[Assessment of the possible impact of hepatitis viruses on the development and course of autoimmune liver diseases].

BACKGROUND: Despite the well-studied pathogenesis, the etiology of autoimmune liver disease (AILD) remains unknown. AIM: To determine the significance of hepatitis A, B, C and E viruses in the development and progression of AILD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-center case-control study included 139 patients with AILD: autoimmune hepatitis - AIH (n=46), primary biliary cholangitis - PBS (n=74), primary sclerosing cholangitis - PSC (n=19). Median age 56 years, IQR 48-65 years. 125 patients - without liver disease - control group (median age 55 years, IQR 46-65 years). Testing of blood serum samples for anti-HAV IgG, anti-HEV IgG, HBsAg, anti-HBc IgG, anti-HCV was carried out by solid-phase ELISA. All patients underwent fibroelastography. Needle liver biopsy - 70 patients: AIH (n=37), PBC (n=28) and PSC (n=5). RESULTS: Ab(IgG) to HAV and HBV were detected in patients with AILD significantly more often than in the control group (74.8% vs 54.4%; p<0.001). An increased risk of developing AILD was established in patients with the presence of antibodies to HAV, HBV and HEV (OR 2.491, CI 95% [1.481-4.190]). The highest risk of developing PBC was found in patients with antibodies to HAV and HBV (OR 3.008, 95% CI [1.633-5.542] and OR 2.515, 95% CI [1.242-5.093]). In patients with severe liver fibrosis (F3-F4 according to METAVIR), antibodies to HAV and HBV were detected significantly more often than in patients with F0-F2 [85% vs 65%; p=0.008]. CONCLUSION: In our work, we have demonstrated the relationship of past hepatitis A, B, E and AILD, as well as the high risk of developing severe fibrosis in patients with AILD and markers of hepatitis A and B viruses indicates the possible involvement of these viruses in the pathogenesis of AILD.

Diagnostic value of screening methods for the determination of antinuclear antibodies using indirect immunofluorescence on HEp-2 cells and enzyme immunoassay in autoimmune liver diseases.

Antinuclear antibodies (ANA) are a heterogeneous group of autoantibodies that react with various components of the cell nucleus and cytoplasm. ANA is the main serological marker for autoimmune liver disease (AILD). The aim of the study was to compare the diagnostic value of two methods of screening for the determination of ANA (indirect immunofluorescence reaction on HEp-2 cells (IIF -HEp-2) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in the sera of AILD patients. The sera of 118 patients with AILD (51 with autoimmune hepatitis - AIH, 19 with primary biliary cholangitis - PBC, 48 with overlapping syndrome - OVERLAP), 30 patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and 30 healthy donors (HD) were studied. Determination of ANA by the IIF-HEp-2 method was carried out by visual assessment of samples under an AXIOSKOP 40 microscope, by ELISA - on an Alegria automatic analyzer. A weak degree of agreement between the positive and negative results of the ANA screening study using IIF-HEp-2 and ELISA (Cohen's kappa coefficient æ=0.4) was noted. Screening determination of ANA in patients with AILD by the IIF-HEp-2 method was distinguished by greater diagnostic sensitivity (DS) (68.6%) and a lower frequency of false negative results (31.4%) compared with ELISA (35.6% and 64.4 % respectively, p<0.05). The overall diagnostic specificity (DS) of the ANA study in IIF-HEp-2 was lower than with ELISA (66.7% and 86.7%, respectively, p<0.05). Both screening methods for determining ANA (IIF-HEp-2 and ELISA) were useful for diagnosing AILD (positive likelihood ratio - LR+: 2.1 and 2.6, respectively). In terms of the negative likelihood ratio (LR-), screening for ANA by the IIF-HEp-2 method, in contrast to ELISA, served as a "useful" test to exclude the diagnosis of AILD (0.5 and 0.8, respectively). The determination of ANA using IIF-HEp-2 is the most sensitive and "useful" screening test for the diagnosis of AILD, and ELISA is classified as a less "useful" screening method due to low diagnostic sensitivity and a high false-negative rate.

[Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus: issues of the liver fibrosis diagnostics].

AIM: To evaluate the frequency of liver fibrosis progression to stage 34 among patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), type 2 diabetes and obesity, to identify predictors of severe liver fibrosis, to propose an algorithm for diagnosing fibrosis in this category of patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 160 patients with NAFLD, type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and obesity and 50 patients with NAFLD without diabetes were comprehensively examined. Patients underwent laboratory examination (clinical blood test, biochemical analysis, immunoglobulins G, M, autoantibody assay, coagulogram), liver ultrasound. All patients underwent determination of the liver fibrosis stage by two methods: the serological test FibroMax and indirect ultrasound elastometry of the liver; 40 patients underwent a liver biopsy. Statistical data processing was performed using the programming language and statistical calculations R: we used correlation analysis, multiple logistic regression method, one-way analysis of variance, multi-factor analysis, the Kruskal-Wallis method, and comparison of the number of patients using the Fisher test. RESULTS: DM is a risk factor for the liver fibrosis progression in patients with NAFLD. Significant markers of severe fibrosis in this category of patients are increased levels of GGTP, haptoglobin and alpha-2-macroglobulin, lower platelet and prothrombin levels. Obesity and isolated steatosis without steatohepatitis are not markers of severe liver fibrosis at present, but obesity can be considered a risk factor for the progression of fibrosis in the future. CONCLUSION: All patients with NAFLD in combination with diabetes need screening to detect advanced liver fibrosis: it is advisable to determine the levels of GGTP, haptoglobin and alpha-2-macroglobulin.

[Сlinical, immunological and morphological features in different types of autoimmune hepatitis].

Due to the absence of the pathognomonic diagnostic criteria and to the diversity of clinical, serological and morphological manifestations, the diagnostic of the autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) remains to be a difficult task, which might lead to the delay of the timely beginning of the immunosuppressive therapy (IST), which in turn affects the disease outcomes. AIM: To studying the clinical, biochemical, immunological and morphological markers in patients with seronegative (SN) and seropositive (SP) AIH and the qualities of their response to the IST. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 82 AIH patients over the course of the years 20142019. All patients were selected in accordance with the criteria of the simplified assessment system of the IAIHG. Clinical, laboratorial and morphological characteristics of the AIH were analyzed. Therapy response was evaluated by the level of the ALT and IgG in 612 months after the start of the IST. The study material underwent statistical analysis using methods of parametrical and nonparametrical analysis. Statistical analysis was performed in the Statistica 13.3 (developed by StatSoft Inc., USA). RESULTS: 67/82 (81.70%) of the patients studied were women, median age of 54 years old [38; 70]. Patients with the diagnosis of the possible AIH according to the IAIHG made 85.4% (70 people). Almost everyone 96% (79/82) had morphological features of the interface-hepatitis with the lymphocytic/plasmocytic infiltration; emperipolesis was discovered in 63% of patients (49/82), hepatocellular rosette in 23% (19/82). Patients with SN AIH comprised 36.5% (30/82), with SP 63.4% (52/82). Comparative analysis demonstrated that the clinical profile in patients with SN and SP AIH is the same, while the incidence of immuno-associated diseases is significantly higher in the group of seronegative AIH. The morphological profile in the two AIH groups is identical in both typical and atypical manifestations. The number of responders to IST was 63% (19/30) SN AIH vs 67% SP AIH (35/52), did not differ significantly (p=0.529).However, that the number of patients with liver cirrhosis in the SN AIH group was twice as big as the ones with SP: 37% vs 17% (p=0.089). CONCLUSIONS: A comparative analysis of clinical, laboratory, morphological and clinical manifestations in the SN and SP AIH groups did not detected statistically significant significant differences, which may indicate that SN and SP AIH are the faces of one disease. It is possible that AB cannot be identified within the known spectrum of antibodies, or antibodies have slow expression, or are suppressed by the immune system. In any case, suspicions of AIH, in the absence of antibodies, it is recommended that liver biopsy be performed for the timely diagnosis of AIH and IST. Сirrhosis was more often diagnosed in the group SN AIH, which may be due to a later diagnosis, and therefore to untimely IST. The found frequent association of SN AIH with other immune-associated diseases requires a carefully study of this problem. The variety of clinical manifestations of AIH requires further study, the identification of clinical phenotypes with certain feature. This can help in the future to timely identify potentially problematic patients and predict a response to IST.