| Literature DB >> 33954202 |
Yongwu Chen1, Chongwei Wang2, Hui Yang3, Ping Huang3, Jiana Shi3, Yongxi Tong4, Jinying Jiang3, Xin Zhang5, Wanyuan Chen5, Zixue Xuan3.
Abstract
Drug- and herb-induced liver injury (DILI and HILI) is an increasingly common and serious condition. Here, data for DILI and HILI patients from two large tertiary hospitals were retrospectively analyzed. Patient characteristics, causes and severity of DILI and HILI, the correlation between expression of p62 and the severity of DILI and HILI, treatment of DILI and HILI, and the prognostic factors of DILI and HILI were studied. A total of 82 patients with DILI and HILI were recruited for the study. Most patients presented with hepatocellular injury, followed by cholestatic injury and mixed injury. Our results indicate that traditional Chinese medicine or herbal and dietary supplements were the prevalent causal agents of HILI, which was characterized by higher frequencies of hepatocellular injury. Expression of p62 in the liver correlated with the severity of DILI and HILI. Improvements in the results of the liver enzymatic tests correlated with alanine transaminase (ALT) levels upon the first diagnosis of DILI and HILI and with the hepatocellular type of DILI and HILI. In conclusion, we provide an epidemiological assessment of DILI and HILI based on causality using the updated RUCAM on patients from two hospitals in China. ALT levels at first diagnosis and the hepatocellular type of injury may be prognostic factors of DILI and HILI.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33954202 PMCID: PMC8067772 DOI: 10.1155/2021/8894498
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Clinical, etiologic, and laboratory parameters of the 82 cases of DILI and HILI.
| Variable | HILI ( | DILI ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | ||||
| ≥49 | 15 | 29 | 0.255 | 0.651 |
| <49 | 15 | 23 | ||
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 14 | 30 | 0.930 | 0.335 |
| Female | 16 | 22 | ||
| Laboratory findings | ||||
| ALT ≥ 5 × ULN | 28 | 32 | 9.783 | 0.002 |
| ALT ≥ 3 × ULN and <5 × ULN | 1 | 6 | ||
| ALT < 3 × ULN | 1 | 14 | ||
| Severity | ||||
| Grade 1 | 14 | 37 | 6.984 | 0.008 |
| Grade 2 | 6 | 7 | ||
| Grade 3 | 4 | 7 | ||
| Grade 4 | 6 | 0 |
The relationship between the types of DILI and HILI and causal agents.
| Types | Hepatocellular | Cholestatic | Mixed |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HILI | 26 (3.5∗) | 2 (-3.4) | 2 (-0.5) | 14.875 | 0.001 |
| DILI | 25 (-3.5) | 22 (3.4) | 5 (0.5) | ||
| Most common agents implicated of DILI (Top3) | |||||
| Antitumor | 7 (-0.8) | 11 (2.0) | 0 (-2.0) | 9.094 | 0.031 |
| Antimicrobial | 7 (1.5) | 3 (-1.5) | 1 (0.0) | ||
| Analgesic-antipyretic | 1 (-0.9) | 1 (-0.9) | 2 (3.0) |
∗Adjusted residuals appear in parentheses below observed frequencies.
Linear regression of p62 IHC score and grade of DILI and HILI severity.
| Serial number | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade of DILI and HILI severity | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 0.004 |
| P62 IHC score | 8 | 0 | 8 | 8 | 12 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 12 | 3 | 2 | 12 | 12 |
Figure 1Correlation between the expression of p62 and the severity of DILI&HILI.
Figure 2Pathological features were associated with the expression of p62.
Comparison of liver tests improvement ≥50% and <50% after 1 week (±2 days) of AIHPAs treatment.
| Variable (mean ± SD, | Liver tests improvement after 1 week (±2 days) AIHPAs treatment |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≥50% | <50% | |||
| Age (years) | 47.33 ± 13.69 | 51.21 ± 16.17 | -1.170 | 0.245 |
| The first set of ALT level (IU/L) | 795.58 ± 644.66 | 256.26 ± 211.60 | 237.500 | ≤0.001 |
| The first set of ALP level (IU/L) | 185.55 ± 124.16 | 401.51 ± 294.86 | 1277.500 | ≤0.001 |
| The first set of TBIL level ( | 82.26 ± 108.19 | 57.56 ± 69.99 | 672.500 | 0.226 |
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 26 (31.70) | 18 (21.95) | 0.012 | 0.913 |
| Female | 22 (26.83) | 16 (19.51) | ||
| Types | ||||
| Hepatocellular | 44 (53.66) | 7 (8.54) | 46.653 | ≤0.001 |
| Cholestatic | 3 (3.66) | 21 (25.61) | ||
| Mixed | 1 (1.22) | 6 (7.32) | ||
| Severity of DILI and HILI | ||||
| Grade 1 | 28 (34.57) | 23 (28.40) | 0.560 | 0.454 |
| Grade 2 | 9 (11.11) | 4 (4.94) | ||
| Grade 3 | 5 (6.17) | 6 (7.41) | ||
| Grade 4 | 5 (6.17) | 1 (1.23) | ||
| Treatment by AIHPAs | ||||
| Monotherapy | 5 (6.10) | 3 (3.66) | 0.746 | 0.388 |
| Combination with 2 drugs | 12 (14.63) | 14 (17.07) | ||
| Combination with drugs ≥3 | 31 (37.80) | 17 (20.73) | ||
Multivariate logistic regression analysis of liver tests improvement ≥50% after 1-week (±2 days) of AIHPAs treatment.
| Risk factors |
| S.E | Wald |
| OR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The first set of ALP ≤ 219 IU/L | 1.726 | 1.517 | 1.294 | 0.255 | 5.618 (0.287~109.955) |
| The first set of ALT ≥ 414.5 IU/L | 3.028 | 1.141 | 7.047 | 0.008 | 20.651 (2.208~193.099) |
| ∗Type of DILI and HILI (1) | 3.271 | 1.441 | 5.154 | 0.023 | 26.337 (1.563~443.648) |
| ∗Type of DILI and HILI (2) | 2.142 | 1.640 | 1.704 | 0.192 | 8.513 (0.342~212.042) |
∗The type of DILI and HILI (1) represented hepatocellular type, and the type of DILI and HILI (2) represented cholestatic type, and all were compared with mixed type.