Recent advances in understanding and managing cholestasis

Martin Wagner; Michael Trauner

doi:10.12688/f1000research.8012.1

Home Browse Recent advances in understanding and managing cholestasis

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Review

Recent advances in understanding and managing cholestasis

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved]

Martin Wagner¹, Michael Trauner²

PUBLISHED 19 Apr 2016

Author details Author details

¹ Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria
² Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Wien, Austria

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Cholestatic liver diseases are hereditary or acquired disorders with impaired hepatic excretion and enterohepatic circulation of bile acids and other cholephiles. The distinct pathological mechanisms, particularly for the acquired forms of cholestasis, are not fully revealed, but advances in the understanding of the molecular mechanisms and identification of key regulatory mechanisms of the enterohepatic circulation of bile acids have unraveled common and central mechanisms, which can be pharmacologically targeted. This overview focuses on the central roles of farnesoid X receptor, fibroblast growth factor 19, and apical sodium-dependent bile acid transporter for the enterohepatic circulation of bile acids and their potential as new drug targets for the treatment of cholestatic liver disease.

Keywords

cholestasis, liver, hepatic, bile acid

Corresponding author: Michael Trauner

Competing interests: Michael Trauner has received research support by Albireo, Intercept, and Falk and is listed as co-inventor on a patent on the medical use of NorUDCA. He has received advisory board fees from Abbvie, Albireo, Intercept, Falk, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, and Phenex and lecture fees from Abbvie, BMS, Falk, and Gilead. Martin Wagner has received advisory board fees from Intercept.

Grant information: This work was supported by grants F3008-B19 and F3517-B20 (to Michael Trauner) from the Austrian Science Foundation.

Copyright: © 2016 Wagner M and Trauner M. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Wagner M and Trauner M. Recent advances in understanding and managing cholestasis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2016, 5(F1000 Faculty Rev):705 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8012.1) First published: 19 Apr 2016, 5(F1000 Faculty Rev):705 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8012.1) Latest published: 19 Apr 2016, 5(F1000 Faculty Rev):705 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8012.1)

Introduction

Cholestasis is a hereditary or acquired impairment of bile formation and flow on either a hepatocellular or a cholangiocellular level, resulting in interruption of the enterohepatic circulation of bile acids. Classical hereditary defects comprise mainly mutations of transporter genes involved in hepatocellular bile formation such as ATP8B1, BSEP, and multidrug resistance protein 3 (MDR3) underlying the classical progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis type I-III, respectively¹, and rarely mutations of bile acid synthesis enzymes² or mutations in the bile acid receptor farnesoid X receptor (FXR)³. In addition, mutations in the Notch signaling pathway frequently cause infant cholestasis in Alagille syndrome¹ and mutations/polymorphisms in MDR3, multidrug resistance-associated protein 2 (MRP2), and FXR have been associated with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy or drug-induced liver injury¹. Notably, mutations of sodium taurocholate cotransporting polypeptide (NTCP) result in pronounced hypercholanemia without classical clinical features of cholestasis or impaired enterohepatic circulation⁴. At the cholangiocyte level, hereditary defects of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) are the most common genetic contributors to cholestasis¹ and polymorphisms in anion exchanger 2 (AE2) have been found as disease modifiers in primary biliary cholangitis (PBC)⁵. In addition, mutations in tight junction proteins along the canalicular membrane of hepatocytes and cholangiocytes result in hereditary forms of cholestasis⁶. Acquired forms of cholestasis originate from the hepatocellular level (e.g. estrogen-induced bland cholestasis, sepsis-induced cholestasis, and drug-induced cholestasis) or cholangiocyte or bile duct levels (e.g. PBC, primary sclerosing cholangitis [PSC], secondary sclerosing cholangitis, and intraluminal/extraluminal bile duct obstructions) or represent a mixture of hepatocellular/cholangiocellular origins⁷. The common hallmark of various forms of cholestasis is impaired proper circulation of bile acids along the enterohepatic circulation resulting in the accumulation of potential toxic bile acids in the systemic circulation and intracellularly. A general goal in treating cholestasis, therefore, is to reduce hepatic and systemic bile acid accumulation and to decrease bile acid pool size (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Principle anticholestatic mechanism of fibroblast growth factor 19 (FGF19) analogues, apical sodium-dependent bile acid transporter (ASBT) inhibitors, and farnesoid X receptor (FXR) agonists.

Cholestasis results in the accumulation of bile acids in the enterohepatic bile acid circulation. Novel promising anticholestatic strategies aim to eliminate bile acids and reduce bile acid pool size predominately by either reducing de novo bile acid production or eliminating bile acids by interrupting enterohepatic bile acid circulation. Intrahepatic bile acid levels decrease. Left panel: FGF19 analogues mimic the action of endogenous FGF19, which is synthesized in the terminal ileum. FGF19 robustly represses hepatic de novo bile acid synthesis by blocking the rate-limiting enzyme of bile acid generation, cholesterol 7-alpha hydroxylase (CYP7A1). This reduces bile acid pool size and the amount of bile acids by suppression of the biliary loop of enterohepatic circulation. Middle panel: ASBT inhibitors selectively block bile acid re-uptake in the terminal ileum by blocking the bile acid transporter ASBT. Bile acids spill over into the colon and are lost via feces. This reduces bile acid pool size and the amount of bile acids by initially (1) suppression of the portal loop of enterohepatic circulation. Right panel: FXR agonists are not tissue specific but predominately activate FXR in the ileum and liver. FXR agonists suppress (-) bile acid synthesis via induction of FGF19-mediated CYP7A1 suppression from the ileum and via FXR- short heterodimer partner 1 (SHP)-mediated CYP7A1 repression from the liver. This reduces bile acid pool size. In addition, FXR agonists limit cellular bile acid accumulation by blocking ileal (via ASBT) and hepatic (via sodium taurocholate cotransporting polypeptide [NTCP]) bile acid uptake and by enforcing (+) ileal and hepatic (both via organic solute transporter α/β [OSTα/β]) bile acid export, leading to bile acid spill over into feces and systemic circulation.

Enterohepatic circulation of bile acids

Bile acids are formed in hepatocytes from hydroxylation of cholesterol by cholesterol 7-alpha hydroxylase (CYP7A1) or alternatively by CYP27A1⁸. The resulting primary bile acid chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA) can be further hydroxylated to cholic acid (CA) by CYP8B1. Bile acids are exported across the canalicular membrane of hepatocytes into the bile duct lumen via distinct bile acid transporters, of which BSEP (ABCB11) transports the bulk of bile acids, accompanied by MRP2, the latter one transporting conjugated bilirubin and other xenobiotics. In addition, formation of primary bile requires active transport of phospholipids (via MDR3), cholesterol (via ABCG5/8), glutathione (also via MRP2), bicarbonate (via CFTR), and passive dilution by water^9,10. Along the bile ducts, bile is further modified by bicarbonate-enriching mechanisms^11,12 and further bile acid uptake mechanisms within the liver^9,11. In the terminal ileum, bile acids are efficiently shuttled across enterocytes back into the portal circulation by active uptake into enterocytes via apical sodium-dependent bile acid transporter (ASBT) (SLC10A2) and exported via organic solute transporter α/β (OSTα/β) (SLC51)^9,10. Only a few bile acids escape this high-capacity re-uptake and conservation mechanism by ASBT and spill over into the colon, where they are secondarily transformed by bacteria into deoxycholic acid (DCA) and lithocholic acid (LCA), taken back up by colonic diffusion, or excreted via the feces^9,10. From the portal circulation, bile acids are selectively imported into hepatocytes by an active transporting mechanism, mainly consisting of NTCP (SLC10A1) and to a lesser extent organic anion-transporting polypeptide (OATP1B1). Bile acids that escape the hepatocellular import are spilled over into the systemic circulation and may eventually be eliminated via the kidney and urine⁹.

Bile acid concentrations (and indirectly also composition via different sensitivities of bile acid sensors to various bile acid species) along the enterohepatic circulation are sensed at “checkpoints” in hepatocytes and enterocytes. Depending on the actual bile acid load in the enterohepatic circulation, further bile acids can be produced and more efficiently conserved or production can be repressed and bile acid excretion favored. In cholestasis, when bile acids accumulate, (hepato)cellular export and re-routing bile acids to renal excretion comprises an important adaptive system to reduce further potential toxic bile acid accumulation and cell damage^9,13. The alternative export of bile acids is canalized by active bile acid transporter systems such as OSTα/β, MRP3, and MRP4 at basolateral membranes, which transport bile acids out of hepatocytes. In line with enforcing cellular export, import of bile acids into hepatocytes (via NTCP) and enterocytes (via ASBT) is being reduced^9,13. Accumulating bile acids in hepatocytes also limit further bile acid production via repressing CYP7A1 at the transcriptional level. However, this very efficient mechanism to reduce bile acid generation in the enterohepatic circulation may be compromised in settings when bile flow is significantly impaired and fewer bile acids are sensed in enterocytes^14,15. Fibroblast growth factor 19 (FGF19) is an ileum-specific enteric hormone released in proportion to bile acid concentrations in enterocytes and the most efficient repressor of CYP7A1 and hepatocellular bile acid synthesis¹⁴. Bile acids induce FGF19 in the terminal ileum, which is released in the portal circulation and reduces bile acid synthesis in hepatocytes in a negative feedback fashion. In obstructive cholestasis, when bile flow is reduced and fewer bile acids reach the ileum, FGF19 levels decrease and hepatocellular bile acid production is augmented. This results in a paradoxical metabolic situation with further increase of bile acid synthesis despite hepatic accumulation of bile acids.

Bile acid receptor FXR

The main sensor of bile acids in the enterohepatic circulation is the bile acid receptor FXR (NR1H4), which is ligand activated in the order of potency by CDCA > DCA > LCA > CA¹⁶. FXR is a nuclear hormone receptor and transcription factor that heterodimerizes with the retinoid X receptor α (RXRα, NR2B1) and regulates the expression of genes involved in bile acid metabolism but also genes regulating glucose and lipid metabolism and inflammation¹⁷. FXR can either directly induce or reduce gene transcription or indirectly repress genes via the common repressor short heterodimer partner 1 (SHP) (NR0B2), which is a direct positive target of FXR¹⁸. FXR is highly expressed along the gastrointestinal system, liver, kidney, and to minor extents the adrenal glands¹⁹. Generally, FXR activation reduces intracellular bile acid load in target tissues by repressing bile acid import transporters (i.e. NTCP and ASBT) and inducing bile acid export pumps (i.e. BSEP, MRP2, and OSTα/β) along with suppression of bile acid synthesis (i.e. CYP7A1)^10,17. FXR regulates bile acid synthesis from the intestine via induction of FGF19 and in hepatocytes via SHP-induced repression of CYP7A1¹⁴. For proper CYP7A1 repression by intestinal FGF19, sufficient hepatic SHP expression is required¹⁴. In addition, FXR activation favors bile acid detoxification via induction of cytochrome p450 3A4 (CYP3A4), sulfotransferase 2A1 (SULT2A1), and UDP glucuronosyltransferase 2 family, polypeptide B4 (UGT2B4)¹⁷ and stimulates biliary phospholipid excretion via MDR3 (ABCB4), thereby also counteracting cholesterol gallstone formation²⁰. Besides its role for bile acid metabolism, FXR activation also shows anti-inflammatory properties by blocking NFκB-mediated inflammatory gene expression and immunomodulatory effects by facilitating homing and function of myeloid-derived suppressor cells, which function as a critical negative feedback loop in immune-mediated liver injury^21–23.

New concepts in treating cholestasis

Concepts to induce choleresis

Currently, the only approved drug for treating chronic cholestatic disorders is the hydrophilic bile acid ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA)²⁴. UDCA’s anti-cholestatic properties are mainly attributed to its choleretic effects by stimulating hepatocellular secretion of bile acids and organic anions post-translationally and by inducing/stabilizing a bicarbonate-rich protection “umbrella” along the biliary tree¹². Anti-apoptotic and anti-inflammatory actions may additionally support UDCA’s beneficial anticholestatic action. Its clinical efficacy is limited because only approximately two-thirds of patients with PBC respond to UDCA therapy²⁵ and in PSC patients UDCA has no effect on transplant-free survival²⁶.

NorUDCA is a side chain shortened UDCA derivative, which induces bicarbonate-rich hypercholeresis as a result of cholehepatic shunting of conjugation-resistant NorUDCA and shows additional anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrotic qualities^27–30. In contrast to UDCA, NorUDCA improved sclerosing cholangitis in Mdr2 knockout mice as a model system for PSC while UDCA even aggravates cholestatic liver injury in these animal models^28,29,31. Recently, a phase II clinical trial with NorUDCA for PSC has been completed and the full data are eagerly awaited³². Both UDCA and NorUDCA, to a large extent, counteract cholestasis by their choleretic effects targeting impaired bile flow.

Concepts to reduce bile acid pool size

While UDCA and NorUDCA counteract cholestasis and impaired bile flow by primarily inducing bile-acid independent choleresis and modifying bile acid pool toxicity, another line of currently developed anticholestatic strategies targets enterohepatic circulation to primarily reduce bile acid pools. FXR agonists, FGF19 mimetics, and ASBT inhibitors with clearly defined modes of action are the most promising representatives and are currently being tested in phase II and phase III clinical trials.

FXR agonists. FXR represents the central integrator of bile acid homeostasis and, once activated, results in the reduction of cellular bile acid levels. Although FXR activation by endogenous bile acid accumulation is intended to counteract potential toxic bile acid levels, its endogenous activation in chronic cholestatic liver diseases is apparently too weak for disease self-limitation. Synthetic and semi-synthetic FXR agonists, with higher affinity and potency to activate FXR, have therefore been successfully tested in animal models of cholestasis. In LCA- and ethinyl estradiol-induced cholestatic rats, the semi-synthetic steroidal FXR ligand obeticholic acid (OCA, formerly also referred to as 6-ethylchenodeoxycholic acid [6-ECDCA]), which is currently being tested in several clinical phase II and III studies for PBC and PSC, was able to restore reduced bile flow and improve cholestasis in several preclinical animal models of cholestasis^33,34. Interestingly, in a mouse model of cholestasis resembling PSC (i.e. Mdr2 knockout mice), OCA did not show beneficial anticholestatic effects in this model, although ileal FGF15 was induced and hepatic Cyp7a1 repressed. Only the even more potent FXR-activating capacity of the steroidal dual FXR/G-protein-coupled bile acid receptor 1 (TGR5) agonist INT-767 improved cholestasis along with robustly induced bicarbonate-rich choleresis and reduction of biliary bile acid output³⁵. It is likely that species differences and differences in the cholestatic models (i.e. complete absence of biliary phospholipids in the Mdr2 model) may explain these discrepancies. Non-steroidal FXR agonists (i.e. GW4064), which are also being investigated in clinical settings, improved markers of cholestasis as well as reduced hepatic bile acid accumulation in bile duct-ligated and α-naphthyl isothiocyanate-treated rats too³⁶. It is important to note that steroidal FXR agonists (e.g. OCA, CDCA, and INT-767) activate FXR in hepatocytes and enterocytes as well and therefore beneficial effects of FXR agonism may be explained by concerted action of both hepatic and enteric FXR stimulation. Thus, beneficial effects of steroidal FXR agonism likely result from reduction of bile acid pool size along with stimulation of (bile acid-independent) bile flow. Non-steroidal FXR agonists, such as fexaramine, GW4064, PX-102, or various derivatives, are currently being developed and tested by different companies and may have different tissue selectivity and metabolic effects. Interestingly, when FXR was selectively overexpressed in the intestine of various mouse models of intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholestasis (i.e. bile duct ligation, α-naphthyl isothiocyanate treatment, and Mdr2 knockout mice), bile acid pool size was substantially reduced and cholestasis improved in these models³⁷. Similarly, the gut-restricted non-steroidal FXR agonist fexaramine robustly induces intestinal FGF15 without any hepatic FXR agonistic effects and significantly reduces serum bile acid levels, at least in a model of diet-induced obesity³⁸. This suggests that potentially ileal FXR stimulation alone may be sufficient to counteract cholestasis. However, comparable experiments, where only hepatic FXR is activated, have not been performed to further dissect ileal and hepatic requirements of anticholestatic effects. Therefore, from animal experiments, it is not entirely conclusive which FXR, ileal or hepatocyte or both, is required to target and if the effects of FXR activation are more dependent on stimulation/restoration of (bile acid-independent) bile flow or repression of bile acid synthesis and pool size or both.

In a human clinical phase II trial with PBC patients, OCA treatment showed significant improvement of alkaline phosphatase (AP) as the main readout marker of cholestasis³⁹. Clinically, the major side effect was dose-dependent pruritus, and biochemically an unfavorable trend in the cholesterol profile with decreased high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol was observed³⁹. The impact of OCA on cholesterol metabolism was even more pronounced in another clinical phase II trial in obese patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) as the disease target, where not only HDL cholesterol decreased but also LDL cholesterol increased⁴⁰. Generally, the atherogenic lipid profile of OCA is less a concern in PBC patients, while it requires further evaluation in NAFLD patients with increased cardiovascular risk. It is important to note that in the PBC study, participants comprised only patients who did not respond adequately to their standard of care treatment with UDCA and thus were expected to progress with cholestatic liver disease over time. OCA improved laboratory-based clinical scoring parameters in a significant portion of patients to levels associated with normalization of prognosis³⁹. However, in total only 7% of patients completely normalized their AP levels, which might alternatively be explained by direct FXR-induced AP transcription rather than disease-related AP origin^40,41. Also, the study’s duration was only 3 months and biopsies for histological correlation were not taken. From a mechanistic point of view, OCA treatment increased FGF19 serum levels and decreased 4-cholesten-3-one (C4) bile acid precursors and endogenous BA plasma levels³⁹, underscoring the ability of FXR agonists to reduce bile acid pool size. Apparently, data on bile flow, choleresis, and bicarbonate-rich flow were not determinable in human clinical trials. The beneficial effects of OCA in PBC patients are confirmed in larger long-term studies over 12 months, including a long-term extension study^42,43. Currently, further trials in PBC and PSC are underway to study the long-term effects of OCA and more clearly evaluate OCA’s effects on lipid profiles.

FGF19 mimetics. FGF19 is an endocrine hormone predominantly produced in the ileum, which very efficiently suppresses hepatic bile acid synthesis¹⁴. In contrast to rodents, human FGF19 is also expressed in liver tissue and gallbladder epithelium under cholestatic conditions and positively correlates with disease severity^44,45. It is assumed that hepatic and biliary FGF19 supports endogenous bile acid suppression in cholestasis via autocrine and paracrine mechanisms⁴⁵. Part of the beneficial effects of FXR agonists in cholestasis may be attributed to FXR-dependent induction of FGF19, and selective activation of FXR in the intestine even suggests that induction of ileal FGF19 may sufficiently treat cholestasis³⁷. This has led to trials explicitly testing FGF19 in cholestatic models. The potential tumorigenic effects of endogenous FGF19 have been overcome by novel engineered FGF19 mimetics which lack the proliferative potency of their endogenous mother compounds^46–48. In bile duct-ligated and α-naphthyl isothiocyanate-treated mouse models of cholestasis, endogenous as well as non-tumorigenic FGF19 mimetics significantly suppress Cyp7a1 and total bile acid pools, resulting in markedly reduced liver injury⁴⁶. Similar effects were achieved in the Mdr2 knockout mouse model where FGF19 mimetics reversed fully developed liver injury, biliary fibrosis, and even cholecystolithiasis⁴⁹. In a phase I trial in human volunteers, FGF19 mimetics resulted in a 95% reduction of C4 bile acid precursor levels indicative of robust suppression of endogenous bile acid synthesis without showing apparent side effects⁴⁶. In a very recent phase II clinical trial in PBC patients unresponsive to UDCA treatment, FGF19 mimetics also robustly decreased C4 and slightly decreased total bile acid levels along with showing a significant reduction of AP levels. Main side effects, which overall were mild, included diarrhea, headache, and nausea⁵⁰. Besides its effects on bile acid metabolism, FGF19 has major metabolic effects on carbohydrate and lipid metabolism⁵¹ and is therefore also regarded as a pharmacological approach to treat the metabolic syndrome and primary bile acid diarrhea^52–55.

ASBT inhibitors. ASBT maintains the enterohepatic circulation of bile acids by efficiently taking up 95% of bile acids from the intestine and preventing their fecal loss. ASBT knockout mice have a 20- to 30-fold increased fecal bile acid loss, which cannot be compensated by increased bile acid synthesis. These mice, therefore, have robustly reduced bile acid pool sizes by 80% despite significantly repressed FGF19 and increased Cyp7a1 activity^56,57. Spillover of bile acids into the colon may cause bile acid-induced diarrhea, an effect which can be utilized in treating constipation but may also have malignant potential for colorectal cancer development^58,59. Since ASBT knockout mice exhibit an increased cholesterol turnover, blocking ASBT also has a major impact on lipid metabolism and metabolic disorders⁵⁷. In the cholestatic Mdr2 knockout mouse model, ASBT inhibitors effectively decrease bile acid pool size, biliary bile acid concentrations, and bile flow, which results in significant improvement of liver injury and biliary fibrosis^60,61. In a human phase I trial with healthy volunteers, ASBT inhibitors reduced total serum bile acids by almost 50% along with increased fecal bile acid excretion. FGF19 was decreased and C4 bile acid precursor levels increased but could not compensate for fecal bile acid loss⁶². Conceptually, comparable effects on bile acid metabolism would be expected by treatment with (unspecific) bile acid sequestrants such as cholestyramine or colesevelam. However, side effects such as bloating, constipation, and sequestering of lipophilic vitamins limit their application⁶³. Interestingly, resin-bound bile acids appear to activate colonic TGR5⁶⁴, while unbound colonic bile acids spilled over by ASBT inhibitors did not induce TGR5 signaling⁶¹. Besides direct effects on bile acid metabolism, ASBT-induced spillover of bile acids into the colon may significantly affect the gut microbiome^65,66 with potential secondary effects on cholestatic liver disease. These effects would be expected to be less apparent with resin-bound bile acids. Future clinical trials with ASBT inhibitors in patients with cholestasis are currently underway.

What else is in the pipeline? Several other molecular targets with more or less well-defined modes of action and anticholestatic properties are currently being investigated. Among the most promising pharmacological options are PPARα ligands, which have shown clinical improvements in PBC patients in small clinical trials and await confirmation in larger multicenter trials²⁴. Mechanistically, PPARα ligands (i.e. fibrates) increase MDR3 expression and insertion into the canalicular membrane of hepatocytes and thereby stimulate biliary phospholipid secretion, rendering bile less aggressive^67–69. This bile duct protective effect is further supported by reduction of bile acid synthesis (via CYP7A1 and CYP27A1), induction of bile acid detoxification (via CYP3A4)⁶⁷, and anti-inflammatory properties⁷⁰. Also, the glucocorticoid receptor is a putative target in the treatment of cholestasis, since budesonide in combination with UDCA stimulates activity of the Cl^-/HCO₃^- exchanger AE2, thereby promoting bicarbonate-rich choleresis⁷¹. Other interesting molecular targets comprise the membrane-located bile acid receptor TGR5, the xenobiotic receptor pregnane X receptor, or the vitamin D receptor. The reader is referred to recent reviews for a detailed overview on these pharmacological anticholestatic drug targets²⁴. Some of the hereditary cholestatic disorders are caused by mutations resulting in mistargeting of misfolded bile acid transporters to their intended subcellular location. Chemical chaperones have been shown to improve targeting of misfolded ATP8B1, MDR3, and BSEP transporters in vitro but also in vivo and may provide a pharmacological treatment option for specific hereditary mutations^72–75.

Summary and outlook

Recent understandings of the molecular mechanisms of bile formation and the enterohepatic circulation have revealed new molecular targets for treating cholestasis. Conceptually, the most promising drugs either stimulate bile flow as their main principle of action or decrease bile acid pool size. Both strategies decrease cholestatic injury in animal models and also appear to translate their observed effects into human clinical trials. However, from what we have learned from the clinical trials so far, there will still remain a substantial percentage of patients who will not completely respond to novel treatment regimes. From a teleological point of view, it therefore would make sense to combine drugs which are choleretic and target impaired bile flow with drugs that reduce bile acid accumulation and decrease bile acid pool size to maximize overall anticholestatic effects. Perhaps the prototypical compounds are the new FXR ligands, which appear to combine both effects, substantial suppression of bile acid synthesis and increasing bile acid-independent bile flow. Future strategies which combine the effects of the most powerful drugs to induce bicarbonate-rich choleresis, such as NorUDCA, with the most powerful drugs to suppress bile acid pool size, such as FGF19 mimetics or ASBT inhibitors, may therefore have real potential to heal cholestasis. Notably, several of these approaches also have profound anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory actions, which may be instrumental in treating immune-mediated cholangiopathies. Surgical treatment strategies in severely cholestatic children with hereditary cholestatic defects also suggest that total biliary diversion might be a treatment option to avoid liver transplantation⁷⁶. However, surgery is complex and post-surgical complications can occur. Notably, some of these pharmacological approaches can be combined. As such, combination of ASBT inhibitors with FGF19 agonists may be a therapeutic way to pharmacologically mimic total biliary diversion and thus provide another rationale to combine new anticholestatic drugs to eventually heal cholestasis.

Abbreviations

AE2, anion exchanger 2; AP, alkaline phosphatase; ASBT, apical sodium-dependent bile acid transporter; C4, 4-cholesten-3-one; CA, cholic acid; CDCA, chenodeoxycholic acid; CFTR, cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator; CYP3A4, cytochrome p450 3A4; CYP7A1, cholesterol 7-alpha hydroxylase; DCA, deoxycholic acid; FGF19, fibroblast growth factor 19; FXR, farnesoid X receptor; LCA, lithocholic acid; MDR3, multidrug resistance protein 3, MRP2-4, multidrug resistance-associated protein 2–4; NAFLD, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; NTCP, sodium taurocholate cotransporting polypeptide; OCA, obeticholic acid; OSTα/β, organic solute transporter α/β; PBC, primary biliary cholangitis; PSC, primary sclerosing cholangitis; SHP, short heterodimer partner 1; TGR5, G-protein-coupled bile acid receptor 1; UDCA, ursodeoxycholic acid.

Competing interests

Michael Trauner has received research support by Albireo, Intercept, and Falk and is listed as co-inventor on a patent on the medical use of NorUDCA. He has received advisory board fees from Abbvie, Albireo, Intercept, Falk, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, and Phenex and lecture fees from Abbvie, BMS, Falk, and Gilead. Martin Wagner has received advisory board fees from Intercept.

Grant information

This work was supported by grants F3008-B19 and F3517-B20 (to Michael Trauner) from the Austrian Science Foundation.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

1. Hirschfield GM: Genetic determinants of cholestasis. Clin Liver Dis. 2013; 17(2): 147–59. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Monte MJ, Marin JJ, Antelo A, et al.: Bile acids: chemistry, physiology, and pathophysiology. World J Gastroenterol. 2009; 15(7): 804–16. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
3. Gomez-Ospina N, Potter CJ, Xiao R, et al.: Mutations in the nuclear bile acid receptor FXR cause progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis. Nat Commun. 2016; 7: 10713. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
4. Vaz FM, Paulusma CC, Huidekoper H, et al.: Sodium taurocholate cotransporting polypeptide (SLC10A1) deficiency: conjugated hypercholanemia without a clear clinical phenotype. Hepatology. 2015; 61(1): 260–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
5. Poupon R, Ping C, Chrétien Y, et al.: Genetic factors of susceptibility and of severity in primary biliary cirrhosis. J Hepatol. 2008; 49(6): 1038–45. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
6. Sambrotta M, Strautnieks S, Papouli E, et al.: Mutations in TJP2 cause progressive cholestatic liver disease. Nat Genet. 2014; 46(4): 326–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
7. Geier A, Fickert P, Trauner M: Mechanisms of disease: mechanisms and clinical implications of cholestasis in sepsis. Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006; 3(10): 574–85. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Russell DW: The enzymes, regulation, and genetics of bile acid synthesis. Annu Rev Biochem. 2003; 72: 137–74. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
9. Wagner M, Zollner G, Trauner M: New molecular insights into the mechanisms of cholestasis. J Hepatol. 2009; 51(3): 565–80. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
10. Thomas C, Pellicciari R, Pruzanski M, et al.: Targeting bile-acid signalling for metabolic diseases. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2008; 7(8): 678–93. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
11. Boyer JL: Bile formation and secretion. Compr Physiol. 2013; 3(3): 1035–78. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
12. Beuers U, Maroni L, Elferink RO: The biliary HCO(3)(-) umbrella: experimental evidence revisited. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2012; 28(3): 253–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
13. Trauner M, Wagner M, Fickert P, et al.: Molecular regulation of hepatobiliary transport systems: clinical implications for understanding and treating cholestasis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2005; 39(4 Suppl 2): S111–24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
14. Inagaki T, Choi M, Moschetta A, et al.: Fibroblast growth factor 15 functions as an enterohepatic signal to regulate bile acid homeostasis. Cell Metab. 2005; 2(4): 217–25. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
15. Pandak WM, Li YC, Chiang JY, et al.: Regulation of cholesterol 7 alpha-hydroxylase mRNA and transcriptional activity by taurocholate and cholesterol in the chronic biliary diverted rat. J Biol Chem. 1991; 266(6): 3416–21. PubMed Abstract
16. Matsubara T, Li F, Gonzalez FJ: FXR signaling in the enterohepatic system. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2013; 368(1–2): 17–29. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
17. Lefebvre P, Cariou B, Lien F, et al.: Role of bile acids and bile acid receptors in metabolic regulation. Physiol Rev. 2009; 89(1): 147–91. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. Wang L, Lee YK, Bundman D, et al.: Redundant pathways for negative feedback regulation of bile acid production. Dev Cell. 2002; 2(6): 721–31. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
19. Bookout AL, Jeong Y, Downes M, et al.: Anatomical profiling of nuclear receptor expression reveals a hierarchical transcriptional network. Cell. 2006; 126(4): 789–99. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
20. Moschetta A, Bookout AL, Mangelsdorf DJ: Prevention of cholesterol gallstone disease by FXR agonists in a mouse model. Nat Med. 2004; 10(12): 1352–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
21. Wang YD, Chen WD, Wang M, et al.: Farnesoid X receptor antagonizes nuclear factor kappaB in hepatic inflammatory response. Hepatology. 2008; 48(5): 1632–43. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
22. Wagner M, Zollner G, Trauner M: Nuclear bile acid receptor farnesoid X receptor meets nuclear factor-kappaB: new insights into hepatic inflammation. Hepatology. 2008; 48(5): 1383–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
23. Zhang H, Liu Y, Bian Z, et al.: The critical role of myeloid-derived suppressor cells and FXR activation in immune-mediated liver injury. J Autoimmun. 2014; 53: 55–66. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
24. Beuers U, Trauner M, Jansen P, et al.: New paradigms in the treatment of hepatic cholestasis: from UDCA to FXR, PXR and beyond. J Hepatol. 2015; 62(1 Suppl): S25–37. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
25. Lindor KD, Gershwin ME, Poupon R, et al.: Primary biliary cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2009; 50(1): 291–308. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
26. Poropat G, Giljaca V, Stimac D, et al.: Bile acids for primary sclerosing cholangitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; (1): CD003626. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
27. Yoon YB, Hagey LR, Hofmann AF, et al.: Effect of side-chain shortening on the physiologic properties of bile acids: hepatic transport and effect on biliary secretion of 23-nor-ursodeoxycholate in rodents. Gastroenterology. 1986; 90(4): 837–52. PubMed Abstract
28. Fickert P, Wagner M, Marschall HU, et al.: 24-norUrsodeoxycholic acid is superior to ursodeoxycholic acid in the treatment of sclerosing cholangitis in Mdr2 (Abcb4) knockout mice. Gastroenterology. 2006; 130(2): 465–81. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
29. Halilbasic E, Fiorotto R, Fickert P, et al.: Side chain structure determines unique physiologic and therapeutic properties of norursodeoxycholic acid in Mdr2^-/- mice. Hepatology. 2009; 49(6): 1972–81. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
30. Moustafa T, Fickert P, Magnes C, et al.: Alterations in lipid metabolism mediate inflammation, fibrosis, and proliferation in a mouse model of chronic cholestatic liver injury. Gastroenterology. 2012; 142(1): 140–151.e12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
31. Fickert P, Pollheimer MJ, Silbert D, et al.: Differential effects of norUDCA and UDCA in obstructive cholestasis in mice. J Hepatol. 2013; 58(6): 1201–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
32. Trauner M, Halilbasic E, Claudel T, et al.: Potential of nor-Ursodeoxycholic Acid in Cholestatic and Metabolic Disorders. Dig Dis. 2015; 33(3): 433–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
33. Pellicciari R, Fiorucci S, Camaioni E, et al.: 6alpha-ethyl-chenodeoxycholic acid (6-ECDCA), a potent and selective FXR agonist endowed with anticholestatic activity. J Med Chem. 2002; 45(17): 3569–72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
34. Fiorucci S, Clerici C, Antonelli E, et al.: Protective effects of 6-ethyl chenodeoxycholic acid, a farnesoid X receptor ligand, in estrogen-induced cholestasis. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2005; 313(2): 604–12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
35. Baghdasaryan A, Claudel T, Gumhold J, et al.: Dual farnesoid X receptor/TGR5 agonist INT-767 reduces liver injury in the Mdr2^-/- (Abcb4^-/-) mouse cholangiopathy model by promoting biliary HCO^-₃ output. Hepatology. 2011; 54(4): 1303–12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
36. Liu Y, Binz J, Numerick MJ, et al.: Hepatoprotection by the farnesoid X receptor agonist GW4064 in rat models of intra- and extrahepatic cholestasis. J Clin Invest. 2003; 112(11): 1678–87. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
37. Modica S, Petruzzelli M, Bellafante E, et al.: Selective activation of nuclear bile acid receptor FXR in the intestine protects mice against cholestasis. Gastroenterology. 2012; 142(2): 355–65.e1–4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
38. Fang S, Suh JM, Reilly SM, et al.: Intestinal FXR agonism promotes adipose tissue browning and reduces obesity and insulin resistance. Nat Med. 2015; 21(2): 159–65. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
39. Hirschfield GM, Mason A, Luketic V, et al.: Efficacy of obeticholic acid in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis and inadequate response to ursodeoxycholic acid. Gastroenterology. 2015; 148(4): 751–61.e8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
40. Neuschwander-Tetri BA, Loomba R, Sanyal AJ, et al.: Farnesoid X nuclear receptor ligand obeticholic acid for non-cirrhotic, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (FLINT): a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2015; 385(9972): 956–65. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
41. Neuschwander-Tetri BA: Targeting the FXR nuclear receptor to treat liver disease. Gastroenterology. 2015; 148(4): 704–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
42. Nevens F, Andreone P, Mazzella G, et al.: O168 the first primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) phase 3 trial in two decades – an international study of the FXR agonist obeticholic acid in PBC patients. J Hepatol. 2014; 60(1): S525–S526. Publisher Full Text
43. Trauner M, Nevens F, Andreone P, et al.: Sustained improvement in the markers of cholestasis in an open label long term safety extension study of obeticholic acid in primary biliary cirrhosis patients. Hepatology. 2015; 62: 511A (Abstract). Reference Source
44. Wunsch E, Milkiewicz M, Wasik U, et al.: Expression of hepatic Fibroblast Growth Factor 19 is enhanced in Primary Biliary Cirrhosis and correlates with severity of the disease. Sci Rep. 2015; 5: 13462. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
45. Zweers SJ, Booij KA, Komuta M, et al.: The human gallbladder secretes fibroblast growth factor 19 into bile: towards defining the role of fibroblast growth factor 19 in the enterobiliary tract. Hepatology. 2012; 55(2): 575–83. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
46. Luo J, Ko B, Elliott M, et al.: A nontumorigenic variant of FGF19 treats cholestatic liver diseases. Sci Transl Med. 2014; 6(247): 247ra100. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
47. Nicholes K, Guillet S, Tomlinson E, et al.: A mouse model of hepatocellular carcinoma: ectopic expression of fibroblast growth factor 19 in skeletal muscle of transgenic mice. Am J Pathol. 2002; 160(6): 2295–307. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
48. Sawey ET, Chanrion M, Cai C, et al.: Identification of a therapeutic strategy targeting amplified FGF19 in liver cancer by Oncogenomic screening. Cancer Cell. 2011; 19(3): 347–58. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
49. Zhou M, Learned RM, Rossi SJ, et al.: Engineered fibroblast growth factor 19 reduces liver injury and resolves sclerosing cholangitis in Mdr2-deficient mice. Hepatology. 2016; 63(3): 914–29. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
50. Mayo MJ, Roberts SK, Arnold H, et al.: NGM282, A Novel Variant of FGF-19, Demonstrates Biologic Activity in Primary Biliary Cirrhosis Patients with an Incomplete Response to Ursodeoxycholic Acid: Results of a Phase 2 Multicenter, Randomized, Double Blinded, Placebo Controlled Trial. Hepatology. 2015; 62(Suppl. 1): 263A (Abstract). Reference Source
51. Kir S, Beddow SA, Samuel VT, et al.: FGF19 as a postprandial, insulin-independent activator of hepatic protein and glycogen synthesis. Science. 2011; 331(6024): 1621–4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
52. Walters JR, Tasleem AM, Omer OS, et al.: A new mechanism for bile acid diarrhea: defective feedback inhibition of bile acid biosynthesis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009; 7(11): 1189–94. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
53. Walters JR: Bile acid diarrhoea and FGF19: new views on diagnosis, pathogenesis and therapy. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014; 11(7): 426–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
54. Owen BM, Mangelsdorf DJ, Kliewer SA: Tissue-specific actions of the metabolic hormones FGF15/19 and FGF21. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2015; 26(1): 22–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
55. Rysz J, Gluba-Brzózka A, Mikhailidis DP, et al.: Fibroblast growth factor 19-targeted therapies for the treatment of metabolic disease. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2015; 24(5): 603–10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
56. 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(36): 33920–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
57. Lundåsen T, Andersson EM, Snaith M, et al.: Inhibition of intestinal bile acid transporter Slc10a2 improves triglyceride metabolism and normalizes elevated plasma glucose levels in mice. PLoS One. 2012; 7(5): e37787. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
58. Trivedi PJ, Ward S: Altered bile acid pool using IBAT inhibitors for constipation: a potentially increased risk of malignancy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012; 107(1): 140; author reply 140–1. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
59. Raufman JP, Dawson PA, Rao A, et al.: Slc10a2-null mice uncover colon cancer-promoting actions of endogenous fecal bile acids. Carcinogenesis. 2015; 36(10): 1193–200. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
60. Miethke AG, Zhang W, Simmons J, et al.: Pharmacological inhibition of apical sodium-dependent bile acid transporter changes bile composition and blocks progression of sclerosing cholangitis in multidrug resistance 2 knockout mice. Hepatology. 2016; 63(2): 512–23. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
61. Baghdasaryan A, Fuchs CD, Österreicher CH, et al.: Inhibition of intestinal bile acid absorption improves cholestatic liver and bile duct injury in a mouse model of sclerosing cholangitis. J Hepatol. 2016; 64(3): 674–81. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
62. Marschall HU, Gillberg P, Graffner H, et al.: The ileal bile acid transporter inhibitor A4250 modulates bile acid synthesis and decreases serum bile acids. Hepatology. 2015; 62: 612A (Abstract).
63. Jacobson TA, Armani A, McKenney JM, et al.: Safety considerations with gastrointestinally active lipid-lowering drugs. Am J Cardiol. 2007; 99(6A): 47C–55C. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
64. Harach T, Pols TW, Nomura M, et al.: TGR5 potentiates GLP-1 secretion in response to anionic exchange resins. Sci Rep. 2012; 2: 430. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
65. Inagaki T, Moschetta A, Lee Y, et al.: Regulation of antibacterial defense in the small intestine by the nuclear bile acid receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006; 103(10): 3920–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
66. Fouts DE, Torralba M, Nelson KE, et al.: Bacterial translocation and changes in the intestinal microbiome in mouse models of liver disease. J Hepatol. 2012; 56(6): 1283–92. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
67. Honda A, Ikegami T, Nakamuta M, et al.: Anticholestatic effects of bezafibrate in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis treated with ursodeoxycholic acid. Hepatology. 2013; 57(5): 1931–41. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
68. Kok T, Bloks VW, Wolters H, et al.: Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARalpha)-mediated regulation of multidrug resistance 2 (Mdr2) expression and function in mice. Biochem J. 2003; 369(Pt 3): 539–47. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
69. Shoda J, Inada Y, Tsuji A, et al.: Bezafibrate stimulates canalicular localization of NBD-labeled PC in HepG₂ cells by PPARalpha-mediated redistribution of ABCB₄. J Lipid Res. 2004; 45(10): 1813–25. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
70. Wagner M, Zollner G, Trauner M: Nuclear receptors in liver disease. Hepatology. 2011; 53(3): 1023–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
71. Arenas F, Hervias I, Uriz M, et al.: Combination of ursodeoxycholic acid and glucocorticoids upregulates the AE2 alternate promoter in human liver cells. J Clin Invest. 2008; 118(2): 695–709. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
72. Gonzales E, Grosse B, Schuller B, et al.: Targeted pharmacotherapy in progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis type 2: Evidence for improvement of cholestasis with 4-phenylbutyrate. Hepatology. 2015; 62(2): 558–66. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
73. Gonzales E, Grosse B, Cassio D, et al.: Successful mutation-specific chaperone therapy with 4-phenylbutyrate in a child with progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis type 2. J Hepatol. 2012; 57(3): 695–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
74. Gautherot J, Durand-Schneider A, Delautier D, et al.: Effects of cellular, chemical, and pharmacological chaperones on the rescue of a trafficking-defective mutant of the ATP-binding cassette transporter proteins ABCB₁/ABCB₄. J Biol Chem. 2012; 287(7): 5070–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
75. van der Velden LM, Lieke JM, Stapelbroek JM, et al.: Folding defects in P-type ATP 8B1 associated with hereditary cholestasis are ameliorated by 4-phenylbutyrate. Hepatology. 2010; 51(1): 286–96. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
76. van der Woerd WL, Kokke FT, van der Zee DC, et al.: Total biliary diversion as a treatment option for patients with progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis and Alagille syndrome. J Pediatr Surg. 2015; 50(11): 1846–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 19 Apr 2016

Author details Author details

¹ Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria
² Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Wien, Austria

Competing interests

Michael Trauner has received research support by Albireo, Intercept, and Falk and is listed as co-inventor on a patent on the medical use of NorUDCA. He has received advisory board fees from Abbvie, Albireo, Intercept, Falk, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, and Phenex and lecture fees from Abbvie, BMS, Falk, and Gilead. Martin Wagner has received advisory board fees from Intercept.

Grant information

This work was supported by grants F3008-B19 and F3517-B20 (to Michael Trauner) from the Austrian Science Foundation.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 19 Apr 2016, 5:705

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8012.1

Copyright

© 2016 Wagner M and Trauner M. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Wagner M and Trauner M. Recent advances in understanding and managing cholestasis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved] F1000Research 2016, 5(F1000 Faculty Rev):705 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8012.1)

NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 19 Apr 2016

Views

13

Reviewer Report 19 Apr 2016

Saul J. Karpen, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, 30307, USA

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.8621.r13473

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an ... Continue reading

Competing Interests: Saul Karpen is an unpaid consultant for Intercept Pharmaceuticals.

Faculty Reviews are commissioned and written by members of the prestigious Faculty Opinions Faculty, and are edited as a service to our readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, we seek the reviewers’ input before publication. The reviewers’ names and any additional comments they may have are published alongside the review, as is usual on F1000Research.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

14

Reviewer Report 19 Apr 2016

Keith Lindor, College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85281, USA

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.8621.r13474

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an ... Continue reading

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Faculty Reviews are commissioned and written by members of the prestigious Faculty Opinions Faculty, and are edited as a service to our readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, we seek the reviewers’ input before publication. The reviewers’ names and any additional comments they may have are published alongside the review, as is usual on F1000Research.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 19 Apr 2016

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 1 19 Apr 16	read	read

Keith Lindor, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA
Saul J. Karpen, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, USA

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

13 Views

19 Apr 2016 | for Version 1

Saul J. Karpen, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, 30307, USA

13 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Competing Interests

Saul Karpen is an unpaid consultant for Intercept Pharmaceuticals.

Faculty Reviews are commissioned and written by members of the prestigious Faculty Opinions Faculty, and are edited as a service to our readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, we seek the reviewers’ input before publication. The reviewers’ names and any additional comments they may have are published alongside the review, as is usual on F1000Research.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

14 Views

19 Apr 2016 | for Version 1

Keith Lindor, College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85281, USA

14 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Faculty Reviews are commissioned and written by members of the prestigious Faculty Opinions Faculty, and are edited as a service to our readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, we seek the reviewers’ input before publication. The reviewers’ names and any additional comments they may have are published alongside the review, as is usual on F1000Research.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] 1. Hirschfield GM: Genetic determinants of cholestasis. Clin Liver Dis. 2013; 17(2): 147–59. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. Monte MJ, Marin JJ, Antelo A, et al.: Bile acids: chemistry, physiology, and pathophysiology. World J Gastroenterol. 2009; 15(7): 804–16. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[3] 3. Gomez-Ospina N, Potter CJ, Xiao R, et al.: Mutations in the nuclear bile acid receptor FXR cause progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis. Nat Commun. 2016; 7: 10713. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[4] 4. Vaz FM, Paulusma CC, Huidekoper H, et al.: Sodium taurocholate cotransporting polypeptide (SLC10A1) deficiency: conjugated hypercholanemia without a clear clinical phenotype. Hepatology. 2015; 61(1): 260–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[5] 5. Poupon R, Ping C, Chrétien Y, et al.: Genetic factors of susceptibility and of severity in primary biliary cirrhosis. J Hepatol. 2008; 49(6): 1038–45. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[6] 6. Sambrotta M, Strautnieks S, Papouli E, et al.: Mutations in TJP2 cause progressive cholestatic liver disease. Nat Genet. 2014; 46(4): 326–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[7] 7. Geier A, Fickert P, Trauner M: Mechanisms of disease: mechanisms and clinical implications of cholestasis in sepsis. Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006; 3(10): 574–85. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Russell DW: The enzymes, regulation, and genetics of bile acid synthesis. Annu Rev Biochem. 2003; 72: 137–74. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Wagner M, Zollner G, Trauner M: New molecular insights into the mechanisms of cholestasis. J Hepatol. 2009; 51(3): 565–80. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Thomas C, Pellicciari R, Pruzanski M, et al.: Targeting bile-acid signalling for metabolic diseases. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2008; 7(8): 678–93. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Boyer JL: Bile formation and secretion. Compr Physiol. 2013; 3(3): 1035–78. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[12] 12. Beuers U, Maroni L, Elferink RO: The biliary HCO(3)(-) umbrella: experimental evidence revisited. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2012; 28(3): 253–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Trauner M, Wagner M, Fickert P, et al.: Molecular regulation of hepatobiliary transport systems: clinical implications for understanding and treating cholestasis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2005; 39(4 Suppl 2): S111–24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Inagaki T, Choi M, Moschetta A, et al.: Fibroblast growth factor 15 functions as an enterohepatic signal to regulate bile acid homeostasis. Cell Metab. 2005; 2(4): 217–25. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[15] 15. Pandak WM, Li YC, Chiang JY, et al.: Regulation of cholesterol 7 alpha-hydroxylase mRNA and transcriptional activity by taurocholate and cholesterol in the chronic biliary diverted rat. J Biol Chem. 1991; 266(6): 3416–21. PubMed Abstract

[16] 16. Matsubara T, Li F, Gonzalez FJ: FXR signaling in the enterohepatic system. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2013; 368(1–2): 17–29. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[17] 17. Lefebvre P, Cariou B, Lien F, et al.: Role of bile acids and bile acid receptors in metabolic regulation. Physiol Rev. 2009; 89(1): 147–91. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Wang L, Lee YK, Bundman D, et al.: Redundant pathways for negative feedback regulation of bile acid production. Dev Cell. 2002; 2(6): 721–31. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Bookout AL, Jeong Y, Downes M, et al.: Anatomical profiling of nuclear receptor expression reveals a hierarchical transcriptional network. Cell. 2006; 126(4): 789–99. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[20] 20. Moschetta A, Bookout AL, Mangelsdorf DJ: Prevention of cholesterol gallstone disease by FXR agonists in a mouse model. Nat Med. 2004; 10(12): 1352–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[21] 21. Wang YD, Chen WD, Wang M, et al.: Farnesoid X receptor antagonizes nuclear factor kappaB in hepatic inflammatory response. Hepatology. 2008; 48(5): 1632–43. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[22] 22. Wagner M, Zollner G, Trauner M: Nuclear bile acid receptor farnesoid X receptor meets nuclear factor-kappaB: new insights into hepatic inflammation. Hepatology. 2008; 48(5): 1383–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Zhang H, Liu Y, Bian Z, et al.: The critical role of myeloid-derived suppressor cells and FXR activation in immune-mediated liver injury. J Autoimmun. 2014; 53: 55–66. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Beuers U, Trauner M, Jansen P, et al.: New paradigms in the treatment of hepatic cholestasis: from UDCA to FXR, PXR and beyond. J Hepatol. 2015; 62(1 Suppl): S25–37. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Lindor KD, Gershwin ME, Poupon R, et al.: Primary biliary cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2009; 50(1): 291–308. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[26] 26. Poropat G, Giljaca V, Stimac D, et al.: Bile acids for primary sclerosing cholangitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; (1): CD003626. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[27] 27. Yoon YB, Hagey LR, Hofmann AF, et al.: Effect of side-chain shortening on the physiologic properties of bile acids: hepatic transport and effect on biliary secretion of 23-nor-ursodeoxycholate in rodents. Gastroenterology. 1986; 90(4): 837–52. PubMed Abstract

[28] 28. Fickert P, Wagner M, Marschall HU, et al.: 24-norUrsodeoxycholic acid is superior to ursodeoxycholic acid in the treatment of sclerosing cholangitis in Mdr2 (Abcb4) knockout mice. Gastroenterology. 2006; 130(2): 465–81. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[29] 29. Halilbasic E, Fiorotto R, Fickert P, et al.: Side chain structure determines unique physiologic and therapeutic properties of norursodeoxycholic acid in Mdr2^-/- mice. Hepatology. 2009; 49(6): 1972–81. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[30] 30. Moustafa T, Fickert P, Magnes C, et al.: Alterations in lipid metabolism mediate inflammation, fibrosis, and proliferation in a mouse model of chronic cholestatic liver injury. Gastroenterology. 2012; 142(1): 140–151.e12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[31] 31. Fickert P, Pollheimer MJ, Silbert D, et al.: Differential effects of norUDCA and UDCA in obstructive cholestasis in mice. J Hepatol. 2013; 58(6): 1201–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[32] 32. Trauner M, Halilbasic E, Claudel T, et al.: Potential of nor-Ursodeoxycholic Acid in Cholestatic and Metabolic Disorders. Dig Dis. 2015; 33(3): 433–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[33] 33. Pellicciari R, Fiorucci S, Camaioni E, et al.: 6alpha-ethyl-chenodeoxycholic acid (6-ECDCA), a potent and selective FXR agonist endowed with anticholestatic activity. J Med Chem. 2002; 45(17): 3569–72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[34] 34. Fiorucci S, Clerici C, Antonelli E, et al.: Protective effects of 6-ethyl chenodeoxycholic acid, a farnesoid X receptor ligand, in estrogen-induced cholestasis. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2005; 313(2): 604–12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[35] 35. Baghdasaryan A, Claudel T, Gumhold J, et al.: Dual farnesoid X receptor/TGR5 agonist INT-767 reduces liver injury in the Mdr2^-/- (Abcb4^-/-) mouse cholangiopathy model by promoting biliary HCO^-₃ output. Hepatology. 2011; 54(4): 1303–12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[36] 36. Liu Y, Binz J, Numerick MJ, et al.: Hepatoprotection by the farnesoid X receptor agonist GW4064 in rat models of intra- and extrahepatic cholestasis. J Clin Invest. 2003; 112(11): 1678–87. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[37] 37. Modica S, Petruzzelli M, Bellafante E, et al.: Selective activation of nuclear bile acid receptor FXR in the intestine protects mice against cholestasis. Gastroenterology. 2012; 142(2): 355–65.e1–4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[38] 38. Fang S, Suh JM, Reilly SM, et al.: Intestinal FXR agonism promotes adipose tissue browning and reduces obesity and insulin resistance. Nat Med. 2015; 21(2): 159–65. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[39] 39. Hirschfield GM, Mason A, Luketic V, et al.: Efficacy of obeticholic acid in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis and inadequate response to ursodeoxycholic acid. Gastroenterology. 2015; 148(4): 751–61.e8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[40] 40. Neuschwander-Tetri BA, Loomba R, Sanyal AJ, et al.: Farnesoid X nuclear receptor ligand obeticholic acid for non-cirrhotic, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (FLINT): a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2015; 385(9972): 956–65. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[41] 41. Neuschwander-Tetri BA: Targeting the FXR nuclear receptor to treat liver disease. Gastroenterology. 2015; 148(4): 704–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[42] 42. Nevens F, Andreone P, Mazzella G, et al.: O168 the first primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) phase 3 trial in two decades – an international study of the FXR agonist obeticholic acid in PBC patients. J Hepatol. 2014; 60(1): S525–S526. Publisher Full Text

[43] 43. Trauner M, Nevens F, Andreone P, et al.: Sustained improvement in the markers of cholestasis in an open label long term safety extension study of obeticholic acid in primary biliary cirrhosis patients. Hepatology. 2015; 62: 511A (Abstract). Reference Source

[44] 44. Wunsch E, Milkiewicz M, Wasik U, et al.: Expression of hepatic Fibroblast Growth Factor 19 is enhanced in Primary Biliary Cirrhosis and correlates with severity of the disease. Sci Rep. 2015; 5: 13462. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[45] 45. Zweers SJ, Booij KA, Komuta M, et al.: The human gallbladder secretes fibroblast growth factor 19 into bile: towards defining the role of fibroblast growth factor 19 in the enterobiliary tract. Hepatology. 2012; 55(2): 575–83. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[46] 46. Luo J, Ko B, Elliott M, et al.: A nontumorigenic variant of FGF19 treats cholestatic liver diseases. Sci Transl Med. 2014; 6(247): 247ra100. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[47] 47. Nicholes K, Guillet S, Tomlinson E, et al.: A mouse model of hepatocellular carcinoma: ectopic expression of fibroblast growth factor 19 in skeletal muscle of transgenic mice. Am J Pathol. 2002; 160(6): 2295–307. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[48] 48. Sawey ET, Chanrion M, Cai C, et al.: Identification of a therapeutic strategy targeting amplified FGF19 in liver cancer by Oncogenomic screening. Cancer Cell. 2011; 19(3): 347–58. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[49] 49. Zhou M, Learned RM, Rossi SJ, et al.: Engineered fibroblast growth factor 19 reduces liver injury and resolves sclerosing cholangitis in Mdr2-deficient mice. Hepatology. 2016; 63(3): 914–29. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[50] 50. Mayo MJ, Roberts SK, Arnold H, et al.: NGM282, A Novel Variant of FGF-19, Demonstrates Biologic Activity in Primary Biliary Cirrhosis Patients with an Incomplete Response to Ursodeoxycholic Acid: Results of a Phase 2 Multicenter, Randomized, Double Blinded, Placebo Controlled Trial. Hepatology. 2015; 62(Suppl. 1): 263A (Abstract). Reference Source

[51] 51. Kir S, Beddow SA, Samuel VT, et al.: FGF19 as a postprandial, insulin-independent activator of hepatic protein and glycogen synthesis. Science. 2011; 331(6024): 1621–4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[52] 52. Walters JR, Tasleem AM, Omer OS, et al.: A new mechanism for bile acid diarrhea: defective feedback inhibition of bile acid biosynthesis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009; 7(11): 1189–94. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[53] 53. Walters JR: Bile acid diarrhoea and FGF19: new views on diagnosis, pathogenesis and therapy. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014; 11(7): 426–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[54] 54. Owen BM, Mangelsdorf DJ, Kliewer SA: Tissue-specific actions of the metabolic hormones FGF15/19 and FGF21. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2015; 26(1): 22–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[55] 55. Rysz J, Gluba-Brzózka A, Mikhailidis DP, et al.: Fibroblast growth factor 19-targeted therapies for the treatment of metabolic disease. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2015; 24(5): 603–10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[56] 56. 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(36): 33920–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[57] 57. Lundåsen T, Andersson EM, Snaith M, et al.: Inhibition of intestinal bile acid transporter Slc10a2 improves triglyceride metabolism and normalizes elevated plasma glucose levels in mice. PLoS One. 2012; 7(5): e37787. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[58] 58. Trivedi PJ, Ward S: Altered bile acid pool using IBAT inhibitors for constipation: a potentially increased risk of malignancy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012; 107(1): 140; author reply 140–1. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[59] 59. Raufman JP, Dawson PA, Rao A, et al.: Slc10a2-null mice uncover colon cancer-promoting actions of endogenous fecal bile acids. Carcinogenesis. 2015; 36(10): 1193–200. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[60] 60. Miethke AG, Zhang W, Simmons J, et al.: Pharmacological inhibition of apical sodium-dependent bile acid transporter changes bile composition and blocks progression of sclerosing cholangitis in multidrug resistance 2 knockout mice. Hepatology. 2016; 63(2): 512–23. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[61] 61. Baghdasaryan A, Fuchs CD, Österreicher CH, et al.: Inhibition of intestinal bile acid absorption improves cholestatic liver and bile duct injury in a mouse model of sclerosing cholangitis. J Hepatol. 2016; 64(3): 674–81. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[62] 62. Marschall HU, Gillberg P, Graffner H, et al.: The ileal bile acid transporter inhibitor A4250 modulates bile acid synthesis and decreases serum bile acids. Hepatology. 2015; 62: 612A (Abstract).

[63] 63. Jacobson TA, Armani A, McKenney JM, et al.: Safety considerations with gastrointestinally active lipid-lowering drugs. Am J Cardiol. 2007; 99(6A): 47C–55C. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[64] 64. Harach T, Pols TW, Nomura M, et al.: TGR5 potentiates GLP-1 secretion in response to anionic exchange resins. Sci Rep. 2012; 2: 430. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[65] 65. Inagaki T, Moschetta A, Lee Y, et al.: Regulation of antibacterial defense in the small intestine by the nuclear bile acid receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006; 103(10): 3920–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[66] 66. Fouts DE, Torralba M, Nelson KE, et al.: Bacterial translocation and changes in the intestinal microbiome in mouse models of liver disease. J Hepatol. 2012; 56(6): 1283–92. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[67] 67. Honda A, Ikegami T, Nakamuta M, et al.: Anticholestatic effects of bezafibrate in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis treated with ursodeoxycholic acid. Hepatology. 2013; 57(5): 1931–41. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[68] 68. Kok T, Bloks VW, Wolters H, et al.: Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARalpha)-mediated regulation of multidrug resistance 2 (Mdr2) expression and function in mice. Biochem J. 2003; 369(Pt 3): 539–47. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[69] 69. Shoda J, Inada Y, Tsuji A, et al.: Bezafibrate stimulates canalicular localization of NBD-labeled PC in HepG₂ cells by PPARalpha-mediated redistribution of ABCB₄. J Lipid Res. 2004; 45(10): 1813–25. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[70] 70. Wagner M, Zollner G, Trauner M: Nuclear receptors in liver disease. Hepatology. 2011; 53(3): 1023–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[71] 71. Arenas F, Hervias I, Uriz M, et al.: Combination of ursodeoxycholic acid and glucocorticoids upregulates the AE2 alternate promoter in human liver cells. J Clin Invest. 2008; 118(2): 695–709. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[72] 72. Gonzales E, Grosse B, Schuller B, et al.: Targeted pharmacotherapy in progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis type 2: Evidence for improvement of cholestasis with 4-phenylbutyrate. Hepatology. 2015; 62(2): 558–66. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[73] 73. Gonzales E, Grosse B, Cassio D, et al.: Successful mutation-specific chaperone therapy with 4-phenylbutyrate in a child with progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis type 2. J Hepatol. 2012; 57(3): 695–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[74] 74. Gautherot J, Durand-Schneider A, Delautier D, et al.: Effects of cellular, chemical, and pharmacological chaperones on the rescue of a trafficking-defective mutant of the ATP-binding cassette transporter proteins ABCB₁/ABCB₄. J Biol Chem. 2012; 287(7): 5070–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[75] 75. van der Velden LM, Lieke JM, Stapelbroek JM, et al.: Folding defects in P-type ATP 8B1 associated with hereditary cholestasis are ameliorated by 4-phenylbutyrate. Hepatology. 2010; 51(1): 286–96. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[76] 76. van der Woerd WL, Kokke FT, van der Zee DC, et al.: Total biliary diversion as a treatment option for patients with progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis and Alagille syndrome. J Pediatr Surg. 2015; 50(11): 1846–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Recent advances in understanding and managing cholestasis

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Figure 1. Principle anticholestatic mechanism of fibroblast growth factor 19 (FGF19) analogues, apical sodium-dependent bile acid transporter (ASBT) inhibitors, and farnesoid X receptor (FXR) agonists.

Enterohepatic circulation of bile acids

Bile acid receptor FXR

New concepts in treating cholestasis

Concepts to induce choleresis

Concepts to reduce bile acid pool size

Summary and outlook

Abbreviations

Competing interests

Grant information

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated