Refine
Year of publication
Language
- English (42)
Has Fulltext
- yes (42)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (42)
Keywords
Institute
- Medizin (42)
Herb induced liver injury (HILI) and drug induced liver injury (DILI) share the common characteristic of chemical compounds as their causative agents, which were either produced by the plant or synthetic processes. Both, natural and synthetic chemicals are foreign products to the body and need metabolic degradation to be eliminated. During this process, hepatotoxic metabolites may be generated causing liver injury in susceptible patients. There is uncertainty, whether risk factors such as high lipophilicity or high daily and cumulative doses play a pathogenetic role for HILI, as these are under discussion for DILI. It is also often unclear, whether a HILI case has an idiosyncratic or an intrinsic background. Treatment with herbs of Western medicine or traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) rarely causes elevated liver tests (LT). However, HILI can develop to acute liver failure requiring liver transplantation in single cases. HILI is a diagnosis of exclusion, because clinical features of HILI are not specific as they are also found in many other liver diseases unrelated to herbal use. In strikingly increased liver tests signifying severe liver injury, herbal use has to be stopped. To establish HILI as the cause of liver damage, RUCAM (Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method) is a useful tool. Diagnostic problems may emerge when alternative causes were not carefully excluded and the correct therapy is withheld. Future strategies should focus on RUCAM based causality assessment in suspected HILI cases and more regulatory efforts to provide all herbal medicines and herbal dietary supplements used as medicine with strict regulatory surveillance, considering them as herbal drugs and ascertaining an appropriate risk benefit balance.
Hepatology highlights
(2016)
Pawar SV, et al. Most overweight and obese Indian children have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
De Keyzer B, et al. Percutaneous shunt reduction for the management of TIPS-induced acute liver decompensation. A follow-up study
Baptista-González H, et al. Frequency of hepatitis C virus infection in a single institution in Mexico with a focus on birth-cohort population
Background and aim. In the fall of 2013, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a preliminary report on a cluster of liver disease cases that emerged in Hawaii in the summer 2013. This report claimed a temporal association as sufficient evidence that OxyELITE Pro (OEP), a dietary supplement (DS) mainly for weight loss, was the cause of this mysterious cluster. However, the presented data were inconsistent and required a thorough reanalysis.
Material and methods. To further investigate the cause(s) of this cluster, we critically evaluated redacted raw clinical data of the cluster patients, as the CDC report received tremendous publicity in local and nationwide newspapers and television. This attention put regulators and physicians from the medical center in Honolulu that reported the cluster, under enormous pressure to succeed, risking biased evaluations and hasty conclusions.
Results. We noted pervasive bias in the documentation, conclusions, and public statements, also poor quality of case management. Among the cases we reviewed, many causes unrelated to any DS were evident, including decompensated liver cirrhosis, acute liver failure by acetaminophen overdose, acute cholecystitis with gallstones, resolving acute hepatitis B, acute HSV and VZV hepatitis, hepatitis E suspected after consumption of wild hog meat, and hepatotoxicity by acetaminophen or ibuprofen. Causality assessments based on the updated CIOMS scale confirmed the lack of evidence for any DS including OEP as culprit for the cluster.
Conclusions. Thus, the Hawaii liver disease cluster is now best explained by various liver diseases rather than any DS, including OEP.
Hepatology highlights
(2015)
Hepatology highlights
(2013)
For the pathologist, the diagnosis of drug induced liver injury (DILI) is challenging, because histopathological features mimic all primary hepatic and biliary diseases, lacking changes that are specific for DILI. Therefore, in any patient of suspected DILI who underwent liver biopsy, the pathologist will assure the clinician that the observed hepatic changes are compatible with DILI, but this information is less helpful due to lack of specificity. Rather, the pathologist should assess liver biopsies blindly, without knowledge of prior treatment by drugs. This will result in a detailed description of the histological findings, associated with suggestions for potential causes of these hepatic changes. Then, it is up to the physician to reassess carefully the differential diagnoses, if not done before. At present, liver histology is of little impact establishing the diagnosis of DILI with the required degree of certainty, and this shortcoming also applies to herb induced liver injury (HILI). To reach at the correct diagnoses of DILI and HILI, clinical and structured causality assessments are therefore better approaches than liver histology results obtained through liver biopsy, an invasive procedure with a low complication rate.
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.
Herbal hepatotoxicity is a rare but highly disputed disease because numerous confounding variables may complicate accurate causality assessment. Case evaluation is even more difficult when the WHO global introspection method (WHO method) is applied as diagnostic algorithm. This method lacks liver specificity, hepatotoxicity validation, and quantitative items, basic qualifications required for a sound evaluation of hepatotoxicity cases. Consequently, there are no data available for reliability, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value. Its scope is also limited by the fact that it cannot discriminate between a positive and a negative causality attribution, thereby stimulating case overdiagnosing and overreporting. The WHO method ignores uncertainties regarding daily dose, temporal association, start, duration, and end of herbal use, time to onset of the adverse reaction, and course of liver values after herb discontinuation. Insufficiently considered or ignored are comedications, preexisting liver diseases, alternative explanations upon clinical assessment, and exclusion of infections by hepatitis A-C, cytomegalovirus (CMV), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), herpes simplex virus (HSV), and varicella zoster virus (VZV). We clearly prefer as alternative the scale of CIOMS (Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences) which is structured, quantitative, liver specific, and validated for hepatotoxicity. In conclusion, causality of herbal hepatotoxicity is best assessed by the liver specific CIOMS scale validated for hepatotoxicity rather than the obsolete WHO method that is liver unspecific and not validated for hepatotoxicity. CIOMS based assessments will ensure the correct diagnosis and exclude alternative diagnosis that may require other specific therapies.
Hepatic cells are sensitive to internal and external signals. Ethanol is one of the oldest and most widely used drugs in the world. The focus on the mechanistic engine of the alcohol-induced injury has been in the liver, which is responsible for the pathways of alcohol metabolism. Ethanol undergoes a phase I type of reaction, mainly catalyzed by the cytoplasmic enzyme, alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH), and by the microsomal ethanol-oxidizing system (MEOS). Reactive oxygen species (ROS) generated by cytochrome (CYP) 2E1 activity and MEOS contribute to ethanol-induced toxicity. We aimed to: (1) Describe the cellular, pathophysiological and clinical effects of alcohol misuse on the liver; (2) Select the biomarkers and analytical methods utilized by the clinical laboratory to assess alcohol exposure; (3) Provide therapeutic ideas to prevent/reduce alcohol-induced liver injury; (4) Provide up-to-date knowledge regarding the Corona virus and its affect on the liver; (5) Link rare diseases with alcohol consumption. The current review contributes to risk identification of patients with alcoholic, as well as non-alcoholic, liver disease and metabolic syndrome. Additional prevalence of ethnic, genetic, and viral vulnerabilities are presented.
Patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) commonly show abnormalities of liver tests (LTs) of undetermined cause. Considering drugs as tentative culprits, the current systematic review searched for published COVID-19 cases with suspected drug-induced liver injury (DILI) and established diagnosis using the diagnostic algorithm of RUCAM (Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method). Data worldwide on DILI cases assessed by RUCAM in COVID-19 patients were sparse. A total of 6/200 reports with initially suspected 996 DILI cases in COVID-19 patients and using all RUCAM-based DILI cases allowed for a clear description of clinical features of RUCAM-based DILI cases among COVID-19 patients: (1) The updated RUCAM published in 2016 was equally often used as the original RUCAM of 1993, with both identifying DILI and other liver diseases as confounders; (2) RUCAM also worked well in patients treated with up to 18 drugs and provided for most DILI cases a probable or highly probable causality level for drugs; (3) DILI was preferentially caused by antiviral drugs given empirically due to their known therapeutic efficacy in other virus infections; (4) hepatocellular injury was more often reported than cholestatic or mixed injury; (5) maximum LT values were found for alanine aminotransferase (ALT) 1.541 U/L and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) 1.076 U/L; (6) the ALT/AST ratio was variable and ranged from 0.4 to 1.4; (7) the mean or median age of the COVID-19 patients with DILI ranged from 54.3 to 56 years; (8) the ratio of males to females was 1.8–3.4:1; (9) outcome was favorable for most patients, likely due to careful selection of the drugs and quick cessation of drug treatment with emerging DILI, but it was fatal in 19 patients; (10) countries reporting RUCAM-based DILI cases in COVID-19 patients included China, India, Japan, Montenegro, and Spain; (11) robust estimation of the percentage contribution of RUCAM-based DILI for the increased LTs in COVID-19 patients is outside of the current scope. In conclusion, RUCAM-based DILI with its clinical characteristics in COVID-19 patients and its classification as a confounding variable is now well defined, requiring a new correct description of COVID-19 features by removing DILI characteristics as confounders.