Hepatic safety and efficacy of immunomodulatory drugs used in patients with autoimmune hepatitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS There is little data on the hepatic efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory drugs used in patients with autoimmune hepatitis (AIH), despite their established use in dermatology, rheumatology and inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). Our aim was to collect real-life data on the experience of expert centres in treating AIH patients with these drugs, considered unconventional for AIH management. METHODS Online survey among hepatology centres being part of the European Reference Network on Hepatological Diseases (ERN RARE-LIVER). RESULTS 25 AIH patients have been reported. Ten were female, median age at diagnosis was 28 years; median follow-up was 17 months. All had initially received AIH-standard treatment. AIH-unconventional treatment was initiated for concomitant autoimmune diseases in 15 cases: nine for IBD (five vedolizumab and four ustekinumab), and one each for following diseases: autoinflammatory syndrome (tocilizumab), chronic urticaria (omalizumab), rheumatoid arthritis (abatacept), psoriasis (guselkumab), psoriatric arthritis (secukinumab, followed by ustekinumab) and alopecia (ruxolitinib). Three patients were treated with immunomodulatory drugs for side effects of previous treatments, including two patients with IBD treated with vedolizumab and ustekinumab, respectively, and one treated with belimumab. At the end of follow-up, 13 patients were in complete biochemical response, the patient on omalizumab had a relapse, and four patients with concomitant IBD had insufficient response. Seven patients were treated for lack of biochemical remission, of whom six with belimumab, all initially reaching complete biochemical response, but five relapsing during follow-up; and one with secukinumab, having concomitant rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis, reaching complete biochemical response. Only the patient on abatacept received unconventional treatment as monotherapy. Side effects were reported in two patients on belimumab: one recurrent soft tissue infections, one fatigue and arthralgia. CONCLUSION Among 25 AIH patients who were treated with immunomodulatory drugs for different reasons, the majority had a fovorable course, relapse was frequent in difficult-to-treat patients who received belimumab, and four with concomitant IBD had insufficient response

Nomenclature, diagnosis and management of drug-induced autoimmune-like hepatitis (DI-ALH): An expert opinion meeting report

Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) can mimic almost all other liver disorders. A phenotype increasingly ascribed to drugs is autoimmune-like hepatitis (ALH). This article summarises the major topics discussed at a joint International Conference held between the Drug-Induced Liver Injury consortium and the International Autoimmune Hepatitis Group. DI-ALH is a liver injury with laboratory and/or histological features that may be indistinguishable from those of autoimmune hepatitis (AIH). Previous studies have revealed that patients with DI-ALH and those with idiopathic AIH have very similar clinical, biochemical, immunological and histological features. Differentiating DI-ALH from AIH is important as patients with DI-ALH rarely require long-term immunosuppression and the condition often resolves spontaneously after withdrawal of the implicated drug, whereas patients with AIH mostly require long-term immunosuppression. Therefore, revision of the diagnosis on long-term follow-up may be necessary in some cases. More than 40 different drugs including nitrofurantoin, methyldopa, hydralazine, minocycline, infliximab, herbal and dietary supplements (such as Khat and Tinospora cordifolia) have been implicated in DI-ALH. Understanding of DI-ALH is limited by the lack of specific markers of the disease that could allow for a precise diagnosis, while there is similarly no single feature which is diagnostic of AIH. We propose a management algorithm for patients with liver injury and an autoimmune phenotype. There is an urgent need to prospectively evaluate patients with DI-ALH systematically to enable definitive characterisation of this condition

Nomenclature, Diagnosis and Management of Drug-induced Autoimmune-like hepatitis (DI-ALH): An expert opinion meeting report.

Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) can mimic almost all other liver disorders. A phenotype increasingly ascribed to drugs is autoimmune-like hepatitis (ALH). This article summarizes the major topics discussed at a joint International Conference held between Drug-Induced Liver Injury consortium and the International Autoimmune Hepatitis Group. DI-ALH is a liver injury with laboratory and/or histological features that may be indistinguishable from those of autoimmune hepatitis (AIH). Previous studies have revealed that patients with DI-ALH and those with idiopathic AIH have very similar clinical, biochemical, immunological and histological features. Differentiating DI-ALH from AIH is important as patients with DI-ALH rarely require long-term immunosuppression and often resolve spontaneously after stopping the culprit drug whereas patients with AIH mostly need long-term immunosuppression. Therefore, revision of the diagnosis on long-term follow up may be necessary in some cases. More than 40 different drugs including nitrofurantoin, methyldopa, hydralazine, minocycline, infliximab, herbal and dietary supplements such as Khat and Tinospora cordifolia have been implicated in DI-ALH. Understanding of DI-ALH is limited by the lack of specific markers of the disease that could allow a precise diagnosis and similarly, there is no single feature which is diagnostic of AIH. A management algorithm is proposed. There is an urgent need to prospectively evaluate patients with DI-ALH systematically to enable definitive characterization of this condition

Histological and serological features of acute liver injury after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination

Codoni G, Kirchner T, Engel B, Villamil AM, Efe C, Stättermayer AF, Weltzsch JP, Sebode M, Bernsmeier C, Lleo A, Gevers TJ, Kupčinskas L, Castiella A, Pinazo J, De Martin E, Bobis I, Sandahl TD, Pedica F, Invernizzi F, Del Poggio P, Bruns T, Kolev M, Semmo N, Bessone F, Giguet B, Poggi G, Ueno M, Jang H, Elpek GÖ, Soylu NK, Cerny A, Wedemeyer H, Vergani D, Mieli-Vergani G, Lucena MI, Andrade RJ, Zen Y, Taubert R, Beretta-Piccoli BT, Histological and serological features of acute liver injury after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, JHEP Reports (2022), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhepr.2022.100605.Liver injury with autoimmune features after vaccination against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is increasingly reported. We investigated a large international cohort of patients with acute hepatitis arising after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, focusing on histological and serological features

Obeticholic acid for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: interim analysis from a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial

Background Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a common type of chronic liver disease that can lead to cirrhosis. Obeticholic acid, a farnesoid X receptor agonist, has been shown to improve the histological features of NASH. Here we report results from a planned interim analysis of an ongoing, phase 3 study of obeticholic acid for NASH. Methods In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, adult patients with definite NASH,non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) activity score of at least 4, and fibrosis stages F2–F3, or F1 with at least oneaccompanying comorbidity, were randomly assigned using an interactive web response system in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive oral placebo, obeticholic acid 10 mg, or obeticholic acid 25 mg daily. Patients were excluded if cirrhosis, other chronic liver disease, elevated alcohol consumption, or confounding conditions were present. The primary endpointsfor the month-18 interim analysis were fibrosis improvement (≥1 stage) with no worsening of NASH, or NASH resolution with no worsening of fibrosis, with the study considered successful if either primary endpoint was met. Primary analyses were done by intention to treat, in patients with fibrosis stage F2–F3 who received at least one dose of treatment and reached, or would have reached, the month 18 visit by the prespecified interim analysis cutoff date. The study also evaluated other histological and biochemical markers of NASH and fibrosis, and safety. This study is ongoing, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02548351, and EudraCT, 20150-025601-6. Findings Between Dec 9, 2015, and Oct 26, 2018, 1968 patients with stage F1–F3 fibrosis were enrolled and received at least one dose of study treatment; 931 patients with stage F2–F3 fibrosis were included in the primary analysis (311 in the placebo group, 312 in the obeticholic acid 10 mg group, and 308 in the obeticholic acid 25 mg group). The fibrosis improvement endpoint was achieved by 37 (12%) patients in the placebo group, 55 (18%) in the obeticholic acid 10 mg group (p=0·045), and 71 (23%) in the obeticholic acid 25 mg group (p=0·0002). The NASH resolution endpoint was not met (25 [8%] patients in the placebo group, 35 [11%] in the obeticholic acid 10 mg group [p=0·18], and 36 [12%] in the obeticholic acid 25 mg group [p=0·13]). In the safety population (1968 patients with fibrosis stages F1–F3), the most common adverse event was pruritus (123 [19%] in the placebo group, 183 [28%] in the obeticholic acid 10 mg group, and 336 [51%] in the obeticholic acid 25 mg group); incidence was generally mild to moderate in severity. The overall safety profile was similar to that in previous studies, and incidence of serious adverse events was similar across treatment groups (75 [11%] patients in the placebo group, 72 [11%] in the obeticholic acid 10 mg group, and 93 [14%] in the obeticholic acid 25 mg group). Interpretation Obeticholic acid 25 mg significantly improved fibrosis and key components of NASH disease activity among patients with NASH. The results from this planned interim analysis show clinically significant histological improvement that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. This study is ongoing to assess clinical outcomes

Autoimmmune hepatitis

Autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) is a T-cell mediated, inflammatory liver disease affecting all ages and characterized by female preponderance, elevated serum transaminase and immunoglobulin G levels, positive circulating autoantibodies, and presence of interface hepatitis at liver histology. AIH type 1, affecting both adults and children, is defined by positive anti- nuclear and/or antismooth muscle antibodies, while type 2 AIH, affecting mostly children, is defined by positive anti-liver- kidney microsomal type 1 and/or anti-liver cytosol type 1 antibody. While the autoantigens of type 2 AIH are well defined, being the cytochrome P4502D6 (CYP2D6) and the formiminotransferase cyclodeaminase (FTCD), in type 1 AIH they remain to be identified. AIH-1 predisposition is conferred by possession of the MHC class II HLA DRB1*03 at all ages, while DRB1*04 predisposes to late onset disease; AIH-2 is associated with possession of DRB1*07 and DRB1*03. The majority of patients responds well to standard immunosuppressive treatment, based on steroid and azathioprine; second- and third-line drugs should be considered in case of intolerance or insufficient response. This review offers a comprehensive overview of pathophysiological and clinical aspects of AIH

Autoimmune hepatitis: serum autoantibodies in clinical practice

Circulating autoantibodies are a key diagnostic tool in autoimmune hepatitis (AIH), being positive in 95% of the cases if tested according to dedicated guidelines issued by the International Autoimmune Hepatitis Group. They also allow the distinction between type 1 AIH, characterized by positive anti-nuclear and/or anti-smooth muscle antibody, and type 2 AIH, characterized by positive anti-liver kidney microsomal type 1 and/or anti-liver cytosol type 1 antibody. Anti-soluble liver antigen is the only AIH-specific autoantibody, and is found in 20–30% of both type 1 and type 2 AIH. Anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody is frequently positive in type 1 AIH, being associated also with inflammatory bowel disease and with primary/autoimmune sclerosing cholangitis. The reference method for autoantibody testing remains indirect immunofluorescence on triple tissue (rodent liver, kidney and stomach), allowing both the detection of the majority of liver- relevant reactivities, including those autoantibodies whose molecular target antigens are unknown. Of note, the current knowledge of the clinical significance of autoantibodies relies on studies based on this technique. However, immunofluorescence requires trained laboratory personnel, is observer-dependent, and lacks standardization, leading to ongoing attempts at replacing this method with automated assays, the sensitivity, and specificity of which, however, require further studies before they can be used as a reliable alternative to immunofluorescence; currently, they may be used as complementary to immunofluorescence

Current Perspectives on Erythema Multiforme

Recognition and timely adequate treatment of erythema multiforme remain a major challenge. In this review, current diagnostic guidelines, potential pitfalls, and modern/novel treatment options are summarized with the aim to help clinicians with diagnostic and therapeutic decision-making. The diagnosis of erythema multiforme, that has an acute, self-limiting course, is based on its typical clinical picture of targetoid erythematous lesions with predominant acral localization as well as histological findings. Clinically, erythema multiforme can be differentiated into isolated cutaneous and combined mucocutaneous forms. Atypical erythema multiforme manifestations include lichenoid or granulomatous lesions as well as lesional infiltrates of T cell lymphoma and histiocytes. Herpes simplex virus infection being the most common cause, other infectious agents like-especially in children-Mycoplasma pneumoniae, hepatitis C virus, Coxsackie virus, and Epstein Barr virus may also trigger erythema multiforme. The second most frequently identified cause of erythema multiforme is drugs. In different studies, e.g., allopurinol, phenobarbital, phenytoin, valproic acid, antibacterial sulfonamides, penicillins, erythromycin, nitrofurantoin, tetracyclines, chlormezanone, acetylsalicylic acid, statins, as well as different TNF-α inhibitors such as adalimumab, infliximab, and etanercept were reported as possible implicated drugs. Recently, cases of erythema multiforme associated with vaccination, immunotherapy for melanoma, and even with topical drugs like imiquimod have been described. In patients with recurrent herpes simplex virus-associated erythema multiforme, the topical prophylactic treatment with acyclovir does not seem to prevent further episodes of erythema multiforme. In case of resistance to one virostatic drug, the switch to an alternative drug, and in patients non-responsive to virostatic agents, the use of dapsone as well as new treatment options, e.g., JAK-inhibitors or apremilast, might be considered

Current Perspectives on Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis

Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) are considered a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction to drugs. They represent true medical emergencies and an early recognition and appropriate management is decisive for the survival. SJS/TEN manifest with an "influenza-like" prodromal phase (malaise, fever), followed by painful cutaneous and mucous membrane (ocular, oral, and genital) lesions, and other systemic symptoms. The difference between SJS, SJS/TEN overlap, and TEN is defined by the degree of skin detachment: SJS is defined as skin involvement of  30%, and SJS/TEN overlap as 10-30% skin involvement. The diagnosis of different degrees of epidermal necrolysis is based on the clinical assessment in conjunction with the corresponding histopathology. The mortality rates for SJS and TEN have decreased in the last decades. Today, the severity-of-illness score for toxic epidermal necrolysis (SCORTEN) is available for SJS/TEN severity assessment. Drugs with a high risk of causing SJS/TEN are anti-infective sulfonamides, anti-epileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs of the oxicam type, allopurinol, nevirapine, and chlormezanone. Besides conventional drugs, herbal remedies and new biologicals should be considered as causative agents. The increased risk of hypersensitivity reactions to certain drugs may be linked to specific HLA antigens. Our understanding of the pathogenesis of SJS/TEN has improved: drug-specific T cell-mediated cytotoxicity, genetic linkage with HLA- and non-HLA-genes, TCR restriction, and cytotoxicity mechanisms were clarified. However, many factors contributing to epidermal necrolysis still have to be identified, especially in virus-induced and autoimmune forms of epidermal necrolysis not related to drugs. In SJS/TEN, the most common complications are ocular, cutaneous, or renal. Nasopharyngeal, esophageal, and genital mucosal involvement with blisters, erosions as well as secondary development of strictures also play a role. However, in the acute phase, septicemia is a leading cause of morbidity and fatality. Pulmonary and hepatic involvement is frequent. The acute management of SJS/TEN requires a multidisciplinary approach. Immediate withdrawal of potentially causative drugs is mandatory. Prompt referral to an appropriate medical center for specific supportive treatment is of utmost importance. The most frequently used treatments for SJS/TEN are systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulins, and cyclosporine A