4.6 Article

Intestinal absorption and biliary secretion of ursodeoxycholic acid and its taurine conjugate

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
卷 32, 期 8, 页码 575-580

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2362.2002.01030.x

关键词

cholestasis; absorption; ursodeoxycholic acid

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) and its taurine conjugate (TUDCA) exert a protective effect in cholestatic liver diseases. A greater hepatoprotective effect of TUDCA has been suggested. Absorption appears to be a limiting factor and up to now has not been studied in man. Methods We studied absorption and biliary bile acid secretion and composition after administration of UDCA and TUDCA in patients who had complete extrahepatic biliary obstruction caused by pancreatic carcinoma but had no intestinal or liver disease. After 5 days of intact enterohepatic circulation eight patients with a percutaneous biliary-duodenal drainage received, during two study periods, 1000 mg (1916.9 mumol; mean 29.6 mumol kg(-1) ) TUDCA and 750 mg (1910.4 mumol; mean 29.5 mumol kg(-1) ) UDCA in random order. Each patient served as his own control. Results After UDCA and TUDCA administration the biliary UDCA content increased to 55.2% and 54.6% of total bile acids, respectively (not significant). Biliary secretion of cholic and chenodeoxycholic acids remained unchanged whereas that of lithocholic acid increased slightly. A total of 64.6% of the orally administered TUDCA and 55.1% of the UDCA was absorbed (not significant). After TUDCA administration, biliary UDCA was preferentially (95.4%) taurine-conjugated whereas after UDCA administration biliary UDCA was mainly (79.8%) glycine-conjugated. Conclusions After oral administration of TUDCA and UDCA, no significant differences in their absorption and in biliary bile acid secretion exist. Whether biliary enrichment with taurine conjugates of UDCA instead of glycine conjugates offers advantages in the treatment of cholestatic liver disease is unclear at present.

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

4.6
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