Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Wissenschaftlicher Artikel (2) (entfernen)
Sprache
- Englisch (2) (entfernen)
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (2)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- nein (2)
Schlagworte
- Drugs (2) (entfernen)
Institut
- Medizin (2)
Hepatotoxicity by drugs and dietary supplements (DDS) is a rare and unpredictable event but with the risk of a life-threatening clinical course when it occurs. It may emerge despite intensive chemical, toxicological and observational studies that indicate no hepatotoxic signals. This suggests major clinical and regulatory issues that must be addressed in the area of accurate testing, reporting, and accessibility of reliable data. Consequently, in a clinical setting, safety concerns are key elements in the treatment of patients, and require that the diagnosis of DDS hepatotoxicity clearly be established. Causality of DDS hepatotoxicity may be pursued using a diagnostic algorithm consisting of a pre-test, a main-test as the scale of the updated CIOMS (Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences), and a post-test. The results of these tests are then sent item by item to the National Health Agency, where the case will undergo further evaluation for pharmacovigilance, strategic aspects and safety issues. After this analysis, all items of the tests are included in the regulatory database freely accessible to the health and scientific community. With this diagnostic and regulatory algorithm the risk of misdiagnoses and inappropriate regulatory measures may be minimized and the safety improved. In conclusion, DDS hepatotoxicity is a rare but is a potentially life-threatening entity requiring a reliable diagnosis with the aid of a diagnostic algorithm, and a thorough pharmacovigilance evaluation by national and international health agencies. Safety aspects in DDS hepatotoxicity represent a major clinical and regulatory issue and should consequently be addressed.
The diagnosis of drug induced liver injury (DILI) is based primarily on the exclusion of alternative causes. To assess the frequency of alternative causes in initially suspected DILI cases, we searched the Medline database with the following terms: drug hepatotoxicity, drug induced liver injury, and hepatotoxic drugs. For each term, we used the first 100 publications. We reviewed references, selected those reports relevant to our study, and retrieved finally 15 publications related to DILI and alternative causes. A total of 2,906 cases of initially assumed DILI were analyzed in these 15 publications, with diagnoses missed in 14% of the cases due to overt alternative causes. In another 11%, the diagnosis of DILI could not be established because of confounding variables. Alternative diagnoses included hepatitis B, C, and E, CMV, EBV, ischemic hepatitis, autoimmune hepatitis, primary biliary cirrhosis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, hemochromatosis, Wilson’s disease, Gilbert’s syndrome, fatty liver, non alcoholic steatohepatitis, alcoholic liver diseases, cardiac and thyroid causes, rhabdomyolysis, polymyositis, postictal state, tumors, lymphomas, chlamydial and HIV infections. Causality assessment methods applied in these 15 publications were the CIOMS (Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences) scale alone (n = 5) or combined with the Maria and Victorino (MV) scale (n = 1), the DILIN (Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network) method (n = 4), or the Naranjo scale (n = 1); the qualitative CIOMS method alone (n = 3) or combined with the MV scale (n = 1). In conclusion, alternative diagnoses are common in primarily suspected DILI cases and should be excluded early in future cases, requiring a thorough clinical and causality assessment.