defect)

– non-syndromic

Ductal plate malformations

Infections: bacterial, viral

Toxic: parenteral nutrition, drugs

Idiopathic neonatal hepatitis

Cirrhosis (any cause)

Careful patient history and physical examination are essential in the diagnostic process and may provide valuable information so that an experienced clinician can predict the nature of cholestasis in many cases [3]. Presence of extrahepatic diseases has to be recorded. A thorough occupational and drug history is imperative and any medications taken within 6 weeks of presentation may be incriminated (and discontinued); this includes herbal medicines, vitamins and other substances. A history of fever, especially when accompanied by rigors or right upper quadrant abdominal pain is suggestive of cholangitis due to obstructive diseases (particularly choledocholithiasis), but may be seen in alcoholic disease and rarely, viral hepatitis. A history of prior biliary surgery also increases the likelihood that biliary obstruction is present. Finally, a family history of cholestatic liver disease suggests a possibility of a hereditary disorder. Some cholestatic disorders are observed only under certain circumstances (e.g., pregnancy, childhood, liver transplantation, HIV-infection), and may require specific investigations that are not relevant in other populations.

Abdominal ultrasonography is usually the first step to exclude dilated intra- and extrahepatic ducts and mass lesions because it is rather sensitive and specific, non-invasive, portable and relatively inexpensive. Its disadvantages are that its findings are operator-dependent and abnormalities of bile ducts such as those observed in sclerosing cholangitis may be missed. Furthermore, the lower common bile duct and pancreas are usually not well depicted. Computed tomography of the abdomen is less interpreter-dependent, but is associated with radiation exposure and may be not as good as ultrasound at delineating the biliary tree.

If bile duct abnormalities are present, further work-up depends on the presumed cause. From a purely diagnostic perspective, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is a safe option to explore the biliary tree. Its accuracy for detecting biliary tract obstruction approaches that of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) when performed in experienced centres with state-of-the-art technology. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is equivalent to MRCP in the detection of bile duct stones and lesions causing extrahepatic obstruction and may be preferred to MRCP in endoscopic units.

Extrahepatic biliary obstruction may be caused by stones, tumours, cysts, or strictures. The gold standard for visualizing the biliary tract and treating extrahepatic biliary obstruction is endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), but even in experienced hands it carries a significant complication rate (pancreatitis in 3–5% of cases; when combined with sphincterotomy, bleeding 2%, cholangitis 1%, procedure-related mortality 0.4% [4]). Thus, when extrahepatic obstruction is considered and the need for endoscopic intervention is unclear, MRCP or EUS should be performed in order to avoid ERCP if it is not needed [3].

If imaging studies do not demonstrate mechanical obstruction, a diagnosis of intrahepatic cholestasis can be reasonably made. However, in an individual whose history suggests an extrahepatic cause (like early pancreatic or ampullary carcinoma), clinical judgment should be pursued and repeat ultrasound or another imaging procedure should be performed [3].

When extrahepatic obstruction has been reasonably excluded, further work-up of intrahepatic cholestasis (Table 2a, Table 2b) depends on the clinical setting.

In adult patients with chronic intrahepatic cholestasis, the next step is testing for serum antimitochondrial antibodies (AMA) since the diagnosis of PBC, which is the major cause of small-duct biliary diseases [5], can be made with confidence in a patient with high-titer AMA (⩾1/40) and a cholestatic serum enzyme profile in the absence of an alternative explanation [6]. A liver biopsy may still be appropriate in selected patients. If AMA and PBC-specific antinuclear antibodies (ANA) are negative, MRCP (in a specialized centre) may be the next diagnostic step for most patients with chronic intrahepatic cholestasis of unknown cause.

Subsequently, a liver biopsy should be performed when the diagnosis is still unclear. Particular attention to the condition of bile ducts is critical in the histologic evaluation and a biopsy of adequate quality should contain ⩾10 portal fields because of the high degree of sampling variability in patients with small bile duct disease. Biopsy findings should be classified under (i) disorders involving bile ducts (for typical biliary lesions, see Table 3) the main causes being AMA-negative PBC, isolated small duct PSC, ABCB4 deficiency, sarcoidosis, idiopathic ductopenia or prolonged drug-induced cholestasis; (ii) disorders not involving bile ducts, the main causes being a variety of storage or infiltrative liver diseases, hepatic granulomas (without cholangitis), nodular regenerative hyperplasia, peliosis, sinusoidal dilatation and cirrhosis; and (iii) hepatocellular cholestasis with only minimal histologic abnormalities as observed in benign recurrent intrahepatic cholestasis (BRIC), estrogen or anabolic steroid therapy, sepsis, total parenteral nutrition or as a paraneoplastic phenomenon.

Table 3. Typical biliary lesions and their main causes (liver transplant setting excluded) [2].

1. Nonsuppurative destructive cholangitis

Primary biliary cirrhosis

Primary sclerosing cholangitis

Autoimmune hepatitis

Drug-induced cholangitis

Sarcoidosis

ABCB4 deficiency

(Hepatitis C, B, E)

2. Fibrous obliterative cholangitis

Primary sclerosing cholangitis

Secondary sclerosing cholangitis

IgG4-associated cholangitis

Sarcoidosis

3. Other cholangitis (unusual)

Malignant cholangitis

Lymphoma (Hodgkin or non-Hodgkin)

Systemic mastocytosis

Langerhans cell histiocytosis

Neutrophilic cholangitis: neutrophilic dermatosis

4. Ductal plate malformations

Biliary hamartomas (von Meyenburg complexes)

Caroli syndrome

Congenital hepatic fibrosis

A general algorithm for evaluating the adult patient with cholestasis is presented in Fig. 1.

• 
  • View Large Image
  • Download to PowerPoint

• Fig. 1. 

  Diagnostic approach to cholestasis in adult patients. Abbreviations: US, ultrasound; CT, computed tomography; AMA, antimitochondrial antibodies; ANA, antinuclear antibodies; MRCP, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; PBC, primary biliary cirrhosis; SC, sclerosing cholangitis.

Recommendations

Back to Article Outline

3. Primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) 

3.1. Diagnosis of PBC 

Patients with PBC may present with symptoms as fatigue, pruritus and/or jaundice, but the majority of them are asymptomatic at diagnosis. At first presentation, very few patients present in advanced stage of disease and with complications of portal hypertension (ascites, hepatic encephalopathy or esophageal variceal bleeding). Currently, a diagnosis of PBC is made with confidence on a combination of abnormal serum liver tests (elevation of AP of liver origin for at least 6 months) and presence of AMA (⩾1:40) in serum [6]. The diagnosis is confirmed by disclosing characteristic histological features of florid bile duct lesions. AMA-positive individuals with normal AP carry a high risk to develop PBC during follow-up [7].

Biochemical markers: Serum AP and γGT are raised in PBC; serum aminotransferases (ALT, AST) and conjugated bilirubin can also be elevated, but are not diagnostic. Patients with normal AP and γGT, but with serological stigmata of PBC, should be reassessed clinically and biochemically at annual intervals. Patients with PBC typically present elevated levels of immunoglobulin M. Serum cholesterol is commonly elevated like in other cholestatic conditions. Alterations in prothrombin time, serum albumin and conjugated bilirubin are observed only in advanced disease.

Immunological markers: The diagnostic hallmark of PBC is the presence of AMA, which are detected in serum of more than 90% of affected individuals; the specificity of AMA in PBC is greater than 95% [8]. AMA reactivity is classically studied by immunofluorescence and considered positive at a titre ⩾1/40 [9]. The identification of the molecular mitochondrial target antigens has allowed the setting up of immunoenzymatic assays with recombinant proteins that raise the sensitivity and specificity of the test. If available, anti-AMA-M2 (anti-PDC-E2) may be a useful alternative. Non-specific antinuclear antibodies (ANA) are found in at least 30% of PBC sera. However, ANA directed against nuclear body or envelope proteins such as anti-Sp100 and anti-gp210 which present as multiple [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] nuclear dots and perinuclear rims, respectively, at indirect immunofluorescence staining show a high specificity for PBC (>95%) and can be used as markers of PBC when AMA are absent. Their sensitivity, however, is low.

A liver biopsy is no longer regarded as mandatory to make a diagnosis of PBC in patients with a cholestatic serum enzyme pattern and serum AMA. It may, however, be useful for assessment of the activity and staging of the disease. Histological staging of PBC (stages 1–4) has been proposed by Ludwig et al.[10] and Scheuer [11] according to the degree of bile duct damage, inflammation and fibrosis. Focal duct obliteration with granuloma formation has been termed the florid duct lesion, and is judged almost pathognomonic for PBC when present. The liver is not uniformly involved, and features of all four stages of PBC can co-exist simultaneously in a single biopsy. The most advanced histological features should be used for histological staging.

Abdominal ultrasound examination is indicated in all patients with elevation of serum AP and γGT to disclose intrahepatic or extrahepatic bile duct dilatation (see above) or focal liver lesions. There are no specific features of PBC on ultrasound; in particular the biliary tree appears normal. Ultrasound findings in advanced PBC resemble those seen in other forms of cirrhosis.

Recommendations

3.2. Treatment of PBC 

Over the past two decades, increasing evidence has accumulated indicating that ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA; 13–15mg/kg/d) is the treatment of choice for patients with PBC based on placebo-controlled trials and more recent long-term case-control studies. UDCA has been demonstrated to exert anticholestatic effects in various cholestatic disorders. Several potential mechanisms and sites of action of UDCA have been unraveled in clinical and experimental studies which might explain its beneficial effects. Their relative contribution to the anticholestatic action of UDCA might depend on the type of the cholestatic injury. In early-stage PBC, protection of injured cholangiocytes against the toxic effects of bile acids might prevail, and stimulation of impaired hepatocellular secretion by mainly posttranscriptional mechanisms including stimulation of synthesis, targeting and apical membrane insertion of key transporters might be relevant in more advanced cholestasis [12]. In addition, stimulation of ductular alkaline choleresis and inhibition of bile acid-induced hepatocyte and cholangiocyte apoptosis can have a certain role for the beneficial effect of UDCA in PBC [12].

UDCA has been demonstrated to markedly decrease serum bilirubin, AP, γGT, cholesterol and immunoglobulin M levels, and to ameliorate histological features in patients with PBC in comparison to placebo treatment [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] although no significant effects on fatigue or pruritus were observed in these large trials. Moreover, long-term treatment with UDCA delayed the histological progression of the disease in patients in whom treatment was started at an early stage [17], [18]. Still, a clear-cut beneficial effect of UDCA on survival has not been shown in any of the studies mentioned above, probably due to the limited number of patients and the limited observation periods too short for a slowly progressing disease. A beneficial effect of UDCA on survival has only been demonstrated in a combined analysis of the raw data from the French, Canadian and Mayo cohorts followed up for 4 years [19]. In this analysis, UDCA treatment was associated with a significant reduction in the likelihood of liver transplantation or death. This benefit was seen in patients with moderate and severe disease but not in those with mild disease (serum bilirubin concentration <1.4mg/dL (24μmol/L), stage I or II histologic change) in whom progression to end-stage disease did not occur during the 4-year period of observation [19].

The affirmative results on survival have been challenged by meta-analyses which included a majority of studies of up to two years’ duration and trials using UDCA doses which are today known to be ineffective [20], [21]. Inclusion of trials which have a duration of three months to two years for a disease with an estimated duration of one to two decades without intervention may be suited to analyze biochemical effects of medical treatment, but certainly carries a risk to dilute the information needed for a well-based survival analysis. Therefore, it was not surprising that meta-analyses which excluded studies of short duration (less than 24 months) and those that used an ineffective dose of UDCA (less than 10mg/kg/d) concluded that long-term UDCA significantly improved transplant-free survival and delayed histologic progression in early-stage patients [22], [23].

Recent reports have demonstrated the favorable effects of UDCA on long-term survival in patients with PBC receiving standard doses (13–15mg/kg/d) [24] over 10–20 years. Treatment with UDCA led to a transplant-free survival similar to that of a healthy control population matched for age and gender in patients with early-stage disease [25], [26] and to improved survival in comparison to the estimated survival at the start of treatment as calculated by the Mayo risk score for PBC [25], [26], [27]. Interestingly, a “good biochemical response” to UDCA defined as a decrease in AP >40% of pretreatment levels or normalization at one year (“Barcelona criteria”) was associated with an excellent 95% transplant-free survival at 14 years of follow-up, similar to that predicted for the standardized population [27]. The prognostic impact of the “Barcelona criteria” was confirmed in a large independent cohort of PBC patients for which a serum bilirubin ⩽1mg/dL (17μmol/L), AP ⩽3× ULN, and AST ⩽2× ULN (“Paris criteria”) after one year of treatment even better identified those with a good long-term prognosis of a 90% (vs. 51%) ten year transplant-free survival [28]. Thus, additional therapeutic options for those patients failing to reach a “good biochemical response” under UDCA are warranted.

Prednisolone improved serum liver tests and histological features, but markedly worsened bone mineral density in patients with PBC [29] prohibiting its long-term use in PBC. In combination with UDCA (10mg/kg/d), prednisolone (10mg/d, 9 months) exerted beneficial effects on various features of liver histology in early-stage PBC in comparison to UDCA alone [30].

Budesonide in combination with UDCA showed favorable results on biochemical and histological parameters in early-stage disease [31], [32], but not late-stage disease [33], [34]. Studies with a longer follow-up using the combination of budesonide and UDCA in patients with early-stage disease not adequately responding to UDCA alone are warranted to confirm its safety and its effect on postponing or preventing the need for liver transplantation. Development of portal vein thrombosis probably related to short-term budesonide administration was reported in stage 4 patients with portal hypertension [34]. Thus, budesonide should not be administered to cirrhotic patients.

Other immunosuppressive agents like azathioprine [35], cyclosporine A [36], methotrexate [37], [38], [39], chlorambucil [40] and mycophenolate mofetil [41] proved to be marginally effective, ineffective or potentially harmful during long-term administration and cannot be recommended for standard treatment in PBC.

Colchicine was inferior to UDCA in the treatment of PBC [42] and did not, when combined with UDCA in comparison to UDCA alone [43], significantly improve symptoms, serum liver tests, serum markers of fibrosis, or histological features. Thus, addition of colchicine to UDCA currently cannot be recommended in the treatment of PBC.

d-Penicillamine is not effective in PBC and can be associated with severe side effects [44], [45].

Malotilate [46], thalidomide [47], silymarin [48] and atorvastatin [49] were not effective in the treatment of PBC. Sulindac [50] and the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α (PPARα) agonist, bezafibrate [51] improved some serum liver tests in limited groups of patients with an incomplete response to UDCA, and bezafibrate deserves further studies. Tamoxifen [52] decreased AP levels in two women who were taking it after surgery for breast cancer.

Antiretroviral strategies have also been tested in PBC: Lamivudine alone or in combination with zidovudine (Combivir) was associated with minor clinical and biochemical effects. Combivir was also associated with improvement of some histological features, but this finding needs confirmation in randomized studies [53].

Liver transplantation has dramatically improved survival in patients with late-stage PBC. Indications are not different from those of patients with other etiologies of liver failure [54]: decompensated cirrhosis with an unacceptable quality of life or anticipated death within a year due to treatment-resistant ascites and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, recurrent variceal bleeding, encephalopathy or hepatocellular carcinoma. Severe, treatment-resistant pruritus may merit consideration for transplantation. Patients should be referred to a liver transplant center for assessment when their bilirubin approaches 6mg/dL (103μmol/L), the Mayo risk score is ⩾7,8, and the MELD score is >12 at the latest.

Survival rates above 90% and 80–85% at one and five years, respectively, have been reported by many centers [55]. Most patients have no signs of liver disease after orthotopic liver transplantation, but their antimitochondrial antibody status does not change. The disease recurs with a calculated weighted disease recurrence of 18% [56], but rarely is associated with graft failure [54].

Recommendations

1.Patients with PBC, including those with asymptomatic disease, should be treated with UDCA (13–15mg/kg/d) (I/A1) on a long-term basis (II-2/B1).

2.Favorable long-term effects of UDCA are observed in patients with early disease and in those with good biochemical response (II-2/B1), which should be assessed after one year. A good biochemical response after one year of UDCA treatment is currently defined by a serum bilirubin ⩽1mg/dL (17μmol/L), AP ⩽3× ULN and AST ⩽2× ULN (“Paris criteria”) or by a decrease of 40% or normalization of serum AP (“Barcelona criteria”) (II-2/B1).

3.There is currently no consensus on how to treat patients with a suboptimal biochemical response to UDCA. One suggested approach is the combination of UDCA and budesonide (6–9mg/d) in non-cirrhotic patients (stages 1–3) (III/C2). Further studies of this and other combination regimes should be a priority.

4.Liver transplantation should be strongly considered in patients with advanced disease as reflected by serum bilirubin exceeding 6mg/dL (103μmol/L) or decompensated cirrhosis with an unacceptable quality of life or anticipated death within a year due to treatment-resistant ascites and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, recurrent variceal bleeding, encephalopathy or hepatocellular carcinoma (II-2/A1).

Back to Article Outline

4. PBC–AIH overlap syndrome 

Primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) and autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) are classically viewed as distinct liver diseases. However, patients presenting with clinical, biochemical, serological, and/or histological features reminiscent of both diseases, either simultaneously or consecutively have been repeatedly recognized. The ill-defined term “overlap syndrome” is used to describe these settings [57], [58], [59], [60]. The pathogenesis of PBC–AIH overlap syndrome is debated and it remains unclear whether this syndrome forms a distinct entity or a variant of PBC or AIH. Different pathophysiological mechanisms have been discussed: (i) a pure coincidence of two independent autoimmune diseases; (ii) a different genetic background which determines the clinical, biochemical and histological appearance of one autoimmune disease entity; and (iii) a representation of the middle of a continuous spectrum of two autoimmune diseases [59], [60].

4.1. Diagnosis 

Standardization of diagnostic criteria for PBC–AIH overlap syndrome has not been achieved so far, and “overlap syndrome” is a much overused descriptive term in hepatology [61]. Diagnosis of PBC and AIH is based on the combination of biochemical, serological and histological features. However, no individual test shows absolute specificity and much depends on the relative weighting of individual diagnostic criteria, and the cut-off levels of continuous variables considered representative for one or another condition [59]. The 1999 scoring system, established by the International Autoimmune Hepatitis Group (IAIHG) for research purposes, comprises characteristic features of AIH and provides support for diagnosing AIH [62]. However, applicability of this scoring system remains questionable in this specific setting since a score of “definite” AIH can be only observed in the very few patients with characteristic overlap syndrome whereas nearly 20% of PBC subjects will be classified with “probable” AIH overlap [61], [63], [64]. The simplified diagnostic score recently proposed by the IAIHG has not been validated yet in patients with suspected PBC–AIH overlap syndrome [65]. To differentiate PBC from PBC–AIH overlap syndrome, another diagnostic score has been established but the usefulness of this rather complex score needs confirmation by cross-evaluation prior to introduction to the clinic [66]. Because of the limited applicability of the different diagnostic scores, another approach based on the major characteristics of PBC and AIH has been proposed and requires the presence of at least 2 of the 3 accepted criteria of both diseases for diagnosing PBC–AIH overlap syndrome (Table 4) [57] whereby histologic evidence of moderate to severe lymphocytic piecemeal necrosis (interface hepatitis) is mandatory.

Table 4. Diagnostic criteria of PBC–AIH overlap syndrome.

Diagnostic criteria of PBC–AIH overlap syndrome of which at least 2 of 3 accepted criteria for PBC and AIH, respectively, should be present (proposed by Chazouilleres et al. [57]). Histologic evidence of moderate to severe lymphocytic piecemeal necrosis (interface hepatitis) is mandatory for the diagnosis.

In addition to cases with simultaneous characteristics of PBC and AIH, which is the most frequent mode of presentation, transitions from PBC to AIH or vice-versa have been described and termed “sequential syndromes” or consecutive forms [67]. Occurrence of superimposed AIH cannot be predicted from baseline characteristics and initial response to UDCA therapy in PBC patients [67]. Lastly, overlap of AMA-negative PBC with AIH has also been reported [57].

Precise prevalence of PBC–AIH overlap syndrome is unknown but approximately 10% of adults with AIH or PBC may belong in this overlap category [67], [68], [69]. Patients with PBC–AIH overlap syndrome might have a more severe disease with worse clinical outcomes compared to patients with PBC alone [70]. This emphasizes the notion that overlap syndrome should always be considered once PBC has been diagnosed [68].

4.2. Treatment 

The low prevalence of PBC–AIH overlap syndrome has made controlled therapeutic trials impossible in these patients. Thus, therapeutic recommendations rely on the experience in the treatment of either PBC or AIH, and on retrospective, non-randomized studies. Whether PBC–AIH overlap syndrome requires immunosuppressive therapy in addition to UDCA is a debated issue. Under UDCA therapy, biochemical response at 24 months and survival in one cohort of 12 strictly defined PBC–AIH overlap syndrome patients were similar to 159 patients with “pure” PBC [71]. However, adjunction of immunosuppressive therapy was required in most patients of other cohorts to obtain a complete biochemical response [57], [58]. In the largest long-term follow-up study, 17 strictly defined patients [64] received UDCA alone or UDCA in combination with immunosuppressors and were followed for 7.5 years. In the 11 patients treated with UDCA alone, biochemical response in terms of AIH features (ALT <2× ULN and IgG <16g/L) was observed in only 3 patients whereas the 8 others were non-responders with increased fibrosis in 4. Overall, fibrosis progression in non-cirrhotic patients occurred more frequently under UDCA monotherapy (4/8) than under combined therapy (0/6) (p=0.04). These results strongly suggest that combined therapy (UDCA and corticosteroids) is the best therapeutic option in most patients with strictly defined simultaneous PBC–AIH overlap syndrome. An alternative approach is to start with UDCA alone and to add corticosteroids if UDCA therapy does not induce an adequate biochemical response in an appropriate time span (e.g., 3 months) [69]. Prednisone has been used at an initial dose of 0.5mg/kg/d and should be progressively tapered once ALT levels show a response [64]. Budesonide is a promising treatment option for patients with AIH and has also been used with success in some patients with PBC–AIH overlap syndrome [72]. The role of other immunosuppressants, e.g., azathioprine, in the long-term management of these patients is unclear, but its successful use in AIH makes azathioprine an attractive alternative to corticosteroids for long-term immunosuppressive therapy. Interestingly, by comparison with typical AIH, it has been suggested that doses of immunosuppressants could be lower and rate of successful withdrawal higher [64]. For corticosteroid-resistant patients, a beneficial effect of other immunosuppressants such as cyclosporine A has been reported [73].

In UDCA-treated PBC patients developing AIH (“sequential” overlap), use of immunosuppressive treatment is mandatory [67].

Recommendations

Back to Article Outline

5. Primary sclerosing cholangitis 

Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is a chronic, cholestatic liver disease that is characterized by an inflammatory and fibrotic process affecting both intra- and extrahepatic bile ducts [74]. The disease leads to irregular bile duct obliteration, including formation of multifocal bile duct strictures. PSC is a progressive disorder that eventually develops into liver cirrhosis and liver failure. The etiology of PSC is unknown, but there is evidence that genetic susceptibility factors are involved [75]. The male to female ratio is approximately 2:1. PSC can be diagnosed in children as well as in the elderly, but mean age at diagnosis is around 40 years. Up to 80% of PSC patients have concomitant inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that in the majority of cases is diagnosed as ulcerative colitis (UC). Thus, the “typical” PSC patient is a young to middle-aged man with IBD who presents with biochemical and/or clinical signs of a cholestatic liver disease.

5.1. Diagnosis of PSC 

A diagnosis of PSC is made in patients with elevated serum markers of cholestasis (AP, γGT) not otherwise explained, when magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) or endoscopic cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) show characteristic bile duct changes with multifocal strictures and segmental dilatations, and causes of secondary sclerosing cholangitis [76] and other cholestatic disorders are excluded. Patients who present with clinical, biochemical and histological features compatible with PSC, but have a normal cholangiogram, are classified as small duct PSC.

About 50% of PSC patients are symptomatic at first presentation. Typical symptoms include pruritus, pain in the right upper abdominal quadrant, fatigue, weight loss, and episodes of fever and chills, which are reported in a variable number of patients [77]. Symptoms of liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension with ascites and variceal hemorrhage are more rarely reported at diagnosis in PSC. Hepatomegaly and splenomegaly are the most frequent findings at clinical examination at the time of diagnosis in PSC. Osteopenic bone disease is a complication of advanced PSC, although less frequent than that reported in PBC. Fat malabsorption with steatorrhea and malabsorption of fat-soluble vitamins occur only with prolonged cholestasis.

Elevation of serum AP is the most common biochemical abnormality in PSC [77], [78], [79]. However, a normal AP activity should not preclude further steps to diagnose PSC if suspected on clinical basis. Serum aminotransferase levels are elevated at diagnosis in the majority of patients, typically to levels 2–3 times upper limits of normal, but normal levels are also observed. Serum bilirubin levels are normal at diagnosis in up to 70% of patients. Elevated levels of IgG have been noted in 61% of patients, most often to a level up to 1.5 times upper limit of normal [80]. In one retrospectively studied cohort, 9% of PSC patients were reported with slightly elevated IgG4 levels, but total IgG was not reported in these patients. It remains unclear whether some of these patients suffered from IgG4-associated cholangitis (IAC) rather than PSC [81]. Increased IgM levels have been reported in up to 45% of PSC cases [78].

A variety of autoantibodies have been detected in PSC [82]. The autoantibodies most frequently reported are perinuclear antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (pANCA) (26–94%), antinuclear antibodies (ANA) (8–77%), and smooth muscle antibodies (SMA) (0–83%) [82]. The pANCA pattern in PSC is “atypical”, as the putative antigen is located in the nucleus rather than in the cytoplasm. Atypical pANCA is frequently present in UC and AIH, and specificity in the diagnosis of PSC is low. Positive titres of ANA and SMA also are unspecific. A routine autoantibody screening is not required to establish a diagnosis of PSC. Analysis of ANA and SMA may be relevant in a subgroup of patients to support a suspicion of “autoimmune” features that may have therapeutic implications (see “PSC–AIH overlap syndrome”).

Liver histological findings may support a diagnosis of PSC, but they are non-specific and may show considerable variation. PSC has been described to progress through four stages. The initial changes (stage 1, portal stage) are limited to the portal tracts with features including portal oedema, mild portal hepatitis, a non-destructive cholangitis with infiltration of lymphocytes in the bile ducts, and ductular proliferation. Periductal fibrosis and fibrous-obliterative cholangitis may be present. In stage 2 (periportal stage), the lesion extends to involve periportal fibrosis, sometimes with interphase hepatitis. Portal tracts are often enlarged. In stage 3 (septal stage) there is development of bridging fibrous septa, while bile ducts degenerate and disappear. Stage 4 is characterized by cirrhosis [83]. Periductal concentric fibrosis is considered highly suggestive of PSC, but this finding is relatively infrequent in needle biopsies in PSC and may also be associated with other conditions. Histological changes can be very subtle, and a liver biopsy may even appear normal because of sampling variability and since the liver is not uniformely involved. In PSC patients with relatively high serum aminotransferase levels, particularly in combination with positive ANA and/or SMA titres and markedly elevated IgG levels, a liver biopsy may be indicated to disclose features of a PSC–AIH overlap syndrome.

Ultrasonography (US): In PSC, US is not diagnostic and often normal, but bile duct wall thickening and/or focal bile duct dilatations may be observed by experts. One or more gallbladder abnormalities, including wall thickening, gallbladder enlargement [84], gallstones, cholecystitis, and mass lesions, have been reported on the basis of US or cholangiography in up to 41% of PSC patients [85].

Cholangiography: A detailed cholangiographic assessment of the biliary tree is essential in making a diagnosis of PSC [86]. Efforts should be made to adequately visualize also the intrahepatic ducts to avoid false-negative results by overlooking subtle changes. The characteristic cholangiographic findings of PSC include mural irregularities and diffusely distributed multifocal, short, annular strictures alternating with normal or slightly dilated segments producing a “beaded” pattern [87]. Sometimes outpouchings have a diverticular appearance [87]. With more advanced disease, long, confluent strictures may be seen [87]. In the majority of cases, both the intra- and extrahepatic bile ducts are involved. A variable proportion of patients (<25%) is described to have isolated intrahepatic disease, whereas lesions confined to the extrahepatic ducts are rarely observed (usually <5%) and should only be diagnosed in the presence of adequate filling of the intrahepatic ducts. Since intrahepatic bile duct abnormalities can also be seen in other chronic liver diseases, one must be cautious when diagnosing PSC in the presence of intrahepatic changes only. The gallbladder and cystic duct are involved in some cases, and abnormalities of the pancreatic duct resembling those of chronic pancreatitis have been noted in a variable number of PSC patients [87].

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has been the gold standard in diagnosing PSC [86], [87], but ERCP is associated with complications such as pancreatitis and sepsis [88]. Clinicians may be reluctant to proceed with an ERCP in the assessment of cholestasis, and therefore, PSC most likely has been an underdiagnosed condition. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is a non-invasive method that in experienced centres is now generally accepted as a primary diagnostic modality in cases of suspected PSC. Studies comparing ERCP and MRCP have shown similar diagnostic accuracy, although the depiction of bile ducts may be poorer with MRCP than with ERCP [89]. Sensitivity and specificity of MRCP has been ⩾80% and ⩾87%, respectively, for the diagnosis of PSC [89], [90]. MRCP is superior in visualizing bile ducts proximal to duct obstructions. The method can also reveal changes within the bile duct walls and pathologies in the liver parenchyma as well as in other organs. However, cases with mild PSC changes without bile duct dilatation may be missed by MRCP and one should therefore be cautious to exclude early PSC on the basis of a normal MRCP. Thus, diagnostic ERCP still has a role in equivocal cases. The main role of ERCP, however, lies in therapeutic procedures and in diagnostic purposes like cytology sampling in PSC.

The term small duct PSC refers to a disease entity which is characterized by clinical, biochemical, and histological features compatible with PSC, but having a normal cholangiogram [91]. One report has restricted the diagnosis of small duct PSC to patients with concomitant IBD [92], whereas IBD has only been present in a proportion (50–88%) of cases in other studies [93], [94]. These studies carry the risk to include patients with other cholangiopathies such as ABCB4 deficiency which cause histological features compatible with small duct PSC [95]. A high-quality cholangiogram is mandatory in order to exclude PSC with isolated intrahepatic distribution. One future approach for the diagnosis of small duct PSC is to accept a negative MRC in patients with concomitant IBD, but require a normal ERCP and a negative mutation analysis of ABCB4 in patients without IBD. Diagnostic criteria in small duct PSC are however still being discussed.

Criteria for diagnosis of PSC in adults also apply to children. Of note, levels of serum AP activity were observed within the normal range for the age group in up to 47% of cases [96], [97]. Patients with normal AP usually had elevated γGT activity [96], [97]. Presentation of PSC in children is frequently reported with features similar to those of autoimmune hepatitis, including high IgG concentrations, positive ANA and/or SMA titers and interphase hepatitis in the liver biopsy [96], [97], [98].

Before the diagnosis of PSC can be settled, causes of secondary sclerosing cholangitis such as previous biliary surgery, cholangiolithiasis and disorders mimicking PSC such as carcinoma of the bile ducts have to be excluded although cholangiolithiasis and cholangiocarcinoma may also be the consequence of PSC [76]. Clinical and cholangiographic findings resembling those of PSC have most commonly been described in relation to intraductal stone disease, surgical trauma from cholecystectomy, abdominal injury, intra-arterial chemotherapy, and recurrent pancreatitis [76]. A variety of other conditions have also been associated with features imitating those of PSC, including IgG4-associated cholangitis/autoimmune pancreatitis (see below), hepatic inflammatory pseudotumor, eosinophilic cholangitis, mast cell cholangiopathy, portal hypertensive biliopathy, AIDS cholangiopathy, recurrent pyogenic cholangitis, ischemic cholangitis, as well as others [76]. Differentiating between primary and secondary sclerosing cholangitis may be particularly difficult since PSC patients themselves may have undergone bile duct surgery or have concomitant intraductal stone disease or even cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). Factors like clinical history, the distribution of the cholangiographic abnormalities, as well as the presence of concomitant IBD, have to be taken into account when determining whether a pathological cholangiogram is due to PSC or secondary to a benign or malignant bile duct stricture without PSC [76].

Recommendations

5.2. Follow-up of PSC 

PSC is strongly associated with IBD, with a prevalence of IBD in Western countries commonly in the range of 60–80% [77], [78] whereas in a recent report on 391 Japanese patients only 125 had a history of concomitant IBD [99]. UC accounts for the majority (80%) of IBD cases in PSC, while around 10% have Crohn‘s disease and another 10% are classified as indeterminate colitis [100]. IBD can be diagnosed at any time during the course of PSC, but in a majority of cases IBD precedes PSC. Since the colitis in PSC characteristically is mild and sometimes even asymptomatic, colonoscopy with biopsies is recommended as part of the routine work-up in a patient diagnosed with PSC. A diagnosis of IBD has implications for follow-up and dysplasia/cancer surveillance as patients with UC and PSC have a higher risk of dysplasia and colon cancer than patients with UC only [101], [102]. Compared to UC patients without PSC, the colitis in PSC more frequently is a pancolitis (87% vs. 54%), with backwash ileitis (51% vs. 7%), and rectal sparing (52% vs. 6%) [100]. Patients with PSC and Crohn‘s disease characteristically only have colonic involvement. We recommend that PSC patients with colitis are enrolled in a surveillance program with annual colonoscopy with biopsies from the time of diagnosis of PSC [102].

PSC is associated with an increased risk of hepatobiliary malignancies, in particular cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). In a large cohort of 604 Swedish PSC patients followed for (median) 5.7 years, hepatobiliary malignancies (CCA, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and gallbladder carcinoma) were observed in 13.3%, corresponding to a risk 161 times that of the general population [103]. CCA is by far the most common hepatobiliary malignancy in PSC, with a cumulative life-time incidence of 10–15% [104], whereas gallbladder carcinoma [85] and HCC [105] are observed in up to 2% of PSC patients, each. Up to 50% of CCA are diagnosed within the first year of diagnosis of PSC. After the first year, the yearly incidence rate is 0.5–1.5% [104]. Although factors like older age, alcohol consumption and smoking, long duration of IBD before diagnosis of PSC, and a history of colorectal malignancy, have been associated with an increased risk of CCA in PSC, no clinically useful prognostic variables have been identified so far. Possible genetic markers should be further explored [75]. The symptoms of CCA complicating PSC may be very difficult to differentiate from those of PSC without concomitant malignancy, but awareness of CCA must in particular be raised in cases of rapid clinical deterioration.

Median levels of the serum tumour marker carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9) are significantly higher in PSC patients with CCA than in those without [104], but in the individual case CA 19-9 cannot be relied upon in the differential diagnosis between PSC with and without CCA [104]. Distinguishing benign from malignant changes in PSC by imaging modalities like US, CT, MRCP/MRI as well as ERCP, is equally difficult [104], [106]. Serum CA 19-9 combined with cross-sectional liver imaging may be useful as a screening strategy [107], but further validation is needed. Whether dynamic (¹⁸F)-fluoro-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) [108] is more effective when combined with CT or MRI, needs to be shown. Brush cytology sampling, and biopsy when feasible, during ERCP adds to the diagnostic accuracy of CCA in PSC [104], [107], [109], but methodological refinement including validation of digital image analysis (DIA) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) of cell samples [107] is needed.

Gallbladder mass lesions in PSC frequently (>50%) represent adenocarcinomas independently of their size [85]. Cholecystectomy is recommended in PSC patients with a gallbladder mass even <1cm in diameter [85]. The risk for pancreatic carcinoma was 14-fold increased in a Swedish cohort of PSC patients in comparison to a matched-control population [103], but its incidence in PSC is markedly lower than that of hepatobiliary malignancies, and regular screening strategies are, therefore, not recommended at present.

Recommendations

5.3. Treatment of PSC 

UDCA and disease progression: UDCA is an effective treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) as outlined above (2.2.1). UDCA has, therefore, also been investigated as a potential candidate for the treatment of PSC. Small pilot trials of UDCA in the early 1990’s demonstrated biochemical and in some cases histological improvement in PSC patients using doses of 10–15mg/kg/day [110], [111], [112], [113]. A more substantial trial was published by Lindor in 1997 [114], recruiting 105 patients in a double-blind placebo-controlled trial of 13–15mg/kg of UDCA for 2 years. The results indicated improvement in serum liver tests but not in symptoms and, most importantly, no improvement in liver histology as evaluated by disease stage [114]. Higher doses of UDCA were then studied on the grounds that larger doses might be necessary to provide sufficient enrichment of the bile acid pool in the context of cholestasis, and that these doses might also enhance the potential immunomodulatory effect of the drug. Studies using 20–25mg/kg/day demonstrated significant improvements in the histological grade of liver fibrosis and the cholangiographic appearances of PSC, as well as the expected biochemical improvement [115]. A shorter, open-label trial using 25–30mg/kg/day showed a significant improvement in projected survival using the Mayo risk score, but no direct measurement of the progression of the disease, such as liver biopsy or cholangiography was undertaken. Confirmatory results were obtained in a 2-year dose ranging pilot study of 30 patients in which the low dose (10mg/kg/d) and the standard dose (20mg/kg/d) tended to improve and the high dose (30mg/kg/d) significantly improved projected survival [116].

The Scandinavian UDCA trial deserves major credit for recruiting the largest group of PSC patients (n=219) for the longest treatment period (5 years) ever studied using a dose of 17–23mg/kg/day. It demonstrated a trend towards increased survival in the UDCA-treated group when compared with placebo [117]. But despite the relatively large number of patients recruited, it was still insufficiently powered to produce a statistically significant result. In comparison to other studies, the biochemical response was unexpectedly poor in this trial which prompted questions about adequate compliance in a part of the study population. Recently, a multicentre study using high doses of 28–30mg/kg/d of UDCA in 150 PSC patients over 5 years has been aborted because of an enhanced risk in the UDCA treatment group to reach primary endpoints such as liver transplantation or development of varices in more advanced disease while biochemical features improved in the whole UDCA group [118]. Thus, the role for UDCA in slowing the progression of PSC-related liver disease is as yet unclear and high dose UDCA may be harmful in late-stage disease.

UDCA and chemoprevention: Recent work has suggested that UDCA may have a role in the prevention of colonic neoplasia in patients with PSC associated with underlying IBD. Experimental studies in vitro and in vivo had suggested that UDCA might prevent development of colon carcinoma. A cross-sectional study of 59 PSC patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) undergoing colonoscopic surveillance found a significantly reduced risk of colonic dysplasia in patients taking UDCA although in comparison to an exceptionally high rate of dysplasia in the control group [119]. A historical cohort study compared 28 PSC patients under UDCA treatment with UC to 92 PSC patients with UC not treated with UDCA [120] and found a trend towards a lower risk of colonic dysplasia and neoplasia under UDCA treatment (adjusted relative risk 0.59, 95% CI 0.26–1.36, p=0.17) and a lower mortality (adjusted relative risk 0.44, 95% CI 0.22–0.90, p=0.02) [120]. A third study followed 52 patients with PSC and UC for 355 patient-years who participated in a randomized, placebo-controlled UDCA trial showing a significant reduction to 0.26 (95% CI 0.06–0.92, p=003) in UDCA-treated patients in the relative risk of developing colorectal dysplasia or carcinoma [121].

Limited evidence for a beneficial effect of UDCA on the risk to develop CCA comes from observational studies. The Scandinavian and American randomized, placebo-controlled UDCA trials with 219 and 150 PSC patients, respectively, did not observe a difference between UDCA- and placebo-treated patients regarding CCA development [117]. A German cohort study including 150 patients followed for a median of 6.4 years under UDCA treatment found CCA in 5 patients (3.3%), which represents about half the expected incidence of CCA in PSC [122]. A Scandinavian study of 255 PSC patients listed for liver transplantation over a period of 11 years revealed lack of ursodeoxycholic acid treatment as an independent risk factor for the development of hepatobiliary malignancy [123].

Corticosteroids and other immunosuppressants have not demonstrated improvement in disease activity or outcome of PSC. Small randomized, placebo-controlled or pilot trials have investigated the role of agents with immunosuppressive potency like prednisolone, budesonide, azathioprine, cyclosporine, methotrexate, mycophenolate, and tacrolimus, agents with TNFα antagonizing effects like pentoxifyllin, etanercept and anti-TNF monocolonal antibodies and anti-fibrotic agents like colchicine, penicillamine, or pirfenidone. There is no evidence that these drugs are effective and, therefore, none can be recommended for classic PSC. These drugs may well have a role in the context of a PSC–AIH overlap syndrome (see below) since pediatric patients and those with evidence of a PSC–AIH overlap syndrome are more likely to respond to immunosuppressive treatment [59], [60], [98]. A retrospective study in adults also suggested a beneficial role of steroids in a subgroup with AIH overlap features [124].

Diagnostic ERCP has been the procedure of choice for suspected PSC in the past, but is associated with significant risks including pancreatitis and cholangitis [125], [126]. Whilst a low complication rate was found in patients undergoing ‘diagnostic’ ERCP, the complication rate increased up to 14% when interventions such as balloon dilatation, endoscopic sphincterotomy and stenting were performed [4], [127].

Dominant bile duct strictures have been defined as stenoses <1.5mm in diameter in the common bile duct and <1mm in the right and left hepatic duct [128]. The prevalence of dominant bile duct strictures in large duct PSC is variously reported as being 10–50%. Studies in animals and humans have suggested that decompression of biliary obstruction may prevent further damage and can reverse fibrotic liver disease [129]. Endoscopic treatment of biliary strictures often improves liver biochemistry and pruritus and may reduce the risk of recurrent cholangitis. Therefore, repeated endoscopic dilatation of dominant biliary strictures has been carried out in symptomatic patients [130], [131], [132]. Non-randomized studies comparing jaundice, cholangitis, transplantation and actuarial survival rates with estimates from prognostic models have suggested a trend towards a benefit of endoscopic intervention for dominant biliary strictures although patients also received UDCA [131], [133]. In contrast, a Swedish study which compared liver biochemistry in those with and without dominant strictures suggested that variations in cholestasis and jaundice are a feature of PSC liver disease and not related to dilatation of dominant strictures [128]. The optimum method and frequency of dilatation of dominant strictures is unclear. The most widely used technique to facilitate biliary drainage has been plastic stent insertion with or without prior dilatation. The problem with this approach is that further ERCP’s are required to remove or replace the stent and there is a high rate of stent occlusion and/or cholangitis within 3 months of insertion. One study assessed the effectiveness and safety of short-term stenting (mean 9 days) resulting in improved outcome, particularly with regard to cholangitis and stent occlusion rates [134]. The strategy of short-term stenting for 2–3 weeks is followed by some experienced centers. Other studies have compared the role of stenting with balloon dilatation, with similar efficacy and lower rates of complications such as cholangitis (18% vs. 50%) associated with balloon dilatation alone [135]. Multiple dilatations are usually required over months or years in order to maintain patency once dominant strictures are identified and treated, and not all strictures are amenable to endoscopic intervention. In these patients, careful consideration should be made regarding a conservative, radiological or surgical (including liver transplantation) approach to treatment.

Liver transplantation is the only therapy of late-stage PSC that can cure advanced disease. One and ten-year survival after liver transplantation has lately been above 90% and 80%, respectively, in experienced centers. Resection of the extrahepatic biliary tree and Roux-en Y choledochojejunostomy are widely regarded as the method of choice for biliary reconstruction after liver transplantation in PSC [136]. Recurrence of PSC after liver transplantation has been reported at various rates up to a third of patients transplanted, but is difficult to define due to similarities in bile duct damage with ischemic type biliary lesions, infections, medication-induced injury, preservation injury, or chronic rejection [137]. In different cohorts, PSC recurrence was associated with steroid-resistant rejection, OKT3 use, preservation injury, ABO incompatibility, cytomegalovirus infection, male sex, or donor-recipient gender mismatch [138]. Colectomy prior to liver transplantation for advanced colitis or colon dysplasia protected against PSC recurrence as did the absence of ulcerative colitis [139].

Recommendations

1.The available data base shows that UDCA (15–20mg/d) improves serum liver tests and surrogate markers of prognosis (I/B1), but does not reveal a proven benefit on survival (III/C2). The limited data base does not yet allow a specific recommendation for the general use of UDCA in PSC.

Back to Article Outline

6. PSC–AIH overlap syndrome 

6.1. Diagnosis 

PSC–AIH overlap syndrome is an ill-defined immune-mediated disorder which is predominantly found in children, adolescents and young adults [98], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148]. Its characteristics include clinical, biochemical, and histologic features of AIH as summarized in the modified AIH score defined by an international group of experts for study purposes [62] and cholangiographic features typical of PSC [60]. Retrospective diagnosis of an overlap syndrome by use of the modified AIH score was established in 8% of 113 PSC patients from The Netherlands [149], and in 1.4% of 211 PSC patients from the U.S. (with somewhat incomplete data available for retrospective analysis) [150]. Prospective analysis of 41 consecutive PSC patients from Italy for the presence of: (i) a revised AIH score >15; (ii) ANA or ASMA antibodies present in a titre of at least 1:40; and (iii) liver histology with piecemeal necrosis, lymphocyte rosetting, and moderate or severe periportal or periseptal inflammation revealed a PSC–AIH overlap syndrome as defined by these criteria in 17% [151]. These patients were treated with UDCA (15–20mg/kg daily), prednisolone (0.5mg/kg daily, tapered to 10–15mg/d) and 50–75mg azathioprine with good biochemical response.

The largest case series reported so far consisted of 27 children with PSC–AIH overlap syndromes from England [98] out of 55 children with clinical, biochemical, and histological signs of AIH, followed prospectively for 16 years. Children and adolescents with PSC–AIH overlap syndrome more commonly suffered from IBD and more often were positive for atypical pANCA in serum than those with AIH only. Otherwise, they presented with similar signs and symptoms. Serum transaminases tend to be higher in AIH, but serum AP although mostly elevated in PSC, may be normal both in PSC–AIH overlap syndrome and AIH. Increasing awareness for the PSC–AIH overlap syndrome has led to the observation that AIH and PSC may be sequential in their occurrence, and this has been described in children [98] and adults [152]. Thus, in patients with AIH who become cholestatic and/or resistant to immunosuppression, PSC should be ruled out.

6.2. Therapy 

UDCA is widely used in the treatment of PSC although long-term efficacy remains unproven so far [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117]. UDCA has been used in combination with immunosuppressive regimens in PSC–AIH overlap syndrome [98], [151]. A response to immunosuppressive therapy has been documented in children [98]. UDCA in combination with an immunosuppressive regimen might, therefore, be an adequate medical treatment for most patients with PSC–AIH overlap syndrome [151], although no data of controlled trials exist. Prognosis of PSC–AIH overlap syndrome was reported to be better than that of PSC [151], but worse than that of AIH [148]. Liver transplantation is indicated in end-stage disease.

Recommendations

Back to Article Outline

7. Immunoglobulin G4-associated cholangitis 

7.1. Diagnosis 

Immunoglobulin G4-associated cholangitis (IAC) is a recently described biliary disease of unknown etiology that presents with biochemical and cholangiographic features indistinguishable from PSC, frequently involves the extrahepatic bile ducts, responds to anti-inflammatory therapy, is often associated with autoimmune pancreatitis and other fibrosing conditions, and is characterized by elevated serum IgG4 and infiltration of IgG4-positive plasma cells in bile ducts and liver tissue [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159]. In contrast to PSC, IAC is not associated with IBD. Preliminary data suggest that immunopathogenesis of IAC strikingly differs from other immune-mediated cholestatic liver diseases like PSC and PBC in that T helper 2 (Th2) and T regulatory (Treg) cytokines were markedly overexpressed in IAC patients [158]. In the largest cohorts of 53 and 17 IAC patients, respectively [159], [157], median age at diagnosis of the mostly male patients (7/8) was around 60 years.

The diagnosis of IAC was recently proposed to be definitive if a patient with biliary stricture(s) in the intrahepatic, proximal extrahepatic and/or intrapancreatic bile ducts

Although not yet cross-validated in an independent cohort of IAC patients, this diagnostic recommendation may temporarily serve as a guideline for diagnosis of IAC.

7.2. Treatment 

Immunosuppressive treatment has been shown to exert a marked effect on inflammatory activity of IAC, and complete long-term remission after three months of treatment has been reported. However, the extent of disease may affect the long-term response, and a retrospective analysis showed that patients with alterations of proximal extrahepatic and intrahepatic bile ducts are prone to a higher risk of relapse after stop of treatment than patients with distal bile duct strictures only [159]. Thus, corticosteroids are regarded as the initial treatment of choice in this disease, and azathioprine at doses up to 2mg/kg/d should be considered in those with proximal and intrahepatic stenoses and those after relapse during/after corticosteroid therapy. Treatment duration of 3 months may be sufficient for some patients, but long-term maintenance therapy at low doses may be required when disease activity has not completely come to a standstill or has relapsed.

Recommendations

Back to Article Outline

8. Genetic cholestatic liver diseases 

8.1. Cystic fibrosis-associated liver disease 

Cystic fibrosis-associated liver disease (CFALD) was observed in up to 27% of patients with CF during long-term follow-up as defined by hepatomegaly, persistent elevation of at least two serum liver tests and abnormal findings on ultrasound [160] and may manifest as neonatal cholestasis, hepatic steatosis, focal or multilobular cirrhosis. Complications of CFALD represent today the second most frequent cause of disease-related death in patients with CF.

Diagnostic criteria for CFALD are not well defined. CF-related hepatomegaly is found in a third of CF patients and may be caused by CFALD or as a consequence of cor pulmonale with liver congestion. Serum liver tests (AP, ALT, AST, bilirubin) are recommended at yearly intervals in CF patients [161]. Elevation above 1.5× ULN of serum liver tests should induce control after 3–6 months and when persisting should prompt further investigations to more closely evaluate liver damage (prothrombin time, albumin) and exclude other causes of liver disease (e.g., drugs, toxins, infections, biliary atresia, gallstones, antitrypsine deficiency, autoimmune hepatitis, PSC or other causes of bile duct obstruction). Ultrasound may reveal signs of CFALD such as hepatomegaly or bile duct alterations [161]. Liver biopsy is controversially discussed due to the focal nature of fibrosis/cirrhosis in many cases.

No therapy of proven benefit for the long-term prognosis of CFALD exists. Optimization of nutritional state in cholestatic patients to avoid vitamin deficiency and malnutrition is recommended, but not of proven efficacy.

UDCA at doses of 20–30mg/kg/d has been shown to consistently improve serum liver tests [162], [163], to stimulate impaired biliary secretion, to improve histological appearance (over 2 years) [164] and nutritional status. The optimal dose of UDCA and its impact on survival in CF remain to be established.

Treatment of complications of cirrhosis is not different from other liver diseases. Medical treatment of portal hypertension with beta blockers and/or endoscopic treatment of varices has not been adequately evaluated in CFALD whereas elective shunt surgery in portal hypertensive patients has allowed long-term survival in a case series [165]. Outcome of liver transplantation is comparable to that for other end-stage liver diseases.

Recommendations

2.UDCA (20–30mg/kg/d) improves serum liver tests (I/C1) and histological parameters (III/C1) in CFALD. No medical therapy of proven long-term benefit exists in CFALD (III/C2). Liver transplantation is the treatment of choice in end-stage CFALD (III/B1).

8.2. Progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis 

Progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis (PFIC) summarizes a group of three inherited cholestatic diseases which may start early after birth or at young age and may rapidly progress to end-stage disease [166]. Mutations in canalicular transporter genes of the ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporters are responsible for these rare disorders.

PFIC type 1 (formerly “Byler disease”) typically presents in the neonatal period with signs and symptoms (pruritus!) of liver disease. Elevation of serum transaminases, bilirubin and bile acids is contrasted by low levels of γGT (in contrast to biliary atresia and Alagille syndrome). Liver histology reveals fibrosis, but no bile duct proliferation. Most patients develop end-stage liver disease before the end of the first decade of life. Diarrhea, pancreatitis, failure to thrive, and hearing deficits are extrahepatic manifestations of this genetic defect caused by mutations in the ATP8B1 gene which encodes a phospholipid (phosphatidylserine?) flippase, FIC1 [167], [168].

PFIC type 2 (formerly “Byler syndrome”) presents like PFIC type 1 in early childhood with clinical and biochemical signs and symptoms of progressive liver disease, but low levels of γGT. Histology reveals portal inflammation and giant cell hepatitis. Electron microscopic studies show coarse granular bile in PFIC1 and amorphous bile in PFIC2. PFIC2 is caused by mutations in the ABCB11 gene which encodes the canalicular bile salt export pump, ABCB11/BSEP [169]. The course of PFIC2 is complicated by development of hepatocellular carcinoma at considerable rates [170] making liver transplantation an attractive treatment option.

PFIC type 3 typically presents in the first years of childhood with progressive cholestasis [171], although disease manifestation and cirrhosis in adulthood has also been described most recently [95]. In contrast to PFIC1 and PFIC2, γGT is usually markedly elevated in PFIC3 and histology reveals, in addition to portal inflammation and fibrosis/cirrhosis, massive bile duct proliferation. PFIC3 may be associated with intrahepatic gallstone disease. PFIC3 is caused by mutations in the ABCB4 gene which encodes the canalicular phospholipid transporter, ABCB4/MDR3 [171].

No medical therapy of proven benefit for the long-term prognosis of PFIC exists. Supplementation with medium chain triglycerides and fat-soluble vitamins is generally recommended in children. UDCA has been reported to improve biochemical tests in almost 50% of patients with PFIC3 [172], but generally does not affect PFIC1 and PFIC2. Rifampicin may alleviate pruritus. Partial biliary diversion and ileal exclusion have been reported in case series to improve signs and symptoms of particularly PFIC1 and also PFIC2 [173], [174]. Liver transplantation is the recommended treatment of end-stage disease in PFIC.

Recommendations

8.3. Benign recurrent intrahepatic cholestasis 

Benign recurrent intrahepatic cholestasis (BRIC) type 1 and 2 are acute cholestatic disorders of adolescence and adulthood and represent the benign forms of PFIC1 and PFIC2 mainly caused by missense mutations in the ATP8B1 and ABCB11 genes [166], [171]. BRIC is characterized by acute episodes of cholestasis, jaundice and severe pruritus caused by unknown factors which after weeks or months completely resolve to start again after an asymptomatic period of months to years. BRIC1 like PFIC1 may be accompanied by pancreatitis, whereas BRIC2 may be accompanied by gallstone disease [166]. Liver fibrosis has been described in cases of BRIC indicating a continuum between BRIC and PFIC in some cases [175].

No effective medical therapy of BRIC exists. UDCA and rifampicin have been anecdotally reported to affect the course of BRIC as has nasobiliary drainage [176].

Recommendations

8.4. Alagille syndrome 

Alagille syndrome is an autosomal dominant multiorgan disease of children and adolescents which is characterized by chronic progressive cholestasis with ductopenia without relevant inflammatory changes in liver histology [177]. The extrahepatic signs and symptoms with involvement of nearly every organ system including heart, kidney, skeleton, central nervous system and a typical facies with hypertelorism, deep-set eyes and a flat nasal bridge may lead to the diagnosis of Alagille syndrome in young cholestatic patients suffering from often severe itch. The disease is caused by mutations in the JAG1 gene in 70% of patients. No effective medical treatment exists. Anecdotally, partial biliary diversion has been reported to cause relief from severe pruritus.

Recommendations

Back to Article Outline

9. Drug-induced cholestatic liver disease 

Acute drug-induced cholestatic injury represents one of three major forms of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) and has been defined by an international consensus panel by an isolated elevation of serum alkaline phosphatase (AP) >2× ULN or an alanine aminotransferase (ALT)/AP ratio (both elevated above ULN) <2 [178]. In comparison, drug-induced hepatocellular injury as the predominant form of DILI is defined by isolated ALT >2× ULN or an ALT/AP ratio (both elevated above ULN) >5, whereas mixed type injury is defined by an ALT/AP ratio of 2–5. Drug-induced cholestatic injury has a better prognosis than hepatocellular injury [179]. Several hundred drugs, herbal remedies, and illegal compounds have been reported to trigger drug-induced cholestatic injury. Adverse liver reactions are predictable and dose dependent only in a very few cases, whereas the vast majority is caused by unpredictable idiosyncratic or hypersensitive mechanisms. For many drugs, the reported prevalence of DILI is between 1 in 10,000 and 1 in 100,000 patients, and about 30% of cases with DILI are cholestatic. However, these estimates are weakened by considerable underreporting of DILI. Both environmental and genetic factors may determine susceptibility [180]. Genetically determined variations of hepatobiliary transporter and biotransformation enzyme expression and function may be important risk factors for an individual’s susceptibility to cholestasis under conditions of xenobiotic stress by drugs.

9.1. Diagnosis 

Because there are no specific diagnostic tests, diagnosis requires clinical suspicion, a careful drug history, consideration of the temporal relationship between drug intake and liver disease and exclusion of other disorders. Rechallenge could confirm the diagnosis, but is potentially harmful, unethical and not indicated in clinical practice; inadvertent re-challenge nevertheless may sometimes lead to diagnosis. When drug-induced cholestatic injury is assumed, liver biopsy is usually not required, and the natural course after stopping of drug administration is carefully followed until normalization of serum liver tests within 3 months in most cases. A severe, progressive or prolonged course may require liver biopsy to get additional information on the type of liver injury and to exclude other causes of liver cholestasis. Abdominal ultrasound is indicated to exclude other liver diseases (see Introduction 1).

9.2. Pathogenetic mechanisms and most frequent drugs 

Drug-induced cholestasis may be based on two major mechanisms and sites of action, [1] inhibition of hepatocellular transporter expression and/or function with alteration of bile secretion at the hepatocellular level (Table 5) and [2] induction of an idiosyncratic inflammatory or hypersensitive reaction at the bile ductular/cholangiocellular level with ductular/ductal cholestasis, which can also interfere with hepatocyte bile secretion (Table 5). Rarely, drugs induce a vanishing bile duct syndrome (VBDS) that can progress to biliary cirrhosis [181], [182]. Various factors such as age, gender, dose, or co-administered medications may affect the risk to develop drug-induced hepatic injury [183].

Table 5. Most frequent drugs causing hepatocellular or ductular/ductal cholestasis.

9.3. Treatment 

There is no effective treatment for drug-induced cholestasis except for withdrawal of the drug [184]. Prevention and early detection of abnormal serum liver tests, together with prompt withdrawal of the suspected drug are crucial to avoid serious liver injury. In some cases, hepatotoxicity is severe, disabling or life-threatening and liver transplantation may be required. Some studies have reported that ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) may beneficially affect cholestasis in two-thirds of cases [185]. A potential benefit of corticosteroid therapy in cases of drug-induced cholestasis has been reported occasionally and may be particularly expected in hypersensitivity-induced cholestasis, but no relevant controlled trials are available on this subject [182]. The outcome of drug-induced cholestatic injury, after withdrawal of the drug, is generally good [186]. Occasionally it is followed by prolonged cholestasis. The prototype drug causing cholestasis longer than 6 months is chlorpromazine; it can cause the “vanishing bile duct syndrome in drug-induced liver disease”, leading to permanent liver damage [187]. A minority of the patients who had a drug-related liver injury shows, during follow-up, abnormal liver test and persistent liver damage at histology [186].

Recommendations

Back to Article Outline

10. Cholestatic disorders in pregnancy 

10.1. Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) 

Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP, also known as obstetric cholestasis) is a reversible form of cholestasis characterized by (i) intense pruritus in pregnancy (starting in the second or third trimester of pregnancy in most patients), (ii) elevated serum ALT activities and fasting serum bile acid levels, and (iii) spontaneous relief of signs and symptoms after delivery (within 4–6 weeks) [188], [189]. In Europe, about 0.4–2.0% of pregnancies are affected [188], [190]. The clinical importance of ICP lies in the potential fetal risks (spontaneous or iatrogenic prematurity, asphyxial events during delivery, intrauterine death), albeit perinatal mortality rates from recent studies (9/1000) are comparable to whole population figures, most likely due to improvements in obstetric and neonatal care [191]. Pruritus (typically worse at night) impairs the mother’s quality of life. Only infrequently, ICP is associated with steatorrhea and postpartum haemorrhage due to vitamin K deficiency.

The pathogenesis of ICP is multifactorial, with genetic, hormonal and environmental factors playing important roles. During ICP, there is an increased flux of bile acids from the mother to the fetus, as indicated by elevated bile acid levels in amniotic fluid, cord blood and meconium [192]. The central role of hormonal factors is supported by the higher ICP incidence in twin pregnancies and the observation that high-dose oral contraceptives and progesterone can trigger ICP [188]. An increased ICP incidence in family members and ethnic differences point to genetic factors. Recent genetic studies have identified gene variants of hepatocanalicular transport proteins (ATP-binding cassette [ABC] transporter B4=phosphatidylcholine floppase, ABC transporter B11=bile salt export pump, ABC transporter C2=conjugated organic anion transporter, ATP8B1=FIC1) and their regulators (e.g., the bile acid sensor farnesoid X receptor, FXR) in some ICP patients [189]. Mild malfunction of these hepatocanalicular transporters could trigger cholestasis when their transport capacity for hormones or other substrates is exceeded during pregnancy. Currently, genetic tests are performed in research laboratories only and are not applicable for diagnosis or risk stratification. However, mutation analysis of ABCB4 might be considered in the future if cholestasis (with increased γGT levels) persists after delivery.

The skin should be inspected to differentiate scratching lesions from other skin disorders such as eczema and pruritic eruption of pregnancy. Although pruritus can precede any abnormalities in liver function, serum liver tests (ALT, bilirubin, γGT, bile acids, prothrombin time) are to be performed in every pregnant woman who experiences itching and to be repeated if normal in case of persistent pruritus. The diagnosis of cholestasis of pregnancy is based on otherwise unexplained pruritus and elevated serum bile acid concentrations (⩾11μmol/L) [192]. Isolated elevation of bile acids may occur but this is uncommon; in the majority of patients, ALT activities are elevated as well. Bile acids are the most sensitive indicator for cholestasis of pregnancy and may precede the abnormalities of other serum liver tests. Bile acid levels >40μmol/L any time during pregnancy and early onset of ICP (<33 weeks of gestation) might be associated with significantly increased fetal complication rates [190], [193], [194], [195]. ICP patients with ABCB4 variants tend to display elevated γ GT levels, which are otherwise normal in ICP. Mild jaundice with serum levels of conjugated bilirubin only moderately elevated occurs in 10–15% of cases. Liver biopsy is generally not warranted.

Pre-eclampsia and acute fatty liver of pregnancy are pregnancy specific causes of abnormal serum liver tests that may form part of the differential diagnosis in atypical or early ICP cases (Table 6).

Table 6. Characteristics of ICP, HELLP Syndrome and acute fatty liver of pregnancy [196].

	ICP	HELLP	AFLP
% Pregnancies	0.1–1.0	0.2–0.6	0.005–0.01
Trimester	(2 or) 3	3 or postpartum	3 or postpartum
Family history	Often	No	Occasionally
Presence of preeclampsia	No	Yes	50%
Typical clinical features	Pruritus Elevated serum ALT/AST fasting bile acids	Haemolysis Elevated serum liver tests Thrombocytopenia (often <50,000/μL)	Liver failure with mild jaundice, coagulopathy, encephalopathy, hypoglycemia, DIC
ALT (above normal)	Mild to 10–20-fold	Mild to 10–20-fold	5–15-fold, variable
Bilirubin	<5mg/dL (<85μmol/l)	Mostly <5mg/dL (<85μmol/l)	Often <5mg/dL (<85μmol/l)
Hepatic imaging	Normal	Hepatic infarcts, hematomas, hepatic rupture	Fatty infiltration
Maternal mortality (%)	0	1–25	7–18
Fetal/perinatal mortality (%)	0.4–1.4	11	9–23
Recurrence in subsequent pregnancies (%)	45–70	4–19	20–70 (carriers of LCHAD mutations)
			Rare (others)

LCHAD: α-subunit, long-chain 3-hydroxyacyl-CoA dehydrogenase.

Persistent abnormalities after delivery should prompt reconsideration of other chronic liver diseases like PBC, PSC, ABCB4 deficiency or chronic hepatitis C, which may be associated with development of pruritus during late pregnancy.

Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA, 10–20mg/kg per day) is regarded as the first-line treatment for ICP based on evidence obtained from randomized clinical trials [193], [194], [197], [198], [199], [200]. UDCA may improve pruritus and serum liver tests in 67–80% of ICP patients, but reduction of fetal complication rates is uncertain as fetal complication rates were low in recent trials both in UDCA and placebo-treated patients.

Dexamethasone (12mg/day for 7 days) promotes fetal lung maturity, but is ineffective in reducing pruritus and ALT levels in patients with ICP [197]. Thus, this drug is not an adequate treatment of ICP [191].

S-Adenosyl-l-methionine is less effective than UDCA [200], but may have an additive effect [199]. If pruritus does not adequately respond to UDCA standard therapy for several days, the dose may be increased up to 25mg/kg/day [201], or alternatively, treatment with S-adenosylmethione (combined with UDCA) or rifampicin might be considered on an individual basis (see Section 4.1). Topical emollients are safe but their efficacy is unknown.

Active obstetric management (including amnioscopy and generous induction of labour) has been reported to reduce perinatal mortality but increases intervention and complication rates [194], [202], [203]. The practice of considering delivery at (36 to) 38 weeks of gestation appears to prevent stillbirth beyond that gestation, but is not evidence-based [191].

10.2. Diagnosis and treatment of obstructive cholestasis during pregnancy 

Although up to 10% of patients develop stones or sludge over the course of one pregnancy, symptomatic gallstones occur in only 1.2% of these pregnancies [204]. The diagnosis is based on clinical symptoms, elevated serum liver tests (ALT, bilirubin, γGT, AP) and abdominal (or endoscopic) ultrasound. Obstructive cholestasis due to an impacted common bile duct stone or worsening gallstone pancreatitis are indications to proceed to endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP), sphincterotomy and stone extraction under antibiotic coverage. Several series have demonstrated the safety of ERCP in pregnancy [205], [206]. An experienced physician should perform the intervention. Ultrasound-guidance might be helpful to minimize ionising radiation of the fetus (uterus dose 24mSv/min). For deep sedation, consultation of an anesthesiologist and obstetrician is recommended. Meperidine, propofol, fentanyl and midazolam may be used at low doses [207]. Ampicillin is the preferred antibiotic and is compatible with breastfeeding [207] (Table 7).

Table 7. Medical treatment options in cholestatic disorders during pregnancy [207], [208].

Fetal risk categories (FDA): A – no risk; B – risk in animal studies, but not in humans; C – human risk cannot be excluded; D – risk; X – absolute contraindication.

10.3. Drugs for cholestatic conditions during pregnancy 

Women with cholestatic liver diseases may be of childbearing age, and an uncomplicated pregnancy with no disease flare is expected in those with mild or inactive disease. The course of autoimmune hepatitis or overlap syndrome in pregnancy is highly variable, and a flare of activity may occur during pregnancy or, more likely, in the post partum period. Table 7 summarizes the safety of drugs for cholestatic liver diseases [208].

UDCA. Although UDCA is not approved, but likely to be compatible, for use during early pregnancy, UDCA can be administered in cholestatic liver disease, when the pregnant woman is symptomatic during the second or third trimesters [209]. No adverse effects in mothers or newborns have been observed [210] including recent RCT, using UDCA for up to 8 weeks [189], [197], [198], [199]. UDCA is not approved during breastfeeding, but likely to be safe for the baby, since significant amounts of UDCA cannot be found in milk during lactation.

Corticosteroids. The use of prednisolone is considered safe during pregnancy and lactation, but is associated with an increased risk of cleft palate in children to women using the drug in the first trimester [211]. An increased risk of premature rupture of membranes and adrenal insufficiency was reported in the transplant setting [212].

Azathioprine. Azathioprine appears to be a safe drug during pregnancy, although it is teratogenic in animals. Steadily increasing experience is being reported in women with autoimmune hepatitis, rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel diseases, and after organ transplantation [208], [213]. The benefits and risks of therapy should be discussed in detail with the patient. Although very little azathioprine is excreted in breast milk, breastfeeding should be discussed on an individual basis.

Recommendations

3.UDCA can be administered to pregnant women with cholestatic liver diseases during the second or third trimesters, when the patients are symptomatic (I/B1). Prednisolone±azathioprine for treatment of autoimmune hepatitis should be continued during pregnancy to prevent disease flares, which might be more deleterious to pregnancy outcome than any potential risk of the medication (III/C2).

Back to Article Outline

11. Management of extrahepatic manifestations 

11.1. Pruritus 

Pruritus can be a feature of any cholestatic disease and can be of sufficient severity, in some instances, also disabling. The precise mechanism of cholestatic pruritus remains unclear [214]. Fluctuation is characteristic (both within the day and over longer periods of time), and pruritus can lessen as end-stage liver disease develops. In the absence of obstructive bile duct lesions amenable to endoscopic, radiological or surgical correction treatment (Fig. 2) focuses entirely on systemic medication (no topical agents have demonstrated efficacy). There is no evidence to suggest that UDCA lessens cholestatic itch (indeed paradoxical worsening of itch has been reported anecdotally following introduction of this agent) except in the context of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy. Cholestyramine is widely used as first-line treatment although the evidence basis to support this is limited, largely because the agent entered widespread use before the era of evidence-based medicine [215]. Poor tolerance due to the taste of this agent can be a problem (which can sometimes be addressed by flavoring with fruit juice). When both agents are used UDCA and cholestyramine should be spaced a minimum of four hours apart to prevent binding and loss of efficacy [216].

• 
  • View Large Image
  • Download to PowerPoint

• Fig. 2. 

  Management of pruritus in cholestasis. Abbreviations: US, ultrasound; MRCP, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

The pregnane X receptor (PXR) agonist, rifampicin, is widely used as second-line treatment and has a strong evidence base [217], [218]. Ongoing efficacy is reported over up to 2 years of treatment (mirroring clinical experience) [219]. Urine, tears and other body secretions are discoloured during treatment and, in case series, drug-induced hepatitis and significant liver dysfunction after two to three months have been reported in up to 12% of cholestatic patients [220]. In light of this, low dose initiation with monitoring before dose escalation is recommended.

Oral opiate antagonists can be used as third-line agents [218]. However problems have been reported with an opiate withdrawal-like reaction on initiation (which can be ameliorated, to some extent by use of an i.v. naloxone induction phase in which the dose is rapidly escalated to a level at which conversion to the lowest dose oral opiate antagonist preparation can be instituted [221], [222] and ongoing problems resulting from pain and confusion.

There is evidence to support the use of sertraline, although the mechanism of its action remains unclear [223]. Clinical experience of both opiate-antagonists and sertraline used for pruritus treatment has been disappointing for many clinicians and the importance of fully exploring the use of cholestyramine and rifampicin therapy before resorting to these agents is emphasized. There are anecdotal observations to support the use of gabapentin and cimetidine in cases of resistance pruritus. The use of antihistamines, ondansetron and phenobarbitone is not recommended for reasons of lack of efficacy, limited efficacy and excessive side-effect profile, respectively.

There is case report evidence to advocate the use of invasive physical approaches in resistant pruritus cases. These approaches include extracorporeal albumin dialysis [224], plasmapheresis [225], [226] and bile duct drainage [176], [227]. The invasive nature of these approaches makes them only suitable in patients who are resistant to medical therapies. Transplantation is effective for the control of cholestatic itch but raises issues of organ allocation priority and patient risk in patients who would not otherwise require transplantation [228]. Itch quantification using a visual analogue scale can help in the assessment of response to interventions. Objectification of itch through physical measurement of scratching activity has been advocated as a more accurate measure. It is, in practice, limited to use as a research tool. Treatment of pruritus in cholestatic liver disease has been subjected to systematic review [217], [218].

Recommendations (Fig. 2)

1.Cholestyramine 4g up to four times daily or other resins are regarded as first-line treatment of pruritus (II-2/B1). Resins should be spaced away from UDCA and other drugs by at least 4hours (II-3/B1).

2.Rifampicin is regarded as second-line treatment introduced at 150mg with monitoring of serum liver tests which may be increased to a maximum of 600mg daily (I/A1).

3.Naltrexone, an oral opiate antagonist, at a dose of 50mg daily should be considered as third-line treatment starting at a low dose of 25mg (I/B1). It should only be considered following proven lack of efficacy, intolerance or side-effects with cholestyramine or other resins and rifampicin (III/C1).

11.2. Fatigue 

PBC can be characterized by fatigue, the degree of which is unrelated to the severity of the underlying liver disease. The issue of the extent to which other cholestatic liver diseases can be associated with fatigue is poorly studied. Before ascribing fatigue to PBC it is essential to exclude other associated or non-associated causes of fatigue which may be amenable to specific intervention. This includes the presence of AIH-like features which may be amenable to immunosuppressive therapy. Fatigue in PBC shows only a limited association with depression [229], but stronger associations with autonomic dysfunction (in particular orthostatic hypotension [230]) and sleep disturbance (in particular excessive daytime somnolence [230]) and which may themselves be amenable to specific intervention (there is, in particular, case series evidence to support the use of modafinil in patients with fatigue associated with prominent daytime somnolence [231], [232], [233]). There are no specific interventions able to reverse fatigue in PBC, although supportive and understanding clinical care will improve patients’ capacity to cope [234]. Fatigue may not improve significantly following liver transplantation which is therefore not appropriate in patients lacking other indications.

Recommendations

11.3. Osteoporosis 

The degree to which patients with cholestatic liver disease are at increased risk of osteoporosis is unclear, with contradictory reports in the literature. This largely reflects the case mix in different centres (with significant age, disease severity and degree of cholestasis differences). A consensus view would be that patients with end-stage liver disease and/or a high degree of cholestasis are at increased risk of developing osteoporosis, with a significantly smaller risk in other groups. In these latter groups established population risk factors for osteoporosis (smoking, inactivity, family history, low body weight, age and female gender) outweigh any cholestasis-related risk. Compared to healthy controls, male patients with cholestatic liver disease have a higher disease-related osteoporosis risk increase (although lower absolute risk) than female patients. The use of calcium and vitamin D supplements is supported by epidemiological data (reduction or reversal of the natural rate of bone loss) but there are no trial data to support or refute this treatment approach [235]. Hormone replacement therapy is effective in post-menopausal female patients [236], [237]. Testosterone therapy should be avoided in male patients because of risk of hepatocellular carcinoma. There are trial data to support the use of bisphosphonates (particularly alendronate) where osteoporosis is present [238], [239]. There are limited data to support the use of raloxifene and sodium fluoride [240], [241]. Bone mineral density assessment (DEXA) is a useful guide to treatment and should be undertaken where possible in all patients at presentation, with follow-up assessment at between 1 and 5 years depending on outcome and general osteoporosis risk [242].

Recommendations

3.Supplementation with calcium (1000–1200mg/day) and vitamin D (400–800IU/day) in all patients with cholestatic liver disease should be considered but is not evidence-based (III/C2).

11.4. Fat-soluble vitamin substitution 

Fat malabsorption can complicate highly cholestatic disease variants, although the risk is lower in less cholestatic patients than has previously been considered to be the case (with the exception of children where degrees of fat malabsorption are typically higher). Parenteral vitamin K supplementation should be given prophylactically in overt cholestasis prior to any invasive procedure and in the context of bleeding Assessment of blood levels of fat-soluble vitamins has been advocated to guide the need for supplementation but this approach is not widely used and is not recommended.

Recommendations

11.5. Varices and hepatocellular carcinoma 

Varices and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) development occur in advanced cholestatic liver disease as in other forms of chronic liver disease and are associated with impaired prognosis [243], [244]. Screening, prophylaxis and treatment approaches should be adopted as in other chronic liver disease settings [245], [246]. However, a platelet count of <200,000/mm³, serum albumin <40g/L and serum bilirubin >20μmol/L were independent risk factors for the presence of oesophageal varices in one cohort of cholestatic patients with PBC (>90%) and PSC [247]. The proposed threshold of endoscopic screening for oesophageal varices may be valid for PBC rather than cholestatic liver disease in general.

Back to Article Outline

Conflicts of interest disclosure 

Back to Article Outline

References 

1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924–926
   • View In Article
   • CrossRef
2. Chazouillères O, Housset C. Intrahepatic cholestasis. In:  Rodés J editors. Textbook of hepatology: from basic science to clinical practice. 3rd ed.. Oxford: Blackwell; 2007;p. 1481–1500
   • View In Article
3. Heathcote EJ. Diagnosis and management of cholestatic liver disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;5:776–782
   • View In Article
   • Abstract
   • Full Text
   • Full-Text PDF (905 KB)
   • CrossRef
4. Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, Haber GB, Herman ME, Dorsher PJ, et al. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:909–918
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
   • CrossRef
5. Ludwig J. Idiopathic adulthood ductopenia: an update. Mayo Clin Proc. 1998;73:285–291
   • View In Article
   • Abstract
   • Full Text
   • Full-Text PDF (6172 KB)
6. Heathcote EJ. Management of primary biliary cirrhosis. The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases practice guidelines. Hepatology. 2000;31:1005–1013
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
   • CrossRef
7. Metcalf JV, Mitchison HC, Palmer JM, Jones DE, Bassendine MF, James OF. Natural history of early primary biliary cirrhosis. Lancet. 1996;348:1399–1402
   • View In Article
   • Abstract
   • Full Text
   • Full-Text PDF (42 KB)
   • CrossRef
8. Invernizzi P, Lleo A, Podda M. Interpreting serological tests in diagnosing autoimmune liver diseases. Semin Liver Dis. 2007;27:161–172
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
   • CrossRef
9. Vergani D, Alvarez F, Bianchi FB, Cancado EL, Mackay IR, Manns MP, et al. Liver autoimmune serology: a consensus statement from the committee for autoimmune serology of the International Autoimmune Hepatitis Group. J Hepatol. 2004;41:677–683
   • View In Article
   • Full Text
   • Full-Text PDF (116 KB)
   • CrossRef
10. Ludwig J, Dickson ER, McDonald GS. Staging of chronic nonsuppurative destructive cholangitis (syndrome of primary biliary cirrhosis). Virchows Arch A Pathol Anat Histol. 1978;379:103–112
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
11. Scheuer PJ. Primary biliary cirrhosis: diagnosis, pathology and pathogenesis. Postgrad Med J. 1983;59:106–115
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
12. Beuers U. Drug insight: mechanisms and sites of action of ursodeoxycholic acid in cholestasis. Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;3:318–328
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
13. Poupon RE, Balkau B, Eschwege E, Poupon R. A multicenter, controlled trial of ursodiol for the treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis. UDCA-PBC Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:1548–1554
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
14. Heathcote EJ, Cauch-Dudek K, Walker V, Bailey RJ, Blendis LM, Ghent CN, et al. The Canadian Multicenter Double-blind Randomized Controlled Trial of ursodeoxycholic acid in primary biliary cirrhosis. Hepatology. 1994;19:1149–1156
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
15. Lindor KD, Dickson ER, Baldus WP, Jorgensen RA, Ludwig J, Murtaugh PA, et al. Ursodeoxycholic acid in the treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis. Gastroenterology. 1994;106:1284–1290
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full-Text PDF (580 KB)
16. Combes B, Carithers RL, Maddrey WC, Lin D, McDonald MF, Wheeler DE, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ursodeoxycholic acid in primary biliary cirrhosis. Hepatology. 1995;22:759–766
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
17. Pares A, Caballeria L, Rodes J, Bruguera M, Rodrigo L, Garcia-Plaza A, et al. Long-term effects of ursodeoxycholic acid in primary biliary cirrhosis: results of a double-blind controlled multicentric trial. UDCA-Cooperative Group from the Spanish Association for the Study of the Liver. J Hepatol. 2000;32:561–566
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (818 KB)
    • CrossRef
18. Corpechot C, Carrat F, Bonnand AM, Poupon RE, Poupon R. The effect of ursodeoxycholic acid therapy on liver fibrosis progression in primary biliary cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2000;32:1196–1199
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
19. Poupon RE, Lindor KD, Cauch-Dudek K, Dickson ER, Poupon R, Heathcote EJ. Combined analysis of randomized controlled trials of ursodeoxycholic acid in primary biliary cirrhosis. Gastroenterology. 1997;113:884–890
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full-Text PDF (353 KB)
    • CrossRef
20. Goulis J, Leandro G, Burroughs A. Randomised controlled trials of ursodeoxycholic-acid therapy for primary biliary cirrhosis: a meta-analysis. Lancet. 1999;354:1053–1060
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (100 KB)
    • CrossRef
21. Gong Y, Huang Z, Christensen E, Gluud C. Ursodeoxycholic acid for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials using Bayesian approach as sensitivity analyses. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:1799–1807
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
22. Shi J, Wu C, Lin Y, Chen YX, Zhu L, Xie WF. Long-term effects of mid-dose ursodeoxycholic acid in primary biliary cirrhosis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:1529–1538
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
23. Lindor KD, Poupon R, Heathcote EJ, Therneau T. Ursodeoxycholic acid for primary biliary cirrhosis. Lancet. 2000;355:657–658
    • View In Article
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (53 KB)
    • CrossRef
24. Angulo P, Dickson ER, Therneau TM, Jorgensen RA, Smith C, DeSotel CK, et al. Comparison of three doses of ursodeoxycholic acid in the treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis: a randomized trial. J Hepatol. 1999;30:830–835
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (763 KB)
    • CrossRef
25. Corpechot C, Carrat F, Bahr A, Chretien Y, Poupon RE, Poupon R. The effect of ursodeoxycholic acid therapy on the natural course of primary biliary cirrhosis. Gastroenterology. 2005;128:297–303
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (196 KB)
    • CrossRef
26. ter Borg PC, Schalm SW, Hansen BE, van Buuren HR. Prognosis of ursodeoxycholic acid-treated patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. Results of a 10-yr cohort study involving 297 patients. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:2044–2050
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
27. Pares A, Caballeria L, Rodes J. Excellent long-term survival in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis and biochemical response to ursodeoxycholic acid. Gastroenterology. 2006;130:715–720
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (120 KB)
    • CrossRef
28. Corpechot C, Abenavoli L, Rabahi N, Chretien Y, Andreani T, Johanet C, et al. Biochemical response to ursodeoxycholic acid and long-term prognosis in primary biliary cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2008;48:871–877
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
29. Mitchison HC, Bassendine MF, Malcolm AJ, Watson AJ, Record CO, James OF. A pilot, double-blind, controlled 1-year trial of prednisolone treatment in primary biliary cirrhosis: hepatic improvement but greater bone loss. Hepatology. 1989;10:420–429
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
30. Leuschner M, Guldutuna S, You T, Hubner K, Bhatti S, Leuschner U. Ursodeoxycholic acid and prednisolone versus ursodeoxycholic acid and placebo in the treatment of early stages of primary biliary cirrhosis. J Hepatol. 1996;25:49–57
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full-Text PDF (674 KB)
    • CrossRef
31. Leuschner M, Maier KP, Schlichting J, Strahl S, Herrmann G, Dahm HH, et al. Oral budesonide and ursodeoxycholic acid for treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis: results of a prospective double-blind trial. Gastroenterology. 1999;117:918–925
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (162 KB)
    • CrossRef
32. Rautiainen H, Karkkainen P, Karvonen AL, Nurmi H, Pikkarainen P, Nuutinen H, et al. Budesonide combined with UDCA to improve liver histology in primary biliary cirrhosis: a three-year randomized trial. Hepatology. 2005;41:747–752
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
33. Angulo P, Jorgensen RA, Keach JC, Dickson ER, Smith C, Lindor KD. Oral budesonide in the treatment of patients with primary biliary cirrhosis with a suboptimal response to ursodeoxycholic acid. Hepatology. 2000;31:318–323
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
34. Hempfling W, Grunhage F, Dilger K, Reichel C, Beuers U, Sauerbruch T. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic action of budesonide in early- and late-stage primary biliary cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2003;38:196–202
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
35. Christensen E, Neuberger J, Crowe J, Altman DG, Popper H, Portmann B, et al. Beneficial effect of azathioprine and prediction of prognosis in primary biliary cirrhosis. Final results of an international trial. Gastroenterology. 1985;89:1084–1091
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full-Text PDF (950 KB)
36. Lombard M, Portmann B, Neuberger J, Williams R, Tygstrup N, Ranek L, et al. Cyclosporin A treatment in primary biliary cirrhosis: results of a long-term placebo controlled trial. Gastroenterology. 1993;104:519–526
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full-Text PDF (748 KB)
37. Hendrickse MT, Rigney E, Giaffer MH, Soomro I, Triger DR, Underwood JC, et al. Low-dose methotrexate is ineffective in primary biliary cirrhosis: long-term results of a placebo-controlled trial. Gastroenterology. 1999;117:400–407
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (166 KB)
    • CrossRef
38. Gonzalez-Koch A, Brahm J, Antezana C, Smok G, Cumsille MA. The combination of ursodeoxycholic acid and methotrexate for primary biliary cirrhosis is not better than ursodeoxycholic acid alone. J Hepatol. 1997;27:143–149
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full-Text PDF (784 KB)
    • CrossRef
39. Combes B, Emerson SS, Flye NL, Munoz SJ, Luketic VA, Mayo MJ, et al. Methotrexate (MTX) plus ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in the treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2005;42:1184–1193
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
40. Hoofnagle JH, Davis GL, Schafer DF, Peters M, Avigan MI, Pappas SC, et al. Randomized trial of chlorambucil for primary biliary cirrhosis. Gastroenterology. 1986;91:1327–1334
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full-Text PDF (1094 KB)
41. Talwalkar JA, Angulo P, Keach JC, Petz JL, Jorgensen RA, Lindor KD. Mycophenolate mofetil for the treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis in patients with an incomplete response to ursodeoxycholic acid. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2005;39:168–171
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
42. Vuoristo M, Farkkila M, Karvonen AL, Leino R, Lehtola J, Makinen J, et al. A placebo-controlled trial of primary biliary cirrhosis treatment with colchicine and ursodeoxycholic acid. Gastroenterology. 1995;108:1470–1478
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full-Text PDF (863 KB)
    • CrossRef
43. Poupon RE, Huet PM, Poupon R, Bonnand AM, Nhieu JT, Zafrani ES. A randomized trial comparing colchicine and ursodeoxycholic acid combination to ursodeoxycholic acid in primary biliary cirrhosis. UDCA–PBC Study Group. Hepatology. 1996;24:1098–1103
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
44. Neuberger J, Christensen E, Portmann B, Caballeria J, Rodes J, Ranek L, et al. Double blind controlled trial of d-penicillamine in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. Gut. 1985;26:114–119
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
45. Gong Y, Klingenberg SL, Gluud C. Systematic review and meta-analysis: d-penicillamine vs. placebo/no intervention in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis–Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006;24:1535–1544
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
46. The results of a randomized double blind controlled trial evaluating malotilate in primary biliary cirrhosis. A European multicentre study group. J Hepatol 1993;17:227–35.
    • View In Article
47. McCormick PA, Scott F, Epstein O, Burroughs AK, Scheuer PJ, McIntyre N. Thalidomide as therapy for primary biliary cirrhosis: a double-blind placebo controlled pilot study. J Hepatol. 1994;21:496–499
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
48. Angulo P, Patel T, Jorgensen RA, Therneau TM, Lindor KD. Silymarin in the treatment of patients with primary biliary cirrhosis with a suboptimal response to ursodeoxycholic acid. Hepatology. 2000;32:897–900
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
49. Stojakovic T, Putz-Bankuti C, Fauler G, Scharnagl H, Wagner M, Stadlbauer V, et al. Atorvastatin in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis and incomplete biochemical response to ursodeoxycholic acid. Hepatology. 2007;46:776–784
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
50. Leuschner M, Holtmeier J, Ackermann H, Leuschner U. The influence of sulindac on patients with primary biliary cirrhosis that responds incompletely to ursodeoxycholic acid: a pilot study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2002;14:1369–1376
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
51. Iwasaki S, Ohira H, Nishiguchi S, Zeniya M, Kaneko S, Onji M, et al. The efficacy of ursodeoxycholic acid and bezafibrate combination therapy for primary biliary cirrhosis: a prospective, multicenter study. Hepatol Res. 2008;38:557–564
    • View In Article
52. Invernizzi P, Alvaro D, Crosignani A, Gaudio E, Podda M. Tamoxifen in treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2004;39:1175–1176
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
53. Mason AL, Farr GH, Xu L, Hubscher SG, Neuberger JM. Pilot studies of single and combination antiretroviral therapy in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:2348–2355
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
54. MacQuillan GC, Neuberger J. Liver transplantation for primary biliary cirrhosis. Clin Liver Dis. 2003;7:941–956
    • View In Article
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (296 KB)
    • CrossRef
55. Milkiewicz P. Liver transplantation in primary biliary cirrhosis. Clin Liver Dis. 2008;12:461–472
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (261 KB)
    • CrossRef
56. Gautam M, Cheruvattath R, Balan V. Recurrence of autoimmune liver disease after liver transplantation: a systematic review. Liver Transpl. 2006;12:1813–1824
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
57. Chazouilleres 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;28:296–301
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
58. Lohse AW, zum Buschenfelde KH, Franz B, Kanzler S, Gerken G, Dienes HP. Characterization of the overlap syndrome of primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) and autoimmune hepatitis: evidence for it being a hepatitic form of PBC in genetically susceptible individuals. Hepatology. 1999;29:1078–1084
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
59. Woodward J, Neuberger J. Autoimmune overlap syndromes. Hepatology. 2001;33:994–1002
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
60. Beuers U, Rust C. Overlap syndromes. Semin Liver Dis. 2005;25:311–320
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
61. Heathcote EJ. Overlap of autoimmune hepatitis and primary biliary cirrhosis: an evaluation of a modified scoring system. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:1090–1092
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
62. 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;31:929–938
    • View In Article
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (1275 KB)
    • CrossRef
63. Talwalkar JA, Keach JC, Angulo P, Lindor KD. Overlap of autoimmune hepatitis and primary biliary cirrhosis: an evaluation of a modified scoring system. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:1191–1197
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
64. Chazouilleres O, Wendum D, Serfaty L, Rosmorduc O, Poupon R. Long term outcome and response to therapy of primary biliary cirrhosis–autoimmune hepatitis overlap syndrome. J Hepatol. 2006;44:400–406
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (194 KB)
    • CrossRef
65. Hennes EM, Zeniya M, Czaja AJ, Pares A, Dalekos GN, Krawitt EL, et al. Simplified criteria for the diagnosis of autoimmune hepatitis. Hepatology. 2008;48:169–176
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
66. Yamamoto K, Terada R, Okamoto R, Hiasa Y, Abe M, Onji M, et al. A scoring system for primary biliary cirrhosis and its application for variant forms of autoimmune liver disease. J Gastroenterol. 2003;38:52–59
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
67. Poupon R, Chazouilleres O, Corpechot C, Chretien Y. Development of autoimmune hepatitis in patients with typical primary biliary cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2006;44:85–90
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
68. Czaja AJ. The variant forms of autoimmune hepatitis. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:588–598
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
69. Rust C, Beuers U. Overlap syndromes among autoimmune liver diseases. World J Gastroenterol. 2008;14:3368–3373
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
70. Silveira MG, Talwalkar JA, Angulo P, Lindor KD. Overlap of autoimmune hepatitis and primary biliary cirrhosis: long-term outcomes. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:1244–1250
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
71. Joshi S, Cauch-Dudek K, Wanless IR, Lindor KD, Jorgensen R, Batts K, et al. Primary biliary cirrhosis with additional features of autoimmune hepatitis: response to therapy with ursodeoxycholic acid. Hepatology. 2002;35:409–413
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
72. Csepregi A, Rocken C, Treiber G, Malfertheiner P. Budesonide induces complete remission in autoimmune hepatitis. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12:1362–1366
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
73. Duclos-Vallee JC, Hadengue A, Ganne-Carrie N, Robin E, Degott C, Erlinger S. Primary biliary cirrhosis–autoimmune hepatitis overlap syndrome. Corticoresistance and effective treatment by cyclosporine A. Dig Dis Sci. 1995;40:1069–1073
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
74. Maggs JR, Chapman RW. An update on primary sclerosing cholangitis. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2008;24:377–383
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
75. Karlsen TH, Schrumpf E, Boberg KM. Genetic epidemiology of primary sclerosing cholangitis. World J Gastroenterol. 2007;13:5421–5431
    • View In Article
76. Abdalian R, Heathcote EJ. Sclerosing cholangitis: a focus on secondary causes. Hepatology. 2006;44:1063–1074
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
77. Broome U, Olsson R, Loof L, Bodemar G, Hultcrantz R, Danielsson A, et al. Natural history and prognostic factors in 305 Swedish patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Gut. 1996;38:610–615
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
78. Chapman RW, Arborgh BA, Rhodes JM, Summerfield JA, Dick R, Scheuer PJ, et al. Primary sclerosing cholangitis: a review of its clinical features, cholangiography, and hepatic histology. Gut. 1980;21:870–877
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
79. Tischendorf JJ, Hecker H, Kruger M, Manns MP, Meier PN. Characterization, outcome, and prognosis in 273 patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis: a single center study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:107–114
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
80. Boberg KM, Fausa O, Haaland T, Holter E, Mellbye OJ, Spurkland A, et al. Features of autoimmune hepatitis in primary sclerosing cholangitis: an evaluation of 114 primary sclerosing cholangitis patients according to a scoring system for the diagnosis of autoimmune hepatitis. Hepatology. 1996;23:1369–1376
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
81. Mendes FD, Jorgensen R, Keach J, Katzmann JA, Smyrk T, Donlinger J, et al. Elevated serum IgG4 concentration in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:2070–2075
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
82. Hov JR, Boberg KM, Karlsen TH. Autoantibodies in primary sclerosing cholangitis. World J Gastroenterol. 2008;14:3781–3791
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
83. Ludwig J. Surgical pathology of the syndrome of primary sclerosing cholangitis. Am J Surg Pathol. 1989;13:43–49
    • View In Article
84. van de Meeberg PC, Portincasa P, Wolfhagen FH, van Erpecum KJ, VanBerge-Henegouwen GP. Increased gall bladder volume in primary sclerosing cholangitis. Gut. 1996;39:594–599
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
85. Said K, Glaumann H, Bergquist A. Gallbladder disease in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. J Hepatol. 2008;48:598–605
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (311 KB)
    • CrossRef
86. Lee YM, Kaplan MM. Primary sclerosing cholangitis. N Engl J Med. 1995;332:924–933
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
87. MacCarty RL, LaRusso NF, Wiesner RH, Ludwig J. Primary sclerosing cholangitis: findings on cholangiography and pancreatography. Radiology. 1983;149:39–44
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
88. Bangarulingam SY, Gossard AA, Petersen BT, Ott BJ, Lindor KD. Complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in primary sclerosing cholangitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:855–860
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
89. Berstad AE, Aabakken L, Smith HJ, Aasen S, Boberg KM, Schrumpf E. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in primary sclerosing cholangitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:514–520
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (289 KB)
    • CrossRef
90. Angulo P, Pearce DH, Johnson CD, Henry JJ, LaRusso NF, Petersen BT, et al. Magnetic resonance cholangiography in patients with biliary disease: its role in primary sclerosing cholangitis. J Hepatol. 2000;33:520–527
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (869 KB)
    • CrossRef
91. Bjornsson E, Olsson R, Bergquist A, Lindgren S, Braden B, Chapman RW, et al. The natural history of small-duct primary sclerosing cholangitis. Gastroenterology. 2008;134:975–980
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (169 KB)
    • CrossRef
92. Broome U, Glaumann H, Lindstom E, Loof L, Almer S, Prytz H, et al. Natural history and outcome in 32 Swedish patients with small duct primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC). J Hepatol. 2002;36:586–589
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (79 KB)
    • CrossRef
93. Angulo P, Maor-Kendler Y, Lindor KD. Small-duct primary sclerosing cholangitis: a long-term follow-up study. Hepatology. 2002;35:1494–1500
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
94. Bjornsson E, Boberg KM, Cullen S, Fleming K, Clausen OP, Fausa O, et al. Patients with small duct primary sclerosing cholangitis have a favourable long term prognosis. Gut. 2002;51:731–735
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
95. Gotthardt D, Runz H, Keitel V, Fischer C, Flechtenmacher C, Wirtenberger M, et al. A mutation in the canalicular phospholipid transporter gene, ABCB4, is associated with cholestasis, ductopenia, and cirrhosis in adults. Hepatology. 2008;48:1157–1166
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef
96. Wilschanski M, Chait P, Wade JA, Davis L, Corey M, St. Louis P, et al. Primary sclerosing cholangitis in 32 children: clinical, laboratory, and radiographic features, with survival analysis. Hepatology. 1995;22:1415–1422
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
97. Feldstein AE, Perrault J, El-Youssif M, Lindor KD, Freese DK, Angulo P. Primary sclerosing cholangitis in children: a long-term follow-up study. Hepatology. 2003;38:210–217
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
98. Gregorio GV, Portmann B, Karani J, Harrison P, Donaldson PT, Vergani D, et al. Autoimmune hepatitis/sclerosing cholangitis overlap syndrome in childhood: a 16-year prospective study. Hepatology. 2001;33:544–553
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
99. Tanaka A, Takamori Y, Toda G, Ohnishi S, Takikawa H. Outcome and prognostic factors of 391 Japanese patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Liver Int. 2008;28:983–989
    • View In Article
100. Loftus EV, Harewood GC, Loftus CG, Tremaine WJ, Harmsen WS, Zinsmeister AR, et al. PSC–IBD: a unique form of inflammatory bowel disease associated with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Gut. 2005;54:91–96
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
101. Soetikno RM, Lin OS, Heidenreich PA, Young HS, Blackstone MO. Increased risk of colorectal neoplasia in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis and ulcerative colitis: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56:48–54
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (77 KB)
     • CrossRef
102. Broome U, Bergquist A. Primary sclerosing cholangitis, inflammatory bowel disease, and colon cancer. Semin Liver Dis. 2006;26:31–41
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
103. Bergquist A, Ekbom A, Olsson R, Kornfeldt D, Loof L, Danielsson A, et al. Hepatic and extrahepatic malignancies in primary sclerosing cholangitis. J Hepatol. 2002;36:321–327
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (128 KB)
     • CrossRef
104. Lazaridis KN, Gores GJ. Primary sclerosing cholangitis and cholangiocarcinoma. Semin Liver Dis. 2006;26:42–51
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
105. Harnois DM, Gores GJ, Ludwig J, Steers JL, LaRusso NF, Wiesner RH. Are patients with cirrhotic stage primary sclerosing cholangitis at risk for the development of hepatocellular cancer?. J Hepatol. 1997;27:512–516
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full-Text PDF (592 KB)
     • CrossRef
106. Fevery J, Verslype C, Lai G, Aerts R, Van Steenbergen W. Incidence, diagnosis, and therapy of cholangiocarcinoma in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Dig Dis Sci. 2007;52:3123–3135
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
107. Charatcharoenwitthaya P, Enders FB, Halling KC, Lindor KD. Utility of serum tumor markers, imaging, and biliary cytology for detecting cholangiocarcinoma in primary sclerosing cholangitis. Hepatology. 2008;48:1106–1117
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
108. Prytz H, Keiding S, Bjornsson E, Broome U, Almer S, Castedal M, et al. Dynamic FDG-PET is useful for detection of cholangiocarcinoma in patients with PSC listed for liver transplantation. Hepatology. 2006;44:1572–1580
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
109. Boberg KM, Jebsen P, Clausen OP, Foss A, Aabakken L, Schrumpf E. Diagnostic benefit of biliary brush cytology in cholangiocarcinoma in primary sclerosing cholangitis. J Hepatol. 2006;45:568–574
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (178 KB)
     • CrossRef
110. Chazouilleres O, Poupon R, Capron JP, Metman EH, Dhumeaux D, Amouretti M, et al. Ursodeoxycholic acid for primary sclerosing cholangitis. J Hepatol. 1990;11:120–123
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
111. O’Brien CB, Senior JR, Arora-Mirchandani R, Batta AK, Salen G. Ursodeoxycholic acid for the treatment of primary sclerosing cholangitis: a 30-month pilot study. Hepatology. 1991;14:838–847
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
112. Beuers U, Spengler U, Kruis W, Aydemir U, Wiebecke B, Heldwein W, et al. Ursodeoxycholic acid for treatment of primary sclerosing cholangitis: a placebo-controlled trial. Hepatology. 1992;16:707–714
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
113. Stiehl A. Ursodeoxycholic acid therapy in treatment of primary sclerosing cholangitis. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl. 1994;204:59–61
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
114. Lindor KD. Ursodiol for primary sclerosing cholangitis. Mayo Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis–Ursodeoxycholic Acid Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:691–695
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
115. Mitchell SA, Bansi DS, Hunt N, Von Bergmann K, Fleming KA, Chapman RW. A preliminary trial of high-dose ursodeoxycholic acid in primary sclerosing cholangitis. Gastroenterology. 2001;121:900–907
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (275 KB)
     • CrossRef
116. Cullen SN, Rust C, Fleming K, Edwards C, Beuers U, Chapman R. High dose ursodeoxycholic acid for the treatment of primary sclerosig cholangitis is safe and effective. J Hepatol. 2008;48:792–800
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (173 KB)
     • CrossRef
117. Olsson R, Boberg KM, de Muckadell OS, Lindgren S, Hultcrantz R, Folvik G, et al. High-dose ursodeoxycholic acid in primary sclerosing cholangitis: a 5-year multicenter, randomized, controlled study. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:1464–1472
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (224 KB)
     • CrossRef
118. Lindor KD, Enders FB, Schmoll JA, Hoskin TL, Jorgensen RA, Petz JL, et al. Randomized, double-blind controlled trial of high-dose ursodeoxycholic acid for primary sclerosing cholangitis. Hepatology. 2008;48:378A
     • View In Article
119. Tung BY, Emond MJ, Haggitt RC, Bronner MP, Kimmey MB, Kowdley KV, et al. Ursodiol use is associated with lower prevalence of colonic neoplasia in patients with ulcerative colitis and primary sclerosing cholangitis. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:89–95
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
120. Wolf JM, Rybicki LA, Lashner BA. The impact of ursodeoxycholic acid on cancer, dysplasia and mortality in ulcerative colitis patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;22:783–788
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
121. Pardi DS, Loftus EV, Kremers WK, Keach J, Lindor KD. Ursodeoxycholic acid as a chemopreventive agent in patients with ulcerative colitis and primary sclerosing cholangitis. Gastroenterology. 2003;124:889–893
     • View In Article
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (80 KB)
     • CrossRef
122. Rudolph G, Kloeters-Plachky P, Rost D, Stiehl A. The incidence of cholangiocarcinoma in primary sclerosing cholangitis after long-time treatment with ursodeoxycholic acid. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;19:487–491
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
123. Brandsaeter B, Isoniemi H, Broome U, Olausson M, Backman L, Hansen B, et al. Liver transplantation for primary sclerosing cholangitis; predictors and consequences of hepatobiliary malignancy. J Hepatol. 2004;40:815–822
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (290 KB)
     • CrossRef
124. Boberg KM, Egeland T, Schrumpf E. Long-term effect of corticosteroid treatment in primary sclerosing cholangitis patients. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2003;38:991–995
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
125. Etzel JP, Eng SC, Ko CW, Lee SD, Saunders MD, Tung BY, et al. Complications after ERCP in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67:643–648
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (167 KB)
     • CrossRef
126. Andriulli A, Loperfido S, Napolitano G, Niro G, Valvano MR, Spirito F, et al. Incidence rates of post-ERCP complications: a systematic survey of prospective studies. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:1781–1788
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
127. van den Hazel SJ, Wolfhagen EH, van Buuren HR, van de Meeberg PC, Van Leeuwen DJ. Prospective risk assessment of endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Dutch PSC Study Group. Endoscopy. 2000;32:779–782
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
128. Bjornsson E, Lindqvist-Ottosson J, Asztely M, Olsson R. Dominant strictures in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:502–508
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
129. Hammel P, Couvelard A, O’Toole D, Ratouis A, Sauvanet A, Flejou JF, et al. Regression of liver fibrosis after biliary drainage in patients with chronic pancreatitis and stenosis of the common bile duct. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:418–423
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
130. Stiehl A, Rudolph G, Klo-ters-Plachky P, Sauer P, Walker S. Development of dominant bile duct stenoses in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis treated with ursodeoxycholic acid: outcome after endoscopic treatment. J Hepatol. 2002;36:151–156
     • View In Article
     • Full-Text PDF (111 KB)
     • CrossRef
131. Baluyut AR, Sherman S, Lehman GA, Hoen H, Chalasani N. Impact of endoscopic therapy on the survival of patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;53:308–312
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (66 KB)
     • CrossRef
132. Johnson GK, Geenen JE, Venu RP, Schmalz MJ, Hogan WJ. Endoscopic treatment of biliary tract strictures in sclerosing cholangitis: a larger series and recommendations for treatment. Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;37:38–43
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full-Text PDF (5003 KB)
     • CrossRef
133. Stiehl A, Rudolph G, Sauer P, Benz C, Stremmel W, Walker S, et al. Efficacy of ursodeoxycholic acid treatment and endoscopic dilation of major duct stenoses in primary sclerosing cholangitis. An 8-year prospective study. J Hepatol. 1997;26:560–566
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full-Text PDF (780 KB)
     • CrossRef
134. van Milligen de Wit AW, Rauws EA, van Bracht J, Mulder CJ, Jones EA, Tytgat GN, et al. Lack of complications following short-term stent therapy for extrahepatic bile duct strictures in primary sclerosing cholangitis. Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;46:344–347
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (912 KB)
     • CrossRef
135. Kaya M, Petersen BT, Angulo P, Baron TH, Andrews JC, Gostout CJ, et al. Balloon dilation compared to stenting of dominant strictures in primary sclerosing cholangitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96:1059–1066
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
136. Welsh FK, Wigmore SJ. Roux-en-Y choledochojejunostomy is the method of choice for biliary reconstruction in liver transplantation for primary sclerosing cholangitis. Transplantation. 2004;77:602–604
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
137. Gordon F. Recurrent primary sclerosing cholangitis: clinical diagnosis and long-term management issues. Liver Transpl. 2006;12:S73–S75
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
138. LaRusso NF, Shneider BL, Black D, Gores GJ, James SP, Doo E, et al. Primary sclerosing cholangitis: summary of a workshop. Hepatology. 2006;44:746–764
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
139. Cholongitas E, Shusang V, Papatheodoridis GV, Marelli L, Manousou P, Rolando N, et al. Risk factors for recurrence of primary sclerosing cholangitis after liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2008;14:138–143
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
140. el-Shabrawi M, Wilkinson ML, Portmann B, Mieli-Vergani G, Chong SK, Williams R, et al. Primary sclerosing cholangitis in childhood. Gastroenterology. 1987;92:1226–1235
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
141. Minuk GY, Sutherland LR, Pappas G, Kelly JK, Martin SE. Autoimmune chronic active hepatitis (lupoid hepatitis) and primary sclerosing cholangitis in two young adult females. Can J Gastroenterol. 1988;2:22–27
     • View In Article
142. Rabinovitz M, Demetris AJ, Bou-Abboud CF, Van Thiel DH. Simultaneous occurrence of primary sclerosing cholangitis and autoimmune chronic active hepatitis in a patient with ulcerative colitis. Dig Dis Sci. 1992;37:1606–1611
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
143. Lawrence SP, Sherman KE, Lawson JM, Goodman ZD. A 39 year old man with chronic hepatitis. Semin Liver Dis. 1994;14:97–105
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
144. Debray D, Pariente D, Urvoas E, Hadchouel M, Bernard O. Sclerosing cholangitis in children. J Pediatr. 1994;124:49–56
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (1934 KB)
     • CrossRef
145. Wilschanski M, Chait P, Wade JA, Davis L, Corey M, St. Louis P, et al. Primary sclerosing cholangitis in 32 children: clinical, laboratory, and radiographic features, with survival analysis. Hepatology. 1995;22:1415–1422
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
146. Gohlke F, Lohse AW, Dienes HP, Lohr H, Marker-Hermann E, Gerken G, et al. Evidence for an overlap syndrome of autoimmune hepatitis and primary sclerosing cholangitis. J Hepatol. 1996;24:699–705
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full-Text PDF (777 KB)
     • CrossRef
147. McNair AN, Moloney M, Portmann BC, Williams R, McFarlane IG. Autoimmune hepatitis overlapping with primary sclerosing cholangitis in five cases. Am J Gastroenterol. 1998;93:777–784
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
148. Al-Chalabi T, Portmann BC, Bernal W, McFarlane IG, Heneghan MA. Autoimmune hepatitis overlap syndromes: an evaluation of treatment response, long-term outcome and survival. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2008;28:209–220
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
149. van Buuren HR, van Hoogstraten HJE, Terkivatan T, Schalm SW, Vleggaar FP. High prevalence of autoimmune hepatitis among patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. J Hepatol. 2000;33:543–548
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (823 KB)
     • CrossRef
150. Kaya M, Angulo P, Lindor KD. Overlap of autoimmune hepatitis and primary sclerosing cholangitis: an evaluation of a modified scoring system. J Hepatol. 2000;33:537–542
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (713 KB)
     • CrossRef
151. Floreani A, Rizzotto ER, Ferrara F, Carderi I, Caroli D, Blasone L, et al. Clinical course and outcome of autoimmune hepatitis/primary sclerosing cholangitis overlap syndrome. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:1516–1522
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
152. Abdo AA, Bain VG, Kichian K, Lee SS. Evolution of autoimmune hepatitis to primary sclerosing cholangitis: a sequential syndrome. Hepatology. 2002;36:1393–1399
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
153. Stathopoulos G, Nourmand AD, Blackstone M, Andersen D, Baker AL. Rapidly progressive sclerosing cholangitis following surgical treatment of pancreatic pseudotumor. J Clin Gastroenterol. 1995;21:143–148
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
154. Erkelens GW, Vleggaar FP, Lesterhuis W, van Buuren HR, van der Werf SD. Sclerosing pancreato-cholangitis responsive to steroid therapy. Lancet. 1999;354:43–44
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (118 KB)
     • CrossRef
155. van Buuren HR, Vleggaar FP, Willemien Erkelens G, Zondervan PE, Lesterhuis W, Van Eijck CH, et al. Autoimmune pancreatocholangitis: a series of ten patients. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl. 2006;243:70–78
     • View In Article
156. Bjornsson E, Chari ST, Smyrk TC, Lindor K. Immunoglobulin G4 associated cholangitis: description of an emerging clinical entity based on review of the literature. Hepatology. 2007;45:1547–1554
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
157. Umemura T, Zen Y, Hamano H, Kawa S, Nakanuma Y, Kiyosawa K. Immunoglobin G4-hepatopathy: association of immunoglobin G4-bearing plasma cells in liver with autoimmune pancreatitis. Hepatology. 2007;46:463–471
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
158. Zen Y, Fujii T, Harada K, Kawano M, Yamada K, Takahira M, et al. Th2 and regulatory immune reactions are increased in immunoglobin G4-related sclerosing pancreatitis and cholangitis. Hepatology. 2007;45:1538–1546
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
159. Ghazale A, Chari ST, Zhang L, Smyrk TC, Takahashi N, Levy MJ, et al. Immunoglobulin G4-associated cholangitis: clinical profile and response to therapy. Gastroenterology. 2008;134:706–715
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (555 KB)
     • CrossRef
160. Colombo C, Battezzati PM, Crosignani A, Morabito A, Costantini D, Padoan R, et al. Liver disease in cystic fibrosis: a prospective study on incidence, risk factors, and outcome. Hepatology. 2002;36:1374–1382
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
161. Sokol RJ, Durie PR. Recommendations for management of liver and biliary tract disease in cystic fibrosis. Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Hepatobiliary Disease Consensus Group. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 1999;28:S1–S13
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
162. Colombo C, Battezzati PM, Podda M, Bettinardi N, Giunta A. Ursodeoxycholic acid for liver disease associated with cystic fibrosis: a double-blind multicenter trial. The Italian Group for the Study of Ursodeoxycholic Acid in Cystic Fibrosis. Hepatology. 1996;23:1484–1490
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
163. van de Meeberg PC, Houwen RH, Sinaasappel M, Heijerman HG, Bijleveld CM, Vanberge-Henegouwen GP. Low-dose versus high-dose ursodeoxycholic acid in cystic fibrosis-related cholestatic liver disease. Results of a randomized study with 1-year follow-up. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1997;32:369–373
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
164. Lindblad A, Glaumann H, Strandvik B. A two-year prospective study of the effect of ursodeoxycholic acid on urinary bile acid excretion and liver morphology in cystic fibrosis-associated liver disease. Hepatology. 1998;27:166–174
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
165. Debray D, Lykavieris P, Gauthier F, Dousset B, Sardet A, Munck A, et al. Outcome of cystic fibrosis-associated liver cirrhosis: management of portal hypertension. J Hepatol. 1999;31:77–83
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (868 KB)
     • CrossRef
166. Oude Elferink RP, Paulusma CC, Groen AK. Hepatocanalicular transport defects: pathophysiologic mechanisms of rare diseases. Gastroenterology. 2006;130:908–925
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (516 KB)
     • CrossRef
167. de Vree JM, Jacquemin E, Sturm E, Cresteil D, Bosma PJ, Aten J, et al. Mutations in the MDR3 gene cause progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1998;95:282–287
     • View In Article
168. Paulusma CC, Groen A, Kunne C, Ho-Mok KS, Spijkerboer AL, Rudi de Waart D, et al. Atp8b1 deficiency in mice reduces resistance of the canalicular membrane to hydrophobic bile salts and impairs bile salt transport. Hepatology. 2006;44:195–204
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
169. Strautnieks SS, Bull LN, Knisely AS, Kocoshis SA, Dahl N, Arnell H, et al. A gene encoding a liver-specific ABC transporter is mutated in progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis. Nat Genet. 1998;20:233–238
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
170. Knisely AS, Strautnieks SS, Meier Y, Stieger B, Byrne JA, Portmann BC, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma in ten children under five years of age with bile salt export pump deficiency. Hepatology. 2006;44:478–486
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
171. Trauner M, Fickert P, Wagner M. MDR3 (ABCB4) defects: a paradigm for the genetics of adult cholestatic syndromes. Semin Liver Dis. 2007;27:77–98
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
172. Jacquemin E. Role of multidrug resistance 3 deficiency in pediatric and adult liver disease: one gene for three diseases. Semin Liver Dis. 2001;21:551–562
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
173. Whitington PF, Whitington GL. Partial external diversion of bile for the treatment of intractable pruritus associated with intrahepatic cholestasis. Gastroenterology. 1988;95:130–136
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full-Text PDF (830 KB)
174. Arnell H, Bergdahl S, Papadogiannakis N, Nemeth A, Fischler B. Preoperative observations and short-term outcome after partial external biliary diversion in 13 patients with progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis. J Pediatr Surg. 2008;43:1312–1320
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (351 KB)
     • CrossRef
175. van Ooteghem NA, Klomp LW, van Berge-Henegouwen GP, Houwen RH. Benign recurrent intrahepatic cholestasis progressing to progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis: low GGT cholestasis is a clinical continuum. J Hepatol. 2002;36:439–443
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (74 KB)
     • CrossRef
176. Stapelbroek JM, van Erpecum KJ, Klomp LW, Venneman NG, Schwartz TP, van Berge Henegouwen GP, et al. Nasobiliary drainage induces long-lasting remission in benign recurrent intrahepatic cholestasis. Hepatology. 2006;43:51–53
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
177. Piccoli DA, Spinner NB. Alagille syndrome and the Jagged1 gene. Semin Liver Dis. 2001;21:525–534
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
178. Benichou C. Criteria of drug-induced liver disorders. Report of an international consensus meeting. J Hepatol. 1990;11:272–276
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
179. Andrade RJ, Lucena MI, Fernandez MC, Pelaez G, Pachkoria K, Garcia-Ruiz E, et al. Drug-induced liver injury: an analysis of 461 incidences submitted to the Spanish registry over a 10-year period. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:512–521
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (160 KB)
     • CrossRef
180. Kaplowitz N. Idiosyncratic drug hepatotoxicity. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2005;4:489–499
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
181. Marschall HU, Wagner M, Zollner G, Trauner M. Clinical hepatotoxicity. Regulation and treatment with inducers of transport and cofactors. Mol Pharm. 2007;4:895–910
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
182. Maddrey WC. Drug-induced hepatotoxicity: 2005. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2005;39:S83–S89
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
183. Erlinger S. Drug-induced cholestasis. J Hepatol. 1997;26:S1–S4
     • View In Article
184. Navarro VJ, Senior JR. Drug-related hepatotoxicity. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:731–739
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
185. Nathwani RA, Kaplowitz N. Drug hepatotoxicity. Clin Liver Dis. 2006;10:207–217
     • View In Article
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (136 KB)
     • CrossRef
186. Aithal PG, Day CP. The natural history of histologically proved drug induced liver disease. Gut. 1999;44:731–735
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
187. Desmet VJ. Vanishing bile duct syndrome in drug-induced liver disease. J Hepatol. 1997;26:S31–S35
     • View In Article
188. Lammert F, Marschall HU, Glantz A, Matern S. Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy: molecular pathogenesis, diagnosis and management. J Hepatol. 2000;33:1012–1021
     • View In Article
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (1385 KB)
     • CrossRef
189. Pusl T, Beuers U. Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2007;2:26
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
190. Glantz A, Marschall HU, Mattsson LA. Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy: relationships between bile acid levels and fetal complication rates. Hepatology. 2004;40:467–474
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
191. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Obstetric cholestasis. RCOG Guideline No. 43, 2006:1–10.
     • View In Article
192. Brites D. Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy: changes in maternal-fetal bile acid balance and improvement by ursodeoxycholic acid. Ann Hepatol. 2002;1:20–28
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
193. Palma J, Reyes H, Ribalta J, Hernandez I, Sandoval L, Almuna R, et al. Ursodeoxycholic acid in the treatment of cholestasis of pregnancy: a randomized, double-blind study controlled with placebo. J Hepatol. 1997;27:1022–1028
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full-Text PDF (919 KB)
     • CrossRef
194. Williamson C, Hems LM, Goulis DG, Walker I, Chambers J, Donaldson O, et al. Clinical outcome in a series of cases of obstetric cholestasis identified via a patient support group. BJOG. 2004;111:676–681
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
195. Lee RH, Kwok KM, Ingles S, Wilson ML, Mullin P, Incerpi M, et al. Pregnancy outcomes during an era of aggressive management for intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy. Am J Perinatol. 2008;25:341–345
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
196. Hay JE. Liver disease in pregnancy. Hepatology. 2008;47:1067–1076
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
197. Glantz A, Marschall HU, Lammert F, Mattsson LA. Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial comparing dexamethasone and ursodeoxycholic acid. Hepatology. 2005;42:1399–1405
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
198. Kondrackiene J, Beuers U, Kupcinskas L. Efficacy and safety of ursodeoxycholic acid versus cholestyramine in intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:894–901
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (261 KB)
     • CrossRef
199. Binder T, Salaj P, Zima T, Vitek L. Randomized prospective comparative study of ursodeoxycholic acid and S-adenosyl-l-methionine in the treatment of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy. J Perinat Med. 2006;34:383–391
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
200. Roncaglia N, Locatelli A, Arreghini A, Assi F, Cameroni I, Pezzullo JC, et al. A randomised controlled trial of ursodeoxycholic acid and S-adenosyl-l-methionine in the treatment of gestational cholestasis. BJOG. 2004;111:17–21
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
201. Mazzella G, Nicola R, Francesco A, Patrizia S, Luciano B, Anna M, et al. Ursodeoxycholic acid administration in patients with cholestasis of pregnancy: effects on primary bile acids in babies and mothers. Hepatology. 2001;33:504–508
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
202. Kenyon AP, Piercy CN, Girling J, Williamson C, Tribe RM, Shennan AH. Obstetric cholestasis, outcome with active management: a series of 70 cases. BJOG. 2002;109:282–288
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
203. Roncaglia N, Arreghini A, Locatelli A, Bellini P, Andreotti C, Ghidini A. Obstetric cholestasis: outcome with active management. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2002;100:167–170
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (73 KB)
     • CrossRef
204. Ko CW, Beresford SA, Schulte SJ, Matsumoto AM, Lee SP. Incidence, natural history, and risk factors for biliary sludge and stones during pregnancy. Hepatology. 2005;41:359–365
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
205. Kahaleh M, Hartwell GD, Arseneau KO, Pajewski TN, Mullick T, Isin G, et al. Safety and efficacy of ERCP in pregnancy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;60:287–292
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (123 KB)
     • CrossRef
206. Tham TC, Vandervoort J, Wong RC, Montes H, Roston AD, Slivka A, et al. Safety of ERCP during pregnancy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98:308–311
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
207. Cohen LB, Delegge MH, Aisenberg J, Brill JV, Inadomi JM, Kochman ML, et al. AGA Institute review of endoscopic sedation. Gastroenterology. 2007;133:675–701
     • View In Article
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (423 KB)
     • CrossRef
208. Mahadevan U, Kane S. American gastroenterological association institute technical review on the use of gastrointestinal medications in pregnancy. Gastroenterology. 2006;131:283–311
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (344 KB)
     • CrossRef
209. Poupon R, Chretien Y, Chazouilleres O, Poupon RE. Pregnancy in women with ursodeoxycholic acid-treated primary biliary cirrhosis. J Hepatol. 2005;42:418–419
     • View In Article
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (61 KB)
     • CrossRef
210. Hempfling W, Dilger K, Beuers U. Systematic review: ursodeoxycholic acid–adverse effects and drug interactions. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2003;18:963–972
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
211. Park-Wyllie L, Mazzotta P, Pastuszak A, Moretti ME, Beique L, Hunnisett L, et al. Birth defects after maternal exposure to corticosteroids: prospective cohort study and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. Teratology. 2000;62:385–392
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
212. Armenti VT, Moritz MJ, Cardonick EH, Davison JM. Immunosuppression in pregnancy: choices for infant and maternal health. Drugs. 2002;62:2361–2375
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
213. Benjaminov FS, Heathcote J. Liver disease in pregnancy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:2479–2488
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
214. Kremer AE, Beuers U, Oude-Elferink RP, Pusl T. Pathogenesis and treatment of pruritus in cholestasis. Drugs. 2008;68:2163–2182
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
215. Datta DV, Sherlock S. Cholestyramine for long term relief of the pruritus complicating intrahepatic cholestasis. Gastroenterology. 1966;50:323–332
     • View In Article
216. Rust C, Sauter GH, Oswald M, Buttner J, Kullak-Ublick GA, Paumgartner G, et al. Effect of cholestyramine on bile acid patterns and synthesis during administration of ursodeoxycholic acid in man. Eur J Clin Invest. 2000;30:135–139
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
217. Khurana S, Singh P. Rifampin is safe for the treatment of pruritus die to chronic cholestasis: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized-controlled trials. Liver Int. 2006;26:943–948
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
218. Tandon P, Rowe BH, Vandermeer B, Bain VG. The efficacy and safety of bile acid binding agents, opioid antagonists or rifampicin in the treatment of cholestasis-associated pruritus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:1528–1536
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
219. Bachs L, Pares A, Elena M, Piera C, Rodes J. Effects of long-term rifampicin administration in primary biliary cirrhosis. Gastroenterology. 1992;102:2077–2080
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full-Text PDF (441 KB)
220. Prince MI, Burt AD, Jones DEJ. Hepatitis and liver dysfunction with rifampicin therapy for pruritus in primary biliary cirrhosis. Gut. 2002;50:436–439
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
221. Jones EA, Dekker RL. Florid opioid withdrawal-like reaction precipitated by naltrexone in a patient with chronic cholestasis. Gastroenterology. 2000;118:431–432
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (68 KB)
     • CrossRef
222. Jones EA, Neuberger JM, Bergasa NV. Opiate antagonist therapy for the pruritus of cholestasis: the avoidance of opioid withdrawal-like reactions. Q J Med. 2002;95:547–552
     • View In Article
223. Mayo MJ, Handem I, Saldana S, Jacobe H, Getachew Y, Rush AJ. Sertraline as a first-line treatment for cholestatic pruritus. Hepatology. 2007;45:666–674
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
224. Pares A, Cisneros L, Salmeron JM, Caballeria L, Mas A, Torras A, et al. Extracorporeal albumin dialysis: a procedure for prolonged relief of intractable pruritus in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:1105–1110
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
225. Pusl T, Denk GU, Parhofer KG, Beuers U. Plasma separation and anion adsorption transiently relieve intractable pruritus in primary biliary cirrhosis. J Hepatol. 2006;45:887–891
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (333 KB)
     • CrossRef
226. Alallam A, Barth D, Heathcote EJ. Role of plasmapheresis in the treatment of severe pruritus in pregnant patients with primary biliary cirrhosis: case reports. Can J Gastroenterol. 2008;22:505–507
     • View In Article
227. Beuers U, Gerken G, Pusl T. Biliary drainage transiently relieves intractable pruritus in primary biliary cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2006;44:280–281
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
228. Gross CR, Malinchoc M, Kim WR, Evans RW, Wiesner RH, Petz JL, et al. Quality of life before and after liver transplantation for cholestatic liver disease. Hepatology. 1999;29:356–364
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
229. Jones DEJ. Fatigue in cholestatic liver disease: is it all in the mind?. J Hepatol. 2007;46:992–994
     • View In Article
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (77 KB)
     • CrossRef
230. Newton JL, Pairman J, Sutcliffe K, Wilton K, Jones DEJ. A predictive model for fatigue and its aetiologica associations in primary biliary cirrhosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;6:228–233
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (533 KB)
     • CrossRef
231. Newton JL, Gibson JG, Tomlinson M, Wilton K, Jones DEJ. Fatigue in primary biliary cirrhosis is associated with excessive daytime somnolence. Hepatology. 2006;44:91–98
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
232. Jones DE, Newton JL. An open study of modafinil for the treatment of daytime somnolence and fatigue in primary biliary cirrhosis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;25:471–476
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
233. Ian Gan S, de Jongh M, Kaplan MM. Modafinil in the treatment of debilitating fatigue in primary biliary cirrhosis: a clinical experience. Dig Dis Sci 2008 Dec 12. [Epub ahead of print].
     • View In Article
234. Jones DEJ, Sutcliffe K, Pairman J, Wilton K, Newton JL. An integrated care pathway improves quality of life in primary biliary cirrhosis. QJM. 2008;101:535–543
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
235. Pares A, Guanabens N. Osteoporosis in primary biliary cirrhosis: pathogenesis and treatment. Clin Liver Dis. 2008;12:407–424
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full Text
     • Full-Text PDF (289 KB)
     • CrossRef
236. Pereira SP, O’Donohue J, Moniz C, Phillips MG, Abraha H, Buxton-Thomas M, et al. Transdermal hormone replacement therapy improves veretebral bone density in primary biliary cirrhosis: results of a 1-year controlled trial. Aliment Pharmacol Therap. 2004;19:563–570
     • View In Article
237. Boone RH, Cheung AM, Girlan M, Heathcote EJ. Osteoporosis in primary biliary cirrhosis: a randomized trial of the efficacy and feasibility of estrogen/progestin. Dig Dis Sci. 2006;51:1103–1112
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
238. Guanabens N, Pares A, Ros I, Alvarez L, Pons F, Caballeria L, et al. Alendronate is more effective than etidronate for increasing bone mass in osteopenic patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98:2268–2274
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
239. Musialik J, Petelenz M, Gonciarz Z. Effects of alendronate on bone mass in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis and osteoporosis: preliminary results after one year. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2005;40:873–874
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
240. Guanabens N, Pares A, del Rio L, Roca M, Gomez R, Munoz J, et al. Sodium fluoride prevents bone loss in primary biliary cirrhosis. J Hepatol. 1992;15:345–349
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
241. Levy C, Harnois DM, Angulo P, Jorgensen R, Lindor KD. Raloxifene improves bone mass in osteopenic women with primary biliary cirrhosis: results of a pilot study. Liver Int. 2005;25:117–121
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
242. Newton JL, Francis R, Prince M, James OFW, Bassendine MF, Rawlings D, et al. Osteoporosis in primary biliary cirrhosis revisited. Gut. 2001;49:282–287
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
243. Gores GJ, Wiesner RH, Dickson ER, Zinsmeister AR, Jorgensen RA, Langworthy A. Prospective evaluation of esophageal varices in primary biliary cirrhosis: development, natural history, and influence on survival. Gastroenterology. 1989;96:1552–1559
     • View In Article
     • Abstract
     • Full-Text PDF (897 KB)
244. Jones DEJ, Metcalf JV, Collier JD, Bassendine MF, James OFW. Hepatocellular carcinoma in primary biliary cirrhosis and its impact on outcomes. Hepatology. 1997;26:1138–1142
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
245. Garcia-Tsao G, Sanyal AJ, Grace ND, Carey W. Prevention and management of gastroesophageal varices and variceal hemorrhage in cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2007;46:922–938
     • View In Article
     • CrossRef
246. Bruix J, Sherman M. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2005;42:1208–1236
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef
247. Bressler B, Pinto R, El-Ashry D, Heathcote EJ. Which patients with primary biliary cirrhosis or primary sclerosing cholangitis should undergo endoscopic creeening for oesophageal varices detection. Gut. 2005;54:407–410
     • View In Article
     • MEDLINE
     • CrossRef