| Literature DB >> 22162992 |
Getnet Yimer1, Nobuhisa Ueda, Abiy Habtewold, Wondwossen Amogne, Akira Suda, Klaus-Dieter Riedel, Jürgen Burhenne, Getachew Aderaye, Lars Lindquist, Eyasu Makonnen, Eleni Aklillu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implication of pharmacogenetic variations and efavirenz pharmacokinetics in concomitant efavirenz based antiviral therapy and anti-tubercular drug induced liver injury (DILI) has not been yet studied. We performed a prospective case-control association study to identify the incidence, pharmacogenetic, pharmacokinetic and biochemical predictors for anti-tubercular and antiretroviral drugs induced liver injury (DILI) in HIV and tuberculosis (TB) co-infected patients. METHODS ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22162992 PMCID: PMC3232196 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027810
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Association of socio demographic parameters of study participants and type of therapy with DILI.
|
|
|
| ||
| Cases = 65) | Cases = 65) | |||
| Sex | 0.001 | |||
| Female (%) | 39 (60.0) | 148 (51.4) | ||
| Male (%) | 26 (40.0) | 140 (58.6) | 0.43 (0.26–0.71) | |
| Body mass index | 0.09 | |||
| < = 18.5 (%) | 37 (56.3) | 132 (45.8) | ||
| >18.5 (%) | 28 (43.8) | 156 (54.2) | 0.66 (0.40–1.07) | |
| Hepatitis C virus antibody | 0.49 | |||
| Positive (%) | 1 (1.5.0) | 4 (1.4%) | ||
| Negative (%) | 64 (98.5) | 284 (98.6) | 0.68 (0.62–0.73) | |
| Hepatitis B surface antigen | 0.79 | |||
| Positive (%) | 5 (7.7) | 28 (9.7) | ||
| Negative (%) | 60 (92.3) | 260 (90.7) | 1.1 (0.46–2.76) | |
| Marital status | 0.51 | |||
| Married (%) | 21 (32.3) | 106 (36.8) | ||
| Divorced (%) | 11 (16.7) | 43 (14.9) | ||
| Single (%) | 22 (34.4) | 107 (37.3) | ||
| Widowed (%) | 11 (16.7 | 31 (10.9) | ||
| Type of HAART | 0.69 | |||
| D4T30/3TC/EFV (%) | 26 (40.4) | 98 (34.1) | ||
| CBV/EFV (%) | 23 (34.8) | 114 (39.6) | ||
| TDF/3TC/EFV (%) | 16 (24.8) | 76 (26.4) | ||
Comparison of median and inter quartile range of pre-treatment biochemical variables, liver chemistry tests and efavirenz kinetics between TB/HIV co-infected patients who developed anti-TB and efavirenz based HAART induced sever liver injury and who did not using Cox regression analysis.
| Parameters | Anti TB and EFV based ART DILI | P | Exp(ß) | 95.0% CI for Exp(ß) | ||
| Yes | No | Lower | Upper | |||
| Log EFV (ng/mL) | 3.42 (3.04–3.71) | 3.12(2.99–3.30) | 0.004 | 4.568 | 1.610 | 12.965 |
| Log 8-OH EFV (ng/mL) | 2.00 (1.79–2.16) | 1.95 (1.79–2.25) | 0.65 | 0.768 | 0.240 | 2.453 |
| Log EFV MR | 1.44 (1.02–1.95) | 1.17 (0.88–1.49) | 0.012 | 2.45 | 1.214 | 4.954 |
| Hemoglobin | 10.8 (9.4–11.7) | 11.5 (10.0–12.9) | 0.008 | 0.877 | 0.796 | 9.666 |
| AST (U/L) | 71.0 (39–110) | 40.0 (32–61) | 0.022 | 1.012 | 1.002 | 1.023 |
| ALT (U/L) | 62.0 (39.0–111) | 42 (32–61) | 0.014 | 1.011 | 1.002 | 1.020 |
| ALP (U/L) | 158 (110–240) | 116 (91–159) | 0.124 | 1.002 | 0.999 | 1.004 |
| total bilirubin (µmol/L) | 0.49 (.30–.89) | 0.46 (.31–.87) | 0.972 | 0.991 | 0.609 | 1.614 |
| direct bilirubin (µmol/L) | 0.05 (.05–.24) | 0.05 (0.5–.19) | 0.182 | 2.456 | 0.657 | 9.180 |
| Serum albumin | 3.4 (2.9–3.9) | 3.7 (3.2–4.1) | 0.007 | 0.666 | 0.494 | 0.897 |
| Urea | 25.0 (20.0–31.0) | 27 (20–33) | 0.540 | 0.995 | 0.978 | 1.012 |
| serum creatinine µmol/L | 0.90 (.70–1.05) | 0.9 (.8–1.1) | 0.374 | 0.675 | 0.284 | 1.606 |
| CD4 count/mL | 75 (47–127) | 96 (50–137) | 0.073 | 0.996 | 0.992 | 1.000 |
| Log plasma viral load | 5.12 (4.26–5.64) | 5.03 (4.51–5.50) | 0.397 | 1.137 | 0.845 | 1.531 |
Figure 1Comparison efavirenz pharmacokinetics between DILI cases and controls: mean log transformed plasma efavirenz (ng/mL).
8-hydroxyefavirenz (ng/mL) and efavirenz/8-hydroxyefavirenz ratio (MR) was compared between patients who developed concomitant efavirenz-based HAART and rifampicin based anti-tubercular drugs induced liver injury (cases) and those who did not (controls).
Association of CYP2B6, CYP3A5, NAT2, UGT2B7, SLCO1B1 and ABCB1 genotype/haplotype genes with development of concomitant anti-TB and efavirenz based ART induced liver injury using cox regression analysis.
|
| Anti TB and EFV based ART DILI |
|
|
| ||
| Cases (n = 41) | Controls (n = 160) | Lower | Upper | |||
|
| ||||||
| GG | 16 (38.7%) | 79 (49.6%) | ||||
| GT | 19 (46.8%) | 66 (41.0%) | 0.07 | 2.339 | 0.917 | 5.969 |
| TT | 6 (14.5%) | 15 (9.4%) | 0.04 | 2.054 | 1.045 | 4.037 |
|
| ||||||
| CC | 29 (70.7%) | 99 (61.9%) | ||||
| CT | 7 (17.1%) | 55 (34.4%) | 0.38 | 0.593 | 0.183 | 1.928 |
| TT | 5 (12.2%) | 6 (3.8%) | 0.02 | 5.276 | 1.210 | 22.998 |
| Number of | ||||||
| Two | 2 (4.9%) | 9 (5.6%) | ||||
| 0ne | 17 (41.5%) | 50 (31.3%) | 0.67 | 0.673 | 0.317 | 5.936 |
| Zero | 22 (53.7%) | 101 (63.1%) | 0.93 | 0.944 | 0.222 | 4.014 |
|
| ||||||
| Slow | 31 (75.6%) | 107 (66.9%) | ||||
| Rapid | 10 (24.4%) | 53 (33.1%) | 0.039 | 0.377 | 0.15 | 0.95 |
|
| ||||||
| GG | 5 (12.2%) | 36 (22,5%) | ||||
| GA | 22 (53.7%) | 86 (53.8%) | 0.26 | 1.735 | 0.660 | 6.762 |
| AA | 14 (34.1%) | 38 (23.8%) | 0.08 | 1.735 | 0.657 | 4.583 |
|
| ||||||
| GG | 15 (36.6%) | 53 (33.1%) | ||||
| AG | 17 (41.5%) | 87 (54.4%) | 0.74 | .891 | 0.450 | 1.765 |
| AA | 9 (22.0%) | 20 (12.5%) | 0.38 | 1.464 | 0.0617 | 3.474 |
|
| ||||||
| TT | 27 (65.9%) | 107 (66.9%) | ||||
| TC | 13 (31.7%) | 49 (30.6%) | 0.67 | 1.153 | 0.599 | 2.220 |
| CC | 1 (2.4%) | 4 (2.5%) | 0.92 | .901 | 0.116 | 7.020 |
*see table 4 for detail NAT-2 allele and genotype frequency distribution.
Contrast analysis within each genotype group was done using one of the genotype as indicator reference. For the NAT2 genotypes, subjects were stratified into rapid (carrier of NAT2*4, *12 or *13) and slow (homozygous for NAT2*5, *6, *7 or combination there off) acetylators.
Frequency distribution of NAT2 genotype and alleles and deduced phenotype (according to the NAT-2 nomenclature; http://louisville.edu/medschool/pharmacology/NAT2.html) between patients who developed concomitant efavirenz based ARV and rifampicin based anti-tuberculosis drug induced liver injury (DILI Yes) and who did not (DILI No).
| NAT2 deduced phenotype |
| DILI | Total | |
| No | Yes | |||
|
| ||||
| Rapid |
| 2 (1.3%) | 0 | 2 |
|
| 2 (1.3%) | 0 | 2 | |
|
| 2 (1.3%) | 0 | 2 | |
|
| 3 (1.9%) | 0 | 3 | |
|
| 1 (0.6%) | 0 | 1 | |
|
| 6 (3.8%) | 2 (4.9%) | 8 | |
|
| 11 (6.9%) | 2 (4.9%) | 13 | |
|
| 15 (9.4%) | 3 (7.3%) | 17 | |
|
| 1 (0.6%) | 1 (2.4%) | 2 | |
|
| 9 (5.6%) | 0 (0) | 9 | |
|
| 1 (0.6%) | 2 (4.9%) | 3 | |
| Slow |
| 33 (20.6%) | 9 (22.0%) | 43 |
|
| 39 (24.4%) | 13 (31.7%) | 52 | |
|
| 8 (5.0%) | 1 (2.4%) | 9 | |
|
| 23 (14.4%) | 7 (17.1%) | 30 | |
|
| 4 (2.5%) | 1 (2.4%) | 5 | |
|
| ||||
| Rapid |
| 7,80% | 4,90% | 7,20% |
|
| 10,00% | 3,70% | 8,50% | |
|
| 1,90% | 3,70% | 2,20% | |
| Slow |
| 42,20% | 46,30% | 43,30% |
|
| 34,40% | 39,00% | 35,30% | |
|
| 3,80% | 2,40% | 3,50% | |