scholarly journals Comparison of Liver Biopsy Findings with the Digestive Disease Week Japan 2004 Scale for Diagnosis of Drug-Induced Liver Injury

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akemi Tsutsui ◽  
Yasuni Nakanuma ◽  
Kouichi Takaguchi ◽  
Satoko Nakamura ◽  
Hiroshi Shibata ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Liver Injury ◽  
Liver Biopsy ◽  
Digestive Disease ◽  
Drug Induced ◽  
Scale Evaluation ◽  
Drug Induced Liver Injury ◽  
Liver Injuries ◽  
Scale Scores ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Objective Tool

The liver biopsy remains a valuable tool in the diagnosis of drug-induced liver injury (DILI). The Digestive Disease Week Japan 2004 (DDW-J) scale proposed as an objective tool for the diagnosis of DILI has been widely used in Japan. So far, the histological features have not been compared with DDW-J scale in detail. Herein, we examined the correlation between liver biopsy findings and clinical features, particularly DDW-J scales. A total of 80 patients with liver injuries of unknown cause were enrolled. Based on the histological findings, these cases were categorized into 3 groups: A (DILI was strongly suspected), B (DILI was suspected), and C (DILI should be considered in the differential diagnosis). Histological groups and DDW-J scale were moderately correlated (κ=0.60). The mean total DDW-J scale scores were as follows: 4.89 for A, 3.26 for B, and 0.75 for C (p<0.05). While hepatocellular type was coincided in a majority of cases by histological and DDW-J scale evaluation, cholestatic type was not well coincided. In conclusion, biopsy findings and DDW-J scale were well correlated, and the hepatocellular type of liver injuries was well coincided by both evaluations, though there were several discrepant cases, particularly in cholestatic type.

scholarly journals Immune-Mediated Drug-Induced Liver Injury: Immunogenetics and Experimental Models

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (9) ◽  
pp. 4557
Author(s):  
Alessio Gerussi ◽  
Ambra Natalini ◽  
Fabrizio Antonangeli ◽  
Clara Mancuso ◽  
Elisa Agostinetto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Liver Injury ◽  
Experimental Models ◽  
Clinical Event ◽  
Drug Induced ◽  
Drug Induced Liver Injury ◽  
Immune Mediated ◽  
Liver Injuries ◽  
Immunological Mechanisms ◽  
Molecular Aspects ◽  
Therapeutic Tools

Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is a challenging clinical event in medicine, particularly because of its ability to present with a variety of phenotypes including that of autoimmune hepatitis or other immune mediated liver injuries. Limited diagnostic and therapeutic tools are available, mostly because its pathogenesis has remained poorly understood for decades. The recent scientific and technological advancements in genomics and immunology are paving the way for a better understanding of the molecular aspects of DILI. This review provides an updated overview of the genetic predisposition and immunological mechanisms behind the pathogenesis of DILI and presents the state-of-the-art experimental models to study DILI at the pre-clinical level.

scholarly journals The Implications of Liver Biopsy Results in Patients with Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Being Treated with Ruxolitinib

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Tremblay ◽  
Juan Putra ◽  
Alexander Vogel ◽  
Adam Winters ◽  
Ronald Hoffman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Liver Injury ◽  
Liver Biopsy ◽  
Myeloproliferative Neoplasms ◽  
Extramedullary Hematopoiesis ◽  
Hepatic Toxicity ◽  
Drug Induced ◽  
Significant Treatment ◽  
Drug Induced Liver Injury ◽  
Liver Biopsies ◽  
Obliterative Portal Venopathy

Ruxolitinib is increasingly being utilized for the treatment of myelofibrosis and polycythemia vera, but the potential for hepatic toxicity is poorly understood. We performed a retrospective review of hepatic damage occurring in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms receiving ruxolitinib. Relevant histologic images of liver biopsies were reviewed by an experienced liver pathologist and reported to a multidisciplinary team including hepatology and hematology. A variety of liver pathology was observed including extramedullary hematopoiesis, obliterative portal venopathy, and drug-induced liver injury. In all cases reviewed, the liver biopsy had significant treatment implications. We conclude that hepatology referral and liver biopsy in patients receiving ruxolitinib therapy with biochemical evidence of liver injury reveals a variety of etiologies which have significant treatment impact. Clinicians should be aware of the potential causes of liver damage in this population and initiate prompt referral and liver biopsy.

Drug-Induced Liver Injury

2015 ◽  
Vol 139 (7) ◽  
pp. 876-887 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kurt Fisher ◽  
Raj Vuppalanchi ◽  
Romil Saxena
Keyword(s):  
Liver Injury ◽  
Liver Biopsy ◽  
Clinical Laboratory ◽  
The United States ◽  
Prognostic Information ◽  
Self Medication ◽  
Drug Induced ◽  
Pattern Of Injury ◽  
Tertiary Referral Center ◽  
Drug Induced Liver Injury

Context Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) represents a diverse set of responses following exposure to any manufactured or naturally occurring chemical compound. Drug-induced liver injury is of major concern owing to the ever increasing number of compounds introduced into the market for treatment of various diseases as well as the increasing popularity of herbals, which lend themselves to self-medication but are not rigorously regulated. Objective To provide an overview of the prevalence, classification, and diagnosis of DILI with emphasis on pathogenesis and the role of a liver biopsy. To focus on the most common, emerging, and herbal agents that cause DILI with emphasis on the histologic pattern of injury observed. Data Sources A review of the literature was drawn from the PubMed (US National Library of Medicine) repository, textbooks, and online databases. All figures were taken from cases seen at our tertiary referral center, which is 1 of 12 participating sites in the National Institutes of Health–funded Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network. Conclusions Drug-induced liver injury due to prescription, over-the-counter, and herbal products is a major cause of liver disease in the United States and around the world. Diagnosis of DILI is challenging because there is no single clinical, laboratory, or histologic feature specific to DILI. Accurate diagnosis requires establishing a causal relationship with the suspected agent and excluding competing causes of liver injury. The liver biopsy is an essential component in the management of DILI by offering clues to the underlying pathogenesis, providing prognostic information, and guiding therapy.

scholarly journals AN ANALYSIS OF CASES OF DRUG-INDUCED LIVER INJURY REPORTED TO AN ADVERSE DRUG REACTION MONITORING CENTER

2020 ◽  
pp. 109-112
Author(s):  
BALA SUBRAMANIAM ◽  
MEGHA SHAH ◽  
CHETNA DESAI ◽  
JIGAR PANCHAL ◽  
SAMIDH SHAH
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Drug Reaction ◽  
Drug Reaction ◽  
Liver Injury ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Drug Induced ◽  
Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring ◽  
Drug Induced Liver Injury ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Monitoring Center

Objectives: Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is a frequent cause of liver injury and acute liver failure .We aimed to analyze the cases of DILI reported over a period of 8 years to the adverse drug reaction (ADR) monitoring center (AMC) at our institution. Methods: This observational retrospective study was conducted at the ADR monitoring center of a tertiary care hospital. Cases reported to the AMC, Pharmacovigilance Programme of India during the year 2011–2018 were analyzed as per the criteria used to analyze the ADRs. Results: A total of 5448 ADRs were reported during the study period, of which 105 (2%) were suspected to be DILI. The mean age of the patients with DILI was 39.26 years. Men (66.66%) were more commonly affected than women (33.34%). The most common drug groups causing DILI were antiretroviral (ART) (42.85%) and antitubercular (ATT) (40%). Most common single drug responsible for DILI was isoniazid (44.44%) followed by atazanavir (28%) and pyrazinamide (22.22%). Increase in serum bilirubin was the most common DILI (64.75%). About 79% of cases had a possible causality and 21% of cases had probable causal association with the suspected drugs. Majority of the ADRs (83%) were not preventable and mild in severity (21%). All ADR forms were complete in accordance with National Coordinating Center scale. Conclusion: DILI is commonly observed in patients taking ART and ATT drugs for more than a month. Regular monitoring and assessment in these patients may help in preventing DILI and manage these ADRs.

Comparing the accuracy of three diagnostic criteria and a refined pathological scoring system in drug-induced liver injury: From suspected to definite

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yiqi Liu ◽  
Ping Li ◽  
Fangfang Wang ◽  
Liang Liu ◽  
Yilian Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Liver Injury ◽  
Diagnostic Criteria ◽  
Digestive Disease ◽  
Causality Assessment ◽  
Assessment Method ◽  
Operating Characteristics ◽  
Drug Induced ◽  
Drug Induced Liver Injury ◽  
Clinical Diagnostic ◽  
Clinical Diagnostic Criteria

Abstract Background Drug-induced liver injury(DILI) is difficult in diagnose, criteria used now are mostly based on history review. We tried to evaluate the value of these criteria and histopathology features in DILI to perform a method diagnosing DILI more definitely.Methods We enrolled 458 consecutive hospitalized DILI patients from 1st January 2012 to 31st December 2018, using Roussel-Uclaf Causality Assessment Method(RUCAM), Maria&Victorino scale (M&V) and Digestive Disease Week-Japan criterion(DDW-J) to perform the evaluation. A refined pathological scale was calculated and combined with those criteria using logistic regression analysis. Area under receiver operating characteristics(AUROC) were used to estimate diagnostic accuracy.Results The AUROC of the three clinical diagnostic criteria were 0.730 (95%CI:0.667-0.793), 0.793(95%CI:0.740-0.847) and 0.764(95%CI:0.702-0.826) respectively. The AUROC of the refined pathological scale combined with the three criteria were 0.843(95%CI:0.747-0.914), 0.907(95%CI:0.822-0.960) and 0.881(95%CI:0.790-0.942) respectively. In hepatocellular type, the AUROCs were 0.894(95%CI:0.787-0.959), 0.960(95%CI:0.857-0.994) and 0.940(95%CI:0.847-0.985); In cholestatic type, the AUROCs were 0.750(95%CI:0.466-0.931), 0.500(95%CI:0.239-0.761) and 0.500(95%CI:0.239-0.761); In mixed type, the AUROCs were 0.786(95%CI: 0.524-0.943), 0.869(95%CI:0.619-0.981) and 0.762(95%CI: 0.498 -0.930).Conclusion Combined with pathological scale can significantly improve the accuracy of clinical diagnostic criteria, no matter in alone or combined condition, M&V might be more accurate in diagnosing DILI from suspected patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document