Public awareness of acetaminophen and risks of drug induced liver injury: Results of a large outpatient clinic survey.

Acetaminophen is one of the most commonly consumed analgesics world wide. Generally perceived as a safe medication, it is the most common cause of acute liver failure in the United States with inadvertent hepatotoxicity in half of all cases. We therefore conducted a survey on the public perceptions of acetaminophen in patients attending the outpatient clinic in Vancouver, Canada. Among 928 patients who were asked, 765 completed the survey questionnaire. The majority of respondents were female (59%), Caucasian (61%), and educated beyond the secondary school level (81%). 23% reported using acetaminophen at least once a week. A significant minority were unaware of the potential liver toxicity of acetaminophen (24%), and knowledge of hepatotoxicity did not vary with education status. In terms of the medicinal composition of acetaminophen products, over half of the respondents (58%) did not know that extra strength preparations of acetaminophen contained the same drug but in a different dose. This knowledge was more prevalent among those with higher level of education (49% in graduate school educated respondents), but was still low overall. The knowledge that alcohol use with acetaminophen was more harmful was low (43%), but improved with level of education (P for trend 0.03). Among respondents who consumed alcohol regularly, 21% were consuming over 1.5 grams of acetaminophen at a time. These patients had similar harm perception to liver as patients who consumed lower doses of acetaminophen. Overall, in a large, well-educated cohort of patients, knowledge about the adverse effects of acetaminophen, the additional risks with alcohol and composition of various retailed products was suboptimal. We speculate that consumer ignorance is a significant reason why acetaminophen is a leading cause of acute liver failure.

Introduction

Acetaminophen (APAP) is an over-the-counter analgesic/antipyretic widely used across the world. APAP has grown increasingly popular in North America since the early 1980s is now the most commonly used over-the-counter analgesic/antipyretic in the United States with over 28 billion doses distributed annually [1]. APAP is available over the counter (OTC) in several dosage formulations including 325 mg, 500 mg and 650 mg tablets/capsules and it is an ingredient of other combination products including prescription analgesics (in combination with opiate products) as well as other OTC “cold” products such as cough syrups. The retailing of APAP products is also ubiquitous. APAP products are sold in community pharmacies but also convenience stores, grocery stores, gas stations, hotel lobby gift shops etc with no restrictions on the quantity that can be purchased.

Despite APAP’s immense popularity and ubiquity as an analgesic agent, it is also a dose-related toxin[2]. APAP is generally safe when used at its manufacturer recommended dose of less than 4 grams per day[3]. Unfortunately, the therapeutic index of APAP is relatively narrow, and significant adverse effects commonly result from doses exceeding 10 grams in 24 hours[4]. The most common and feared adverse event of APAP overdose is hepatotoxicity and acute liver failure. In the 1990s APAP toxicity was thought to account for roughly 20% of all acute liver failure diagnoses[5]. This has concerningly increased over the past two decades, with recent data from a US longitudinal registry cohort study of acute liver failure (ALF) (defined as liver failure with the presence of hepatic encephalopathy, coagulopathy and no previous liver disease) reporting that APAP hepatotoxicity is the single most common cause of ALF in the United States occurring in 46% of reported cases with over half the cases of APAP being inadvertent[6]. In the UK and Europe, APAP has been implicated in 40–70% cases of acute liver failure[7]. ALF from APAP continues to carry a significant risk of mortality with transplant free survival between 2006 to 2013 reported as 75.6% in the United States[6].

Although intentional self-harm contributes to APAP toxicity, it has been consistently documented that accidental toxicity related to therapeutic use of APAP, commonly known as APAP “therapeutic misadventure”, is an extremely common mechanism of toxicity, especially when combined with alcohol[8]. Patients commonly underestimate the toxicity of APAP[9] especially in the setting of alcohol consumption, or fail to recognize when they are inadvertently taking more than one APAP-containing product[10]. It is unclear if this effect is less pronounced in patients with known liver disease who should theoretically be more aware of the hepatotoxic effects of APAP.

There is, therefore, a clear need for better patient education and possible regulatory action with respect to APAP. The current study aims to evaluate patient understanding of the hepatotoxic effects of APAP. This knowledge can be used as a bridge to improved patient education and possible future regulatory action around this issue.

Aims

The aim of this study was to assess patient understanding of APAP intake in a general gastroenterology outpatient clinic population. We specifically set out to

Quantify intake of regular and extra-strength APAP

Evaluate concurrent alcohol use patterns with APAP

Explore patient understanding of hepatoxic effects of APAP alone and combined with alcohol

Determine if patients understand the difference between the regular strength products and the extra strength products

Methods

Study population

We performed a clinic-administered patient survey during patient visits to a general gastroenterology clinic. Between October 2018 and March 2019, unselected consecutive patients aged ≥ 18 years were administered the survey for optional completion while they wait for their appointment to begin. Patients were given a copy of the study questionnaire (S1 Appendix) to self-complete either before or after their appointment. An explanatory letter was given to each patient at the time of the survey, and return of the survey was accepted as an implied consent (explained in the explanatory letter). Upon completion and return of the survey, all patients were given an educational information sheet on acetaminophen and liver injury.

Unable to use a writing utensil without assistance

Unable to speak or understand English–due to staff language limitations

Exclusion criteria

The University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board approved this study (approval certificate number H18-01933). This approval was obtained prior to administering the survey. No identifying patient data was collected.

Sample size calculation: As this was a descriptive patient awareness survey with minimal pre-existing information about prevalent level of information in the population with respect to the administered questionnaire, a sample size calculation was not done.

Data analysis

Data will be expressed as percentages for categorical variables and mean values for continuous variables. Chi-square tests or Fischer exact test were used to assess study results for categorical variables. P-values (2-tailed) < 0.05 were interpreted as significant.

Results

Patient demographics

A total of 928 patients attending the gastroenterology clinic at the Vancouver General Hospital were offered the APAP Perception Questionnaire. Of those, 765 completed the survey, and were considered for analysis. A majority of the respondents were females (59%), Caucasian (61%), and born in Canada (55%). The demographics of study population are described in Table 1. Over 80% of the respondents had college/university or higher education.

Table 1

Demographics of respondents.

	N	%
Total	765
Males	312	41
Ethnicity
• Caucasian	470	61%
• East/South East Asian	190	25%
• South Asian	42	5%
• Hispanic	17	2%
• Middle eastern	17	2%
• Indigenous	9	1%
• Afro-Carribean	5	1%
• Other	10	1%
Country of birth
• Canada	422	55%
• China	71	9%
• India	21	3%
• USA	20	3%
• Other	231	30%
Highest Education
• Grade School	19	2%
• High School	122	16%
• College/University	459	60%
• Graduate school	163	21%
Alcohol consumption
• Never	295	39%
• Less than one drink/week	202	26%
• 2–3 drinks/week	105	14%
• 4–7 drinks/week	77	10%
• 8–14 drinks/week	32	4%
• > 14 drinks/week or binge drinking	22	3%
• No response	31	4%

APAP consumption

About a quarter of respondents (23%) reported using APAP at least once a week in the past year. Only two respondents admitted consuming over 4 grams of APAP in a day. Similar patterns of both regular and extra strength APAP use were seen among ethnic groups and education levels in terms of frequency as well as dosing. (Fig 1)

Fig 1

Profile of acetaminophen consumption across ethnic and education classes.

APAP perceptions

A majority of the respondents (76%) were familiar with liver toxicity of APAP. Over half of the patients perceived APAP was harmful to other organs as well (Table 2). Only 6% patients perceived APAP as completely safe.

Table 2

Perceptions of acetaminophen toxicity among respondents.

	N	%
Regular APAP Use (>1/week)	174	23%
Harm perceptions
• No harm	50	6%
• Heart	76	10%
• Liver	584	76%
• Pancreas	148	19%
• Stomach	368	48%
• Brain	63	8%
• Intestine and Colon	201	26%

Regular acetaminophen (325 mg formulation) vs extra strength acetaminophen (500 mg, 650 mg formulations)

Almost a third of patients felt that extra strength acetaminophen products were APAP combined with a different drug that provided additional pain-relief or was a different product altogether. The knowledge that it was the same medication (ie. APAP) increased with education level, and the trend was statistically significant (P<0.001) (Fig 2)

Fig 2

Prevalence of awareness about difference between regular strength and extra-strength acetaminophen preparations.

APAP and alcohol

The perception that consumption of alcohol in combination with APAP was more harmful was significantly different across education classes (Fig 3) (P for trend 0.03) Among patients with regular alcohol intake more than 7 drinks/week, we considered the threshold of high dose APAP consumption to be >1.5 grams at a time. There was no difference in frequency of high dose APAP consumption between regular alcohol consumers and those who drank alcohol less frequently(21% vs 32%, p = 0.11). Respondents consuming high dose APAP had similar perception of harm as patients consuming<1.5 grams (Perception of harm to liver—75% vs 81%, P = 0.39).

Fig 3

Perception of toxicity of acetaminophen when used in combination with alcohol across education classes(A), and comparing respondents consuming more than 1.5 grams of acetaminophen in a day(B).

Discussion

This study assesses patient perceptions about APAP in a large number of out-patient respondents across a diverse educational and ethnic spectrum. The majority of our respondents were women, Caucasian, and well-educated (60% beyond high school and 20% beyond the undergraduate university level). We confirm that regular APAP use is common in patients attending outpatient clinics. Although most patients (76%) are well aware of liver toxicity of APAP, a significant minority are not. This number was similar to what has previously been reported.[9] However, there is also a fair amount of misinformation of toxicity in other organs. Over half of the patients feel APAP is harmful to the stomach, intestines, heart, or brain. Whether this was significantly different among education classes was difficult to determine due to low numbers in each category.

We also realized that there was a gap in knowledge among patients about extra-strength APAP. Nearly 60% patients were not aware that it is the same drug as regular APAP but simply formulated with a higher dosage. This knowledge was more prevalent in respondents with higher level of education. However, even among respondents having attended university or graduate school, less than 50% were aware of the true nature of the drug. This would imply that consumers of APAP are not aware of how much of the drug they are actually ingesting. The potential for inadvertent hepatotoxicity would appear to be high as taking two to three tablets four times daily would deliver a dosage below the total recommended daily dose of 4 g per day in the cases of regular strength preparations (ie. 325 mg tablet/capsule), while taking the exact same number of pills in the form of extra-strength preparations (500 to 650 mg tablets/capsules) would results in dosages (6-8g per day) far exceeding the total recommended daily dose of APAP. It is perhaps not surprising that APAP drug induced liver injury (DILI) is the leading cause of serious ALF in the United States and that most is unintentional, inadvertent DILI[6]. A question for governmental regulators of consumer products should be whether the extra strength formulations of APAP should be marketed at all to eliminate the confusion regarding the total daily dosage of APAP consumed. Since all the different preparations of APAP essentially contain the same product with varying strength, those who feel the need to take more acetaminophen could simply consume an extra 325 mg tablet/capsule. Limiting the quantities that can be purchased at any given time would also appear to be a prudent consumer safety measure.

Nearly 60% of our respondents were unaware of additional toxicity of APAP when used in combination with alcohol. While there was a difference in this knowledge across educational status, over half of the respondents educated beyond university level were unaware of this fact. The overall lack of awareness of APAP dosage strength in a popular over the counter medication combined with a lack of awareness of potential hepatotoxicity, in a significant minority, suggests that the potential risk of inadvertent APAP hepatotoxicity in the general population is currently very high. Our findings would also provide an easy explanation as to why APAP is overwhelmingly the leading cause of ALF in America[6].

The usually accepted threshold for APAP hepatotoxicity is 4 grams/day. However, among patients with liver disease and/or chronic alcohol intake, the safe limit is thought to be 2 grams a day. The threshold might be even lower for those taking APAP chronically. We conservatively used the threshold of 1.5 grams for risk estimation to account for under-reporting and recall bias. Among our respondents who consumed alcohol regularly, nearly 20% admitted having taken more than 1.5 grams of APAP in a day. A majority of these respondents were well aware of liver toxicity of APAP, and that the combination of the two was more harmful.

While only 2 of 765 respondents admitted to having consumed more than 4 grams of APAP in a day, nearly a fifth of chronic alcohol consumers admitted to have taken APAP beyond the threshold of toxicity. In our relatively well educated cohort, this reflects a lack of awareness about the threshold of toxicity of APAP. We suggest that public education regarding the risks of APAP hepatoxicity, especially in the context of alcohol use, is necessary.

The main strengths of this study are the large number of respondents, and the diverse ethnic spectrum. In fact, to the best of our knowledge, this is the largest survey of its kind that has ever been conducted in Canada. Moreover, a majority of the participants were educated beyond secondary education level. The prevalence of misinformation in this population group likely represents the lack of easy access to information rather than simply patient apathy.

The major limitations of our study include the single centre, single specialty office respondent cohort. Although this may limit the generalizability of the study, we suspect that similar results would be found throughout North America and, given the high degree of education of the surveyed cohort, similar surveys in less educated cohorts are likely to reveal even less awareness. Unfortunately, we could not use a validated questionnaire due to the paucity of research in this field. However, the large number of our respondents did act as a partial internal validation for our questionnaire.

Conclusions

A quarter of patients attending the gastroenterology clinic were using APAP regularly. Most patients were aware of liver toxicity of APAP, however, almost a quarter of those surveyed, were unaware. A majority of patients were unaware of the pharmaceutical content of different products of APAP. Most patients were aware that APAP had additional toxicity when combined with alcohol use, however, a substantial proportion of patients chronically consuming alcohol were still taking unsafe amount of APAP. This indicated a possible dichotomy between knowledge and personal practice that may stem from a lack of direct knowledge on the risks associated with APAP use. Our study strongly suggests that better public awareness about APAP in general, and hepatotoxicity in particular, is needed. Government consumer regulation regarding the availability of the higher dosage formulations of APAP, as well as the quantities sold, may also be necessary to protect the public from acetaminophen related hepatotoxicity which commonly results in health care utilization and unfortunate personal tragedies.

Study survey.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Patient handout on acetaminophen and liver toxicity.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

24 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-30395

PUBLIC AWARENESS OF ACETAMINOPHEN AND RISKS OF DRUG INDUCED LIVER INJURY: RESULTS OF A LARGE OUTPATIENT CLINIC SURVEY

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yoshida,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

As you can see, both reviewers appreciated your paper, but provided suggestions that should be considered during the revision process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 09 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Pavel Strnad

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide a sample size and power calculation in the Methods, or discuss the reasons for not performing one before study initiation.

3. In your Methods section, please provide the date range (month and year) during which participants were invited to complete the questionnaire.

4. Thank you for including your ethics statement: "University of British Columbia REB approval number H18-01933".

a) Please amend your current ethics statement to confirm that your named institutional review board or ethics committee specifically approved this study.

b) Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

a)    Please provide an amended Funding Statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support received during this specific study (whether external or internal to your organization) as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.

b)    Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funder. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

7. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

8. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

9. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I read with great pleasure the manuscript entitled "PUBLIC AWARENESS OF ACETAMINOPHEN AND RISKS OF DRUG INDUCED LIVER INJURY: RESULTS OF A LARGE OUTPATIENT CLINIC SURVEY". Except praise, I have no further comments, and strongly support publishing of this manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The topic is extremely important because of the flu season and the rate of liver damage I see due to the incorrect use of drugs. The authors speculate that consumer ignorance is a significant reason why acetaminophen is a leading cause of acute liver failure. I think, it may be a long way. In terms of the medicinal composition of acetaminophen products, over half of the respondents (58%) did not know that extra strength preparations of acetaminophen contained the same drug but in a different dose, but 81% (!) were educated beyond the secondary school level. My concern is not the education level, but the English/French proficiency, because only 55% were born in Canada! The authors should better discussed on this point than speculate about the "ignorance level" in my opinion. Otherwise stats are fine. I would also suggest compare the results of this survey with similar (not equal) surveys potentially performed in the UK, Australia, US, and France. The authors may contact the respective Medical Councils to receive anonymous data.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Consolato SERGI

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

27 Jan 2020

Reviewer #1: I read with great pleasure the manuscript entitled "PUBLIC AWARENESS OF ACETAMINOPHEN AND RISKS OF DRUG INDUCED LIVER INJURY: RESULTS OF A LARGE OUTPATIENT CLINIC SURVEY". Except praise, I have no further comments, and strongly support publishing of this manuscript.

We thank the reviewer for their appreciation.

Reviewer #2: The topic is extremely important because of the flu season and the rate of liver damage I see due to the incorrect use of drugs. The authors speculate that consumer ignorance is a significant reason why acetaminophen is a leading cause of acute liver failure. I think, it may be a long way. In terms of the medicinal composition of acetaminophen products, over half of the respondents (58%) did not know that extra strength preparations of acetaminophen contained the same drug but in a different dose, but 81% (!) were educated beyond the secondary school level. My concern is not the education level, but the English/French proficiency, because only 55% were born in Canada! The authors should better discussed on this point than speculate about the "ignorance level" in my opinion.

We appreciate the concerns put forth by the reviewer. Interestingly, this high proportion of respondents being born outside Canada simply reflects the shifting demographics of metro Vancouver. Our survey specifically excluded those who were not proficient in English, and our protocol that was approved by ethics, accepted this as an exclusion criteria. Moreover, French isn’t commonly spoken in Vancouver. In fact, Mandarin, Cantonese and Punjabi are more common.

Otherwise stats are fine. I would also suggest compare the results of this survey with similar (not equal) surveys potentially performed in the UK, Australia, US, and France. The authors may contact the respective Medical Councils to receive anonymous data.

We agree that similar surveys from other countries would be valuable. However, to compare results we would need a survey already conducted which is similar to ours. Unfortunately, we could not find any mention of a comparable survey anywhere in literature. Any surveys we could find which looked at similar variables have been covered in introduction and discussion. We hope this would be acceptable to the reviewers and editors to go forward and publish this paper. Hopefully, our paper may be used as a scaffolding to generate similar surveys in other places.

30 Jan 2020

PUBLIC AWARENESS OF ACETAMINOPHEN AND RISKS OF DRUG INDUCED LIVER INJURY: RESULTS OF A LARGE OUTPATIENT CLINIC SURVEY

PONE-D-19-30395R1

Dear Dr. Yoshida,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Pavel Strnad

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors addressed the comments and suggestions of the reviewers.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Consolato Sergi

6 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-30395R1

Public awareness of acetaminophen and risks of drug induced liver injury: results of a large outpatient clinic survey

Dear Dr. Yoshida:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Pavel Strnad

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE