We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Review
Validation Studies
Re-analysis of clinical features of 89 patients with autoimmune hepatitis using the revised scoring system proposed by the International Autoimmune Hepatitis Group.
Internal Medicine 2000 December
OBJECTIVE: The diagnostic criteria of autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) were recently modified by the International Autoimmune Hepatitis Group. This study was performed to assess the impact of the revised scoring system on the diagnosis of AIH.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We re-analyzed the clinical features of 89 patients diagnosed as AIH in Nagasaki Prefecture, Japan, using the revised scoring system, and compared the scores and final diagnosis with our previously published results using the original system.
RESULTS: Of the 89 patients with AIH, 40 (45%) were classified using the new system as "definite" AIH, 41 (46%) as "probable" AIH, and 8 (9%) patients were categorized as "others". Of these, 37 (42%), 35 (39%), and 4 (4%) patients who were classified as "definite", "probable", and "others" by the original system remained in the same category by the revised system, respectively. However, 3, 4, and 6 patients were re-categorized as "definite" from "probable", "others" from "probable", and "probable" from "definite", respectively. The difference in aggregate scores between the above two systems ranged from -5 to +2. The main contributing factors to the changes in aggregate AIH score were "other autoimmune disease(s)" and "interface hepatitis without lobular involvement and bridging necrosis on liver histology". However, the main contributing factors to the demotions from "definite" to "probable" and form "probable" to "others" were those related to the characteristics of biliary diseases, i.e., antimitochondrial antibody positive, biliary changes in liver histology, and alkaline phosphatase: aspartate aminotransferase ratio between 1.5 and 3.0. Moreover, two patients who had no histological evidence of AIH were both re-categorized as "others" from "probable" AIH.
CONCLUSION: Our results indicated that the diagnosis, whether based on the revised or original system, was the same in the majority of AIH patients, but the revised scoring system excluded cases who had features suggestive of biliary diseases from "definite" AIH, and also confirmed that a diagnosis of "definite" AIH should not be made without liver histology.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We re-analyzed the clinical features of 89 patients diagnosed as AIH in Nagasaki Prefecture, Japan, using the revised scoring system, and compared the scores and final diagnosis with our previously published results using the original system.
RESULTS: Of the 89 patients with AIH, 40 (45%) were classified using the new system as "definite" AIH, 41 (46%) as "probable" AIH, and 8 (9%) patients were categorized as "others". Of these, 37 (42%), 35 (39%), and 4 (4%) patients who were classified as "definite", "probable", and "others" by the original system remained in the same category by the revised system, respectively. However, 3, 4, and 6 patients were re-categorized as "definite" from "probable", "others" from "probable", and "probable" from "definite", respectively. The difference in aggregate scores between the above two systems ranged from -5 to +2. The main contributing factors to the changes in aggregate AIH score were "other autoimmune disease(s)" and "interface hepatitis without lobular involvement and bridging necrosis on liver histology". However, the main contributing factors to the demotions from "definite" to "probable" and form "probable" to "others" were those related to the characteristics of biliary diseases, i.e., antimitochondrial antibody positive, biliary changes in liver histology, and alkaline phosphatase: aspartate aminotransferase ratio between 1.5 and 3.0. Moreover, two patients who had no histological evidence of AIH were both re-categorized as "others" from "probable" AIH.
CONCLUSION: Our results indicated that the diagnosis, whether based on the revised or original system, was the same in the majority of AIH patients, but the revised scoring system excluded cases who had features suggestive of biliary diseases from "definite" AIH, and also confirmed that a diagnosis of "definite" AIH should not be made without liver histology.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults.Gut 2024 April 17
Systemic lupus erythematosus.Lancet 2024 April 18
Should renin-angiotensin system inhibitors be held prior to major surgery?British Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 May
Ventilator Waveforms May Give Clues to Expiratory Muscle Activity.American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2024 April 25
Acute Kidney Injury and Electrolyte Imbalances Caused by Dapagliflozin Short-Term Use.Pharmaceuticals 2024 March 27
Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2024.Endoscopy 2024 April 27
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app