4.7 Article

The long-term outcomes of patients with immunoglobulin G4-related sclerosing cholangitis: the Mayo Clinic experience

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 55, 期 11, 页码 1087-1097

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s00535-020-01714-7

关键词

Immunoglobulin G4-related disease; Immunoglobulin G4-related sclerosing cholangitis; Primary sclerosing cholangitis; Cirrhosis; Cholangiocarcinoma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The long-term outcomes of immunoglobulin G4-related sclerosing cholangitis (IgG4-SC) are not well known. Methods The outcomes of patients with IgG4-SC at Mayo Clinic (1999-2018) were compared to an age- and gender-matched (1:1 ratio) group of patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC). Results We identified 89 patients with IgG4-SC; median age at diagnosis was 67 years, 81% were males, and the median follow-up was 5.7 years. Seventy-eight patients received prednisone for induction of remission, and 53 received at least one other immunosuppressive agent for maintenance of remission. Of the IgG4-SC group, 10 died (median time from diagnosis until death was 6.5 years): 2 due to cirrhosis, 3 due to cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), and 5 due to non-hepatobiliary causes. Eleven patients in the PSC group underwent liver transplantation, while none did in the IgG4-SC group. The incidence of a hepatobiliary adverse event (cirrhosis or CCA) was 3.4 times greater in the PSC compared to the IgG4-SC group (events per 1000 person-years: 52.6; 95% CI 38-73; vs. 15.6; 95% CI 7-32). The probability of development of a hepatobiliary adverse event within 10 years was 11% in the IgG4-SC compared to 45% in the PSC group (P = 0.0001). The overall survival tended to be higher in the IgG4-SC compared to the PSC group (10-year: 79% vs. 68%, respectively;P = 0.11). Conclusions In a cohort of IgG4-SC patients, 88% of whom were treated with immunosuppressive drugs, the risk of cirrhosis and CCA was significantly lower compared to an age- and gender-matched group with PSC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据