Socio-economic issues in the diagnostic approach and decision to treat of a child with familial cholestasis

Abstract

Objectives. The diagnostic approach in familial cholestasis cases involves using expensive investigations. The need for complex therapeutic resources is predictable. Material and methods. We present the case of a 3 years 5 months old boy diagnosed with cholestasis and liver cirrhosis, admitted in the Pediatrics Department of “Grigore Alexandrescu” Children’s Hospital for evaluation in order to check the criteria for liver transplantation. Outcomes. The patient is known to our clinic since he was 1 year 3 months; he was admitted at that time for green jaundice. He comes from a family with nine children, low socio-economic status and low education. The first four children have a different father, two of them were stillborn. The next five come from a consanguineous union (the father is maternal uncle of the mother): three (the patient included) presented with the same symptoms, two of them died before 3 years of age with liver cirrhosis. In time, infectious causes, autoimmune, neoplastic and metabolic disease were excluded. The liver biopsy describes cholestasis and fibrosis. Alagille syndrome and progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis are still debated, but the genetic testing necessary for a positive diagnosis are not financially available to the family. The patient presents with failure to thrive, developmental delay, intense jaundice and pruritus, hippocratic fingers, dyspnea, enlarged abdomen with visible collateral circulation, significant hepatosplenomegaly. The lab tests show anemia, thrombocytopenia, liver cytolysis, normal gamma-glutamyl transferase, low prothrombin activity, normal renal function, no inflammatory syndrome, increased ammonia level, very high bile acids level. The upper endoscopy describes first degree esophageal varices and portal hypertensive gastropathy. A PELD (Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease) score is calculated – 13.6 (76.3% one year survival rate on the transplant list, 90.9% one year survival rate after liver transplantation). The patient is enrolled on the transplant waiting list provided we would expect suboptimal results considering the developmental delay and difficult post-transplant monitoring. Conclusions. The low education level of the family correlated with a postponed positive diagnosis due to financial reasons and the lack of genetic advice already lead to the demise of four brothers. In this setting, the prognosis of the patient is very likely to be poor.