Annals of gastroenterology · 2018
Clinical profile and treatment outcomes in autoimmune pancreatitis: a report from North India.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rana Surinder S, Gupta Rajesh, Nada Ritambhra, Gupta Pankaj, Basher Rajinder, Mittal Bhagwat R, Sharma Ravi Kumar, Rawat Amit
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a rare disease, and data from countries like India concerning its clinical presentation and long-term outcomes are scarce. We retrospectively evaluated the clinical presentation, imaging features and treatment outcomes of patients with AIP.
METHODS: We carried out a retrospective analysis of our database to identify patients diagnosed with and treated for AIP at our unit in a tertiary care hospital in North India.
RESULTS: Eighteen patients with AIP (mean age: 54.9±11.1 years; 13 male) were evaluated. Of these, 9 (50%) patients had probable type 1 AIP, 2 (11%) patients probable type 2 AIP, and 4 (22%) definite type 1 AIP. Patients with type 2 AIP were significantly younger than patients with type 1 (40.0±2.8 vs. 58.4±9.6 years). In type 1 AIP, other organ involvement was observed in 3/18 (17%) patients, whereas both patients with type 2 AIP had coexisting ulcerative colitis. The diagnosis of AIP was made after resective surgery in 6/18 (33.0%) patients. An accurate diagnosis of AIP could be made in all patients who underwent resection or core biopsy, but cytological examination after endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration could not provide a definitive diagnosis in any patient. Initial treatment with steroids was given to 12 (67%) patients, with a 100% response, but the disease relapsed in 5/13 (38%) patients over a mean follow-up period of 34.2±21.6 weeks.
CONCLUSION: AIP is not rare in India and the majority of clinical manifestations, imaging features, treatment response and long-term outcomes are similar to those reported in the literature.
METHODS: We carried out a retrospective analysis of our database to identify patients diagnosed with and treated for AIP at our unit in a tertiary care hospital in North India.
RESULTS: Eighteen patients with AIP (mean age: 54.9±11.1 years; 13 male) were evaluated. Of these, 9 (50%) patients had probable type 1 AIP, 2 (11%) patients probable type 2 AIP, and 4 (22%) definite type 1 AIP. Patients with type 2 AIP were significantly younger than patients with type 1 (40.0±2.8 vs. 58.4±9.6 years). In type 1 AIP, other organ involvement was observed in 3/18 (17%) patients, whereas both patients with type 2 AIP had coexisting ulcerative colitis. The diagnosis of AIP was made after resective surgery in 6/18 (33.0%) patients. An accurate diagnosis of AIP could be made in all patients who underwent resection or core biopsy, but cytological examination after endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration could not provide a definitive diagnosis in any patient. Initial treatment with steroids was given to 12 (67%) patients, with a 100% response, but the disease relapsed in 5/13 (38%) patients over a mean follow-up period of 34.2±21.6 weeks.
CONCLUSION: AIP is not rare in India and the majority of clinical manifestations, imaging features, treatment response and long-term outcomes are similar to those reported in the literature.