Gisbert J P, Jones E A, Pajares J M, Moreno-Otero R
Servicio de Gastroenterología y Hepatología, Hospital Universitario de la Princesa, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Diego de León 62, E-28006 Madrid, Spain.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2003 Jan;17(1):17-27. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2036.2003.01381.x.
Testing for antimitochondrial antibodies is the most useful laboratory procedure in the diagnosis of primary biliary cirrhosis; nevertheless, 5-10% of patients with typical features of primary biliary cirrhosis do not have detectable antimitochondrial antibodies, their condition being referred to as antimitochondrial antibody-negative primary biliary cirrhosis or "autoimmune cholangitis". Uncertainty exists whether antimitochondrial antibody-positive and -negative primary biliary cirrhosis represent distinct entities. We reviewed studies that compared: (i) the clinical, laboratory and histological characteristics of antimitochondrial antibody-positive and -negative primary biliary cirrhosis; (ii) the response to treatment of both conditions; and (iii) the response of autoimmune cholangitis to ursodeoxycholic acid and immunosuppressive therapy. Antimitochondrial antibody-positive and -negative primary biliary cirrhosis were characterized by similar clinical, laboratory and histological abnormalities, clinical course and survival. Antimitochondrial antibody status did not seem to affect the response to ursodeoxycholic acid. At present, the efficacy of therapies for autoimmune cholangitis has not been established in controlled trials. Of 52 patients with autoimmune cholangitis treated with ursodeoxycholic acid in 13 uncontrolled studies, 83% had serum biochemical improvement. Also, a favourable effect of immunosuppressive drugs occurred in 57% of 54 patients with autoimmune cholangitis in 17 uncontrolled studies. Each of these trials included very few patients and most evaluated the effects of treatment on surrogate markers of disease only. No marker that consistently distinguished patients who would respond favourably to ursodeoxycholic acid or immunosuppression was apparent. Consequently, treatment is, at present, empirical. However, ursodeoxycholic acid may be given when histology reveals bile duct lesions, whereas immunosuppressive therapy should probably be reserved for patients exhibiting interface hepatitis.
检测抗线粒体抗体是原发性胆汁性肝硬化诊断中最有用的实验室检查;然而,5% - 10%具有原发性胆汁性肝硬化典型特征的患者检测不到抗线粒体抗体,他们的病情被称为抗线粒体抗体阴性的原发性胆汁性肝硬化或“自身免疫性胆管炎”。抗线粒体抗体阳性和阴性的原发性胆汁性肝硬化是否代表不同的疾病实体尚不确定。我们回顾了比较以下内容的研究:(i)抗线粒体抗体阳性和阴性原发性胆汁性肝硬化的临床、实验室和组织学特征;(ii)两种情况的治疗反应;(iii)自身免疫性胆管炎对熊去氧胆酸和免疫抑制治疗的反应。抗线粒体抗体阳性和阴性的原发性胆汁性肝硬化在临床、实验室和组织学异常、临床病程及生存率方面具有相似性。抗线粒体抗体状态似乎不影响对熊去氧胆酸的反应。目前,自身免疫性胆管炎治疗的疗效在对照试验中尚未确定。在13项非对照研究中,52例接受熊去氧胆酸治疗的自身免疫性胆管炎患者中,83%的患者血清生化指标有所改善。此外,在17项非对照研究中,54例自身免疫性胆管炎患者中有57%对免疫抑制药物有良好反应。这些试验中的每一项纳入的患者都很少,且大多数仅评估了治疗对疾病替代指标的影响。没有明显的标志物能够始终区分对熊去氧胆酸或免疫抑制治疗反应良好的患者。因此,目前的治疗是经验性的。然而,当组织学显示胆管病变时可给予熊去氧胆酸,而免疫抑制治疗可能应仅用于表现为界面性肝炎的患者。