what can you use to get rid of itching caused by liver organ

• Journal List
• Clin Med (Lond)
• v.15(iv); 2015 Aug
• PMC4952797

Clin Med (Lond). 2015 Aug; 15(four): 351–357.

Drug treatment of pruritus in liver diseases

Vinod S Hegade

^AFreeman Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, Great britain, and Institute of Cellular Medicine, Kinesthesia of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Stuart FW Kendrick

^BFreeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland, and Institute of Cellular Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

David EJ Jones

^CFreeman Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, and Institute of Cellular Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Abstract

Pruritus (itch) is a mutual complication of cholestatic liver diseases (CLD). It tin can be a sad and debilitating symptom, causing significant impairment in quality of life. Handling of pruritus in liver diseases tin be challenging and requires specific direction with early initiation and a stride-wise approach using specific drugs. Clinical trials are ongoing with novel agents that demonstrate potential efficacy. Patients with cholestatic pruritus are probable to present to a variety of clinicians who would benefit from medical awareness of bachelor treatment options. In this review, nosotros outline the pharmaceutical agents currently used to treat cholestatic pruritus and provide the testify base for targeted symptom command of itch in liver diseases. Nosotros besides highlight recent developments in the pathophysiology of cholestatic pruritus and the emerging novel therapies.

KEYWORDS: Pruritus, cholestasis, principal biliary cirrhosis, liver disease, treatment

Introduction

The discussion 'cholestasis', derived from the Greek words 'chole' (meaning bile) and 'stasis' (meaning standing all the same), refers to harm of bile formation or bile flow. The impairment could be within the liver (intrahepatic cholestasis or 'tissue cholestasis') or in the bile ducts draining the bile from the liver into the small intestine (extrahepatic cholestasis). Intrahepatic cholestasis unremarkably results either from immunologically mediated destruction of small bile ducts or from defective bile acid transport proteins located within the hepatocytes or cholangiocytes. Extrahepatic cholestasis by and large results from mechanical obstruction to the bile flow due to stones or strictures. Tabular array 1 gives differential diagnoses of intra- and extrahepatic cholestatic diseases. The underlying mechanism of cholestasis is impairment of hepatobiliary excretion as a result of which normal biliary constituents announced in the systemic apportionment. The feature biochemical abnormality seen in cholestasis is superlative in serum alkaline phosphatase and gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase.

Pruritus (itch) is a well-known, frequent and distressing symptom of cholestasis. In clinical exercise, the almost commonly encountered cholestatic liver diseases (CLD) associated with pruritus are primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC), primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) and intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy. Historically, pruritus has been observed to accompany jaundice, but information technology is not uncommon to see pruritus as the offset manifestation of cholestasis fifty-fifty before the onset of jaundice or other symptoms. There is considerable variation in the frequency and prevalence of pruritus in different cholestatic conditions. For case, information technology is experienced by up to eighty% of patients with PBC and PSC and by 5–15% of patients with chronic hepatitis C at any time during the course of their disease.¹ It is less common in patients with extrahepatic cholestasis, equally in ane series pruritus occurred in 17% of all patients with not-neoplastic obstructive jaundice and in 45% of patients with neoplastic obstructive jaundice.² Also, pruritus is rare in common liver diseases such as alcohol-related liver diseases and non-booze fatty liver diseases. Interestingly, for reasons that are currently unexplained, the severity of pruritus seen in cholestatic conditions has no relationship with the degree of severity of cholestasis, ie patients with similar severities of liver disease and cholestasis can accept markedly different degrees of pruritus.

Table 1.

Differential diagnoses of cholestatic conditions.

Clinical features

Clinically, in contrast to pruritus of other systemic conditions (such as uraemia and malignancy), cholestatic pruritus has some unique features. A vast majority of patients written report a diurnal variation of crawling intensity, with the worst crawling in the tardily evening and early dark-time.^three Typically, cholestatic pruritus affects limbs, soles of the feet and palms (palmoplantar pruritus) but generalised itch may as well occur. It is often exacerbated past psychological stress, heat and contact with certain fabrics such every bit wool. Premenstrual catamenia, late stages of pregnancy and hormone replacement therapy tin can also exacerbate the symptom, suggesting a part of female sex hormones in the pathogenesis of cholestatic pruritus.^ane Unlike other causes of pruritus, patients with cholestatic pruritus complain that scratching activity barely relieves their itch. On examination, primary skin lesions are not observed, but vigorous scratching can result in secondary skin lesions such as excoriations, folliculitis (inflammation of hair follicles), prurigo nodularis (hard nodules on the skin) and lichenification (leathery hardening of the skin). The majority of CLD patients with pruritus have mild and tolerable symptoms, but some patients may feel troublesome and oft agonising itch, which may dramatically reduce their quality of life. In fact, patients with severe intractable pruritus may develop deranged sleep patterns, fatigue, cognitive symptoms, mood changes, anxiety, depression, and even on occasion, suicidal ideations.⁴

In many means, PBC is the archetypal cholestatic liver disease, and cholestatic pruritus has been mainly studied in this condition. In PBC, pruritus tin develop at any stage of the disease, and one time it occurs its severity may diminish over time but information technology rarely resolves completely without treatment.⁵ Interestingly, contempo evidence suggests that the intensity of pruritus in PBC may be associated with the historic period at affliction presentation. A UK study of over ii,000 PBC patients observed that younger patients are more than likely to have college average levels of itch severity, as the pruritus score was 64% higher in patients presenting at an age younger than 50 in comparison with those presenting at an age older than seventy.⁶ Withal, the severity of pruritus shows no clan with the disease duration, biochemical severity or histological phase of PBC. For example, a PBC patient with an early-phase affliction and mildly abnormal liver office tests may experience severe pruritus compared with some other PBC patient with end-phase liver failure and marked cholestasis simply no pruritus. Studies have attempted to characterise perception of itch by PBC patients. In i such study, 35% of patients described their crawling equally 'bugs itch', 62% reported worsening of itch with heat, and 65% reported improvement of itch with something cool.^seven

Pathophysiology of pruritus in CLD

The mechanism of development of pruritus in CLD is circuitous, multifactorial and remains incompletely understood. There are no proper rodent models for cholestatic pruritus, as experimental cholestatic animals rarely brandish scratching behaviour. It is suggested that cholestasis triggers the release of pruritogen(southward) which accrue in the plasma and other tissues, stimulate neural crawling fibres in the skin and transmit the stimulus to the spinal cord and the encephalon. Over the last decades, many experimental and clinical studies have attempted to explore the role of putative pruritogens that include histamine, substance P, bile acids and endogenous opioids such as enkephalins, but to date no single substance has been conclusively shown to be the causative pruritogen in cholestasis. More recent studies propose lysophosphatidic acrid (LPA – a potent neuronal activator) and autotaxin (an enzyme forming LPA) as mediators in cholestatic pruritus. At that place is bear witness that intradermally injected LPA induces a scratch response in mice, and LPA levels are significantly increased in the sera of cholestatic patients with pruritus compared with those without pruritus.⁸ Also, it has been shown that in contrast to serum bile acids and μ-opioids, serum autotaxin activity strongly correlates with itch intensity.⁹ Although this evidence strongly suggests that LPA and autotaxin play a disquisitional office in cholestatic pruritus, the source of production of autotaxin and the mechanism of ascent in its activeness in cholestasis remain unexplained. It is proposed that in cholestasis an equally-yet unidentified gene ('factor Ten') that is either biliary excreted or retained in systemic apportionment causes upregulation of transcription of autotaxin, which increases circulating autotaxin levels, in plow increasing the levels of LPA, which has straight actions on pruritoceptive nerve fibres.⁴ Come across relevant texts for a more comprehensive review of pathophysiology of cholestatic pruritus.¹ In summary, the electric current understanding is that cholestatic pruritus results from a circuitous interplay of direct or indirect actions of bile acids and/or their metabolites, increased opioidergic neurotransmission, upregulation of autotaxin and increased levels of LPA resulting in triggering of pruritoceptive nervus fibres.

Current treatment of pruritus in CLD

A patient with cholestatic pruritus needs to exist evaluated thoroughly to exclude other systemic and dermatological causes of pruritus. A general inspection of the peel should exist conducted for any lesions, and patients with pruritic pare lesions should be referred for dermatology review. The commencement step in the direction of cholestatic pruritus is to exclude biliary obstacle. All patients with cholestasis should have a transabdominal ultrasound (US) as the first radiological investigation, to paradigm the liver and biliary tree. The presence of intrahepatic biliary duct dilatation on Us normally suggests biliary obstruction. If diagnosis is uncertain, abdominal computerised tomography (CT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) may exist indicated to characterise obstructive cholestasis. When big bile duct obstruction (eg stones/strictures) is present, relief of obstruction to bile period (eg removal of stones/insertion of stent) results in a decrease or disappearance of pruritus.

Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), the about commonly used drug for cholestasis, is not effective in reducing the development or severity of pruritus, and current guidelines do not recommend its use in the treatment of cholestatic pruritus. Similarly, antihistamines do not have whatever part in the treatment and should not be prescribed. For mild and localised crawling, topical treatment with aqueous cream plus one% menthol tin can be used for its emollient and coolant upshot. For more astringent and generalised itch associated with cholestasis, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the European Association for the Written report of the Liver (EASL) recommend stride-wise treatment using colestyramine (cholestyramine), rifampicin (rifampin), naltrexone and sertraline.^{ten , eleven} This is summarised in Table two and demonstrated graphically in Fig i. It is of import to note that only colestyramine is approved past regulatory bodies and all other drugs are 'off-label' use. It is a common practise to commencement with the first-line drug as monotherapy for at least ii–4 weeks (in the absence of side effects). If there is no response, the drug should exist stopped and replaced with the adjacent line of therapy. However, if there is a fractional or inadequate response, the drug may be connected with the addition of the side by side line of therapy.

Colestyramine

Colestyramine is an orally administered not-absorbable anion-substitution resin that is thought to act by removing potential pruritogens (bile salts) from the enterohepatic apportionment by bounden with them to prevent their reabsorption and thus enhancing faecal excretion. It is the first-line therapy recommended past international guidelines for the treatment of cholestatic pruritus.^{x , xi} Four controlled trials and a meta-assay have confirmed that colestyramine significantly improves cholestatic pruritus.¹² The recommended initial dose is 4 g/24-hour interval, preferably taken in the morning (to remove the pruritogens that accrue in the gallbladder during overnight fast and are released in the small intestine after breakfast). Dosage should exist gradually increased up to 16 g/mean solar day based on clinical need. Colestyramine should be taken at least four hours before or subsequently any other medications, to avoid interference with their intestinal assimilation. The main limitation to the use of colestyramine is its unpleasant taste, which tin be improved by flavouring the drug with fruit juice. Other adverse furnishings such as anorexia, constipation, diarrhoea, abdominal discomfort or bloating may besides limit its regular use.

Table ii.

Current therapeutic recommendation for the direction of pruritus in cholestatic liver diseases.

Step-wise use of drugs in the handling of cholestatic pruritus.

In comparing with colestyramine, colesevelam (Cholestagel), a novel anion-binding resin with a vii-fold higher bile acid binding capacity, has fewer side effects and may have better compliance in patients who do not tolerate colestyramine. However, its efficacy is questionable, as a recent small trial showed that colesevelam was not more effective than placebo in reducing the severity of cholestatic pruritus.^xiii Colesevelam should exist offered to patients who responded to colestyramine but did non tolerate its side effects.

Rifampicin

Rifampicin, an enzyme inducer and a unremarkably used anti-mycobacterial agent, is the recommended 2d-line amanuensis. The exact mechanism of its anti-pruritic activeness has been unknown. However, recently, rifampicin was shown to significantly decrease serum autotaxin levels (compared with placebo) and reduce expression of autotaxin in HepG2 cells (in vitro).^nine The latter effect was pregnane X receptor (PXR)-dependent. These results suggest that the anti-pruritic consequence of rifampicin is probable via PXR-agonism mediated downregulation of autotaxin transcription. Four prospective randomised controlled clinical trials and two meta-analyses accept confirmed that treatment with rifampicin is safe and leads to consummate or fractional resolution of pruritus in up to 77% of patients, as compared with placebo or alternatives.^{12 , 14} The dosage of rifampicin in these studies was 300–600 mg/day or 10 mg/kg/solar day, given orally. The electric current recommendation is to initiate with 150 mg/day and, based on the clinical need, to titrate the dosage up to a maximum of 600 mg/day. Side effects associated with rifampicin apply are nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, decreased appetite, headaches, fever, rash and flushing. Well-nigh of the side effects are transient and resolve on discontinuation of the drug. Side effects that are of serious business include hepatitis (that may result in hepatic failure), haemolytic anaemia, thrombocytopenia, renal damage and alteration in drug metabolism. Hepatotoxicity ('rifampicin hepatitis') is most likely to develop in the first ii months of therapy. An early on study reported a 12.5% incidence of rifampicin hepatitis, and a more recent study reported significant hepatitis in 7.3% of patients (necessitating liver transplantation in one case).^{15 , xvi} Therefore, in those taking rifampicin, close monitoring of blood counts and liver function tests every fortnight in the first ii months of therapy and at to the lowest degree once monthly thereafter is strongly recommended; the drug should be stopped if there is a suggestion of hepatotoxicity.

Opioid antagonists

Selective μ-opioid receptor antagonist agents – naloxone and naltrexone – are recommended every bit third-line therapy for patients with cholestatic pruritus when the outset- and second-line drugs are ineffective or intolerable. It is known that plasma and hepatic levels of endogenous opioids are increased in cholestatic patients and in fauna models of cholestasis.^{17 , 18} More recently, studies have shown that opioid-induced itch is mediated both by an opioid receptor mechanism and past initiating itch through central and peripheral pathways.¹⁹ Therefore, the likely mechanism of opioid antagonists in reducing itch is by blocking the opioid receptors and by modifying central and peripheral itch and/or hurting signalling by influencing the endogenous opioidergic system. Show to back up the use of either oral (naltrexone and nalmefene) or parenteral (naloxone) opioid antagonists is from a number of prospective studies every bit well as a recent meta-analysis of five studies that concluded that, compared with the command intervention, opioid antagonists are more likely to significantly reduce cholestatic pruritus.¹² However, a significant business organisation with the use of these agents is precipitation of 'opioid withdrawal-like reaction' – a constellation of symptoms characterised past abdominal pain, tachycardia, high blood pressure, goose bumps, nightmares and depersonalisation.¹⁰ This reaction tin be minimised by starting the opioid antagonists at a lower dose and gradually increasing the dose, or by giving intravenous naloxone for 3 days followed by oral naltrexone. The guidelines recommend starting naltrexone at 12.five mg/twenty-four hour period and gradually increasing by 12.v mg every iii–vii days until amelioration of pruritus (maximum daily dose 50 mg). Hepatotoxicity is uncommon but it has been reported; therefore, regular monitoring of liver biochemistry is recommended. Opioid antagonists are contraindicated in patients with acute hepatitis, liver failure, suppressed pulmonary part, drug addictions and in those receiving opioid-containing medications. An uncommon side effect of long-term use of opioid antagonists is loss of control of pain resulting from other pathologies, leading to a chronic pain syndrome.²⁰

Sertraline

Sertraline, a selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SSRI), ordinarily prescribed equally an antidepressant, is the recommended fourth-line therapy to convalesce cholestatic pruritus. The rationale for its apply comes from evidence that the serotonin system modulates nociception and perception of pruritus, and sertraline can influence the endogenous serotoninergic system and modify the key itch and/or pain signalling. Two studies showed that sertraline was well tolerated and moderately effective in reducing the intensity of itch in cholestatic pruritus, and the outcome was independent from improvement in low.^{21 , 22} The recommended initial dosage is 25 mg/twenty-four hours, increased gradually by 25 mg every 4–5 days to 75–100 mg/24-hour interval. Sertraline is usually well tolerated, and uncommon agin effects include nausea, dizziness, diarrhoea, visual hallucinations and increased fatigue.

Refractory pruritus

Patients with cholestatic pruritus who remain symptomatic despite maximum drug therapy should be considered for salvage therapy with invasive interventions such as ultraviolet B phototherapy, endoscopic nasobiliary drainage, plasmapheresis and/or molecular adsorbent recirculating system. However, the availability of these treatments is express to few centres and referral pathways are poorly described. Patients with refractory pruritus should likewise be offered participation in ongoing clinical trials of novel drug therapy (see below). Finally, patients with cholestatic liver disease and intractable astringent itch should be referred for liver transplantation even in the absenteeism of liver synthetic dysfunction.^ten

Novel therapies for cholestatic pruritus

Every bit seen above, the handling of cholestatic pruritus is limited by availability of only four classes of drugs that are recommended by guidelines and for which in that location is a strong bear witness base of operations. However, they have poor side-result profiles and need regular monitoring for adverse events (mainly for hepatotoxicity). As well, treatment can be extremely hard and challenging in those patients who remain symptomatic despite using various combination therapies. Therefore, there is an unmet demand for safer and constructive therapies to treat pruritus in cholestasis. Efficient drug discovery has been hindered by a lack of robust knowledge of the molecular mechanisms of cholestatic pruritus. However, recent prove on autotaxin, LPA and advances in bile acrid physiology has initiated the development of novel agents that might represent an alternative to current treatments.

Bile acrid transport inhibitors

Bile acids produced in the liver are secreted into bile which then enters the intestine to facilitate absorption of fat and fat-soluble vitamins. In the ileum, bile acids are reabsorbed to enter the portal apportionment and return to the liver. This efficient cycle between the liver and the small intestine, chosen enterohepatic circulation (EHC), maintains the bile acid pool and ensures that 95% of bile acids are reabsorbed (Fig ii). A number of bile acid transporter proteins are involved in the EHC, of which apical sodium-dependent bile acid transporter (ASBT) located in the final ileum (also chosen ileal bile acid transporter) has been shown to play a key physiological role in the active assimilation of bile acids from the ileum.²³ Reabsorption of bile acids or other similar only unrecognised pruritogens into the portal circulation tin can be inhibited by blocking the ASBT. Such pharmacological inhibition of ASBT could potentially enhance faecal excretion of pruritogens and reduce their circulating pool, which in turn could reduce symptoms of pruritus (Fig ii). Animal studies have shown that SC-435, a competitive inhibitor of ASBT, increases faecal bile acid outputs (resulting in diarrhoea secondary to bile acid malabsorption) and reduces bile acid levels in the circulation.²⁴ Two ongoing multicentre double-blind randomised placebo controlled phase Two trials using ASBT inhibitors in patients with PBC are evaluating the safe, tolerability and efficacy of the drugs (https://clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01899703","term_id":"NCT01899703"}}NCT01899703 and {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01904058","term_id":"NCT01904058"}}NCT01904058). If these trials and future large-calibration studies ostend their therapeutic efficacy, ASBT inhibitors could go important therapeutic modalities for the treatment of cholestatic pruritus.

Enterohepatic circulations of bile acids and the effect of inhibition of apical sodium-dependent bile acrid transporter on bile acids.

Autotaxin inhibitors and LPA receptor blockers

Experimental evidence has shown that autotaxin and LPA are markedly elevated in the serum of patients with cholestatic pruritus, and that their levels closely correlate with itch intensity. Therefore, autotaxin inhibitors and LPA receptor blockers that are currently being developed as anti-cancer drugs (to reduce disease progression and metastasis) might represent a novel course of antipruritic agents in cholestatic diseases. Studies have shown that LPA increases cytosolic free calcium levels ([Ca2+]_i) in neuronal cells, and pre-treatment of the neuronal cells with Ki16425 (a specific LPA receptor blocker) significantly reduces the increase in [Ca2+]_i.^eight This preliminary show may explicate the potential mechanism of LPA receptor blockers, which could exist adult as a novel therapeutic agent for treatment of cholestatic pruritus.

As the furnishings of autotaxin are mainly mediated through enzymatic production of LPA, autotaxin inhibitors that reduce LPA levels could also serve every bit novel therapeutic options. Still, the master concerns with autotaxin-directed therapy include an incomplete agreement of the source of autotaxin product and a lack of understanding of its part in the regenerative capacity and disease progression in cholestasis. These concerns also raise the possibility that autotaxin inhibitors may better pruritus just at the expense of the worsening of cholestatic biological science.^four Therefore, future directions for efficient anti-pruritic drug discovery would do good from efforts to overcome our current lack of noesis of the 'physiological' function played past autotaxin in CLD.

Conclusion

Pruritus, a complication of cholestatic liver diseases, is a substantial and challenging clinical problem. The pathophysiology of cholestatic pruritus is only partially understood, and controversies remain with regard to the roles played past proposed pruritogens including bile acids, endogenous opioids and, more recently, autotaxin. No single therapy is effective in the control of pruritus, and often patients need to be treated with different drugs in line with current treatment guidelines. The efficacy of currently available therapeutic agents for cholestatic pruritus is often disappointing, every bit treatment can exist associated with significant side effects and successful amelioration of pruritus is far from universal. Recent evidence on the pathophysiological role of autotaxin and LPA in cholestatic crawling, if substantiated further, could potentially assist in future drug evolution strategies. While the results of ongoing trials of bile acid transport inhibitors are eagerly awaited, LPA-receptor blockers and autotaxin inhibitors may correspond novel therapeutic strategies for cholestatic pruritus.

References

one . Kremer AE, Oude Elferink RP, Beuers U. Pathophysiology and current management of pruritus in liver disease. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol 2011;35:89–97. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

3 . Kremer AE, Beuers U, Oude-Elferink RP, Pusl T. Pathogenesis and treatment of pruritus in cholestasis. Drugs 2008;68:2163–82. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

iv . Jones DE. Pathogenesis of cholestatic itch: old questions, new answers, and future opportunities. Hepatology 2012;56:1194–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5 . Talwalkar JA, Souto Due east, Jorgensen RA. et al. Natural history of pruritus in main biliary cirrhosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2003;1:297–302. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6 . Carbone G, Mells GF, Pells G. et al. Sex activity and age are determinants of the clinical phenotype of primary biliary cirrhosis and response to ursodeoxycholic acid. Gastroenterology 2013;144:560–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7 . Rishe East, Azarm A, Bergasa NV. Itch in primary biliary cirrhosis: a patient's perspective. Acta Derm Venereol 2008;88:34–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

8 . Kremer AE, Martens JJ, Kulik W. et al. Lysophosphatidic acid is a potential mediator of cholestatic pruritus. Gastroenterology 2010;139:1008–18. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

ix . Kremer AE, van Dijk R, Leckie P. et al. Serum autotaxin is increased in pruritus of cholestasis, but not of other origin, and responds to therapeutic interventions. Hepatology 2012;56:1391–400. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10 . Lindor KD, Gershwin ME, Poupon R. et al. Primary biliary cirrhosis. Hepatology 2009;l:291–308. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11 . European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL clinical practice guidelines: management of cholestatic liver diseases. J Hepatol 2009;51:237–67. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12 . Tandon P, Rowe BH, Vandermeer B. et al. The efficacy and safety of bile acrid binding agents, opioid antagonists, or rifampin in the treatment of cholestasis-associated pruritus. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:1528–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

xiii . Kuiper EM, van Erpecum KJ, Beuers U. et al. The potent bile acid sequestrant colesevelam is not effective in cholestatic pruritus: results of a double-bullheaded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Hepatology 2010;52:1334–forty. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

fourteen . Khurana Due south, Singh P. Rifampin is safe for handling of pruritus due to chronic cholestasis: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized-controlled trials. Liver Int 2006;26:943–eight. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15 . Bachs Fifty, Parés A, Elena Thousand, Piera C, Rodés J. Effects of long-term rifampicin administration in chief biliary cirrhosis. Gastroenterology 1992;102:2077–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16 . Prince MI, Burt AD, Jones DE. Hepatitis and liver dysfunction with rifampicin therapy for pruritus in primary biliary cirrhosis. Gut 2002;fifty:436–9. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17 . Young man MG, Rothman RB, Xu H. et al. Endogenous opioids accumulate in plasma in a rat model of acute cholestasis. Gastroenterology 1992;103:630–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18 . Bergasa NV, Vergalla J, Swain MG, Jones EA. Hepatic concentrations of proenkephalin-derived opioids are increased in a rat model of cholestasis. Liver 1996;16:298–302. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

19 . Greaves MW. Pathogenesis and treatment of pruritus. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 2010;10:236–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

xx . McRae CA, Prince MI, Hudson Thou. et al. Pain as a complication of use of opiate antagonists for symptom control in cholestasis. Gastroenterology 2003;125:591–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21 . Browning J, Combes B, Mayo MJ. Long-term efficacy of sertraline as a treatment for cholestatic pruritus in patients with master biliary cirrhosis. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:2736–41. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

22 . Mayo MJ, Handem I, Saldana Southward. et al. Sertraline as a first-line treatment for cholestatic pruritus. Hepatology 2007;45:666–74. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23 . Pellicoro A, Faber KN. Review article: the role and regulation of proteins involved in bile salt biosynthesis and transport. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007;26(Suppl 2):149–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24 . Dawson PA, Haywood J, Craddock AL. et al. Targeted deletion of the ileal bile acid transporter eliminates enterohepatic cycling of bile acids in mice. J Biol Chem 2003;278:33920–seven. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

---

Articles from Clinical Medicine are provided hither courtesy of Royal College of Physicians

---

tregretheacce.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4952797/

Share this post