OBJECTIVE: To report a patient with 2 consecutive reversible drug-induced liver disorders and the application of International Consensus Meeting Criteria for the screening and diagnosis of drug-induced liver disorders. CASE SUMMARY: An 88-year-old man in a chronic care institution developed abdominal discomfort and jaundice after finishing a 10-day course of trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole therapy for a urinary tract infection (UTI). The jaundice and the symptoms resolved spontaneously and the final diagnosis was symptomatic drug-induced liver injury, mixed type. After 1 month, the same patient received a course of cefadroxil therapy for another UTI. He developed an asymptomatic drug-induced liver injury, mixed type. Six months later, the patient received oral penicillin therapy and then ciprofloxacin, with no change in his liver function test results. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, there are only a few other reports in the literature of a drug-induced liver injury with cefadroxil therapy; more cases are reported with trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole than with cefadroxil. The criteria of an International Consensus Meeting were helpful to evaluate both incidences of liver injury in this patient with the aim of establishing the diagnosis and causality assessment. Additionally, the criteria were used to show that the patient had 2 separate liver injuries. CONCLUSIONS: Screening and diagnosis of drug-induced liver disorders depend on careful history taking and 5 specific biochemical liver tests. The evolution of the liver disorder induced by cefadroxil therapy probably was interrupted because of its early detection. Appropriate screening was done with the subsequent administration of new potentially hepatotoxic drugs.
OBJECTIVE: To report a patient with 2 consecutive reversible drug-induced liver disorders and the application of International Consensus Meeting Criteria for the screening and diagnosis of drug-induced liver disorders. CASE SUMMARY: An 88-year-old man in a chronic care institution developed abdominal discomfort and jaundice after finishing a 10-day course of trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole therapy for a urinary tract infection (UTI). The jaundice and the symptoms resolved spontaneously and the final diagnosis was symptomatic drug-induced liver injury, mixed type. After 1 month, the same patient received a course of cefadroxil therapy for another UTI. He developed an asymptomatic drug-induced liver injury, mixed type. Six months later, the patient received oral penicillin therapy and then ciprofloxacin, with no change in his liver function test results. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, there are only a few other reports in the literature of a drug-induced liver injury with cefadroxil therapy; more cases are reported with trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole than with cefadroxil. The criteria of an International Consensus Meeting were helpful to evaluate both incidences of liver injury in this patient with the aim of establishing the diagnosis and causality assessment. Additionally, the criteria were used to show that the patient had 2 separate liver injuries. CONCLUSIONS: Screening and diagnosis of drug-induced liver disorders depend on careful history taking and 5 specific biochemical liver tests. The evolution of the liver disorder induced by cefadroxil therapy probably was interrupted because of its early detection. Appropriate screening was done with the subsequent administration of new potentially hepatotoxic drugs.