Search

Background & Aims The Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network is conducting a prospective study of patients with DILI in the United States. We present characteristics and subgroup analyses from the first 1257 patients enrolled in the study. Methods In an observational longitudinal study, we began collecting data on eligible individuals with suspected DILI in 2004, following them for 6 months or longer. Subjects were evaluated systematically for other etiologies, causes, and severity of DILI. Results Among 1257 enrolled subjects with suspected DILI, the causality was assessed in 1091 patients, and 899 were considered to have definite, highly likely, or probable DILI. Ten percent of patients died or underwent liver transplantation, and 17% had chronic liver injury. In the 89 patients (10%) with pre-existing liver disease, DILI appeared to be more severe than in those without (difference not statistically significant; P = .09) and mortality was significantly higher (16% vs 5.2%; P 365 days were nitrofurantoin (25%) or minocycline (17%). There were no differences in outcomes of patients with short vs long latency of DILI. Compared with individuals younger than 65 years, individuals 65 years or older (n = 149) were more likely to have cholestatic injury, although mortality and rate of liver transplantation did not differ. Nine patients (1%) had concomitant severe skin reactions; implicated agents were lamotrigine, azithromycin, carbamazepine, moxifloxacin, cephalexin, diclofenac, and nitrofurantoin. Four of these patients died. Conclusions Mortality from DILI is significantly higher in individuals with pre-existing liver disease or concomitant severe skin reactions compared with patients without. Additional studies are needed to confirm the association between azithromycin and increased DILI in patients with chronic liver disease. Older age and short or long latencies are not associated with DILI mortality.

Herbal products have been used for centuries among indigenous people to treat symptoms and illnesses. Recently, their use in Western countries has grown significantly, rivaling that of prescription medications. Currently, herbal products are used mainly for weight loss and bodybuilding purposes but also to improve well-being and symptoms of chronic diseases. Many people believe that because they are natural, they must be effective and safe; however, these beliefs are erroneous. Few herbal products have been studied in well-designed controlled trials of patients with liver or other diseases, despite testimony to the contrary. Moreover, current highly effective antiviral drugs make efforts to treat hepatitis C with herbal products redundant. Herbal products are no safer than conventional drugs and have caused liver injury severe enough to require transplantation or cause death. Furthermore, their efficacy, safety, and claims are not assessed by regulatory agencies, and there is uncertainty about their reported and unreported contents. We review the history of commonly used herbal products, as well as their purported efficacies and mechanisms and their adverse effects.

BACKGROUND  Up to 40% of patients with HIV infection in US are coinfected with Hepatitis C (HCV).1-3  Compared to HCV monoinfected patients, coinfected patients have: – Faster progression to cirrhosis1,2 – Increased incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)4  Published AASLD guidelines recommend every 6 month ultrasound (US) as the preferred HCC screening strategy for patients with cirrhosis.5  The majority of gastroenterologists are aware of the AASLD guidelines and apply them to clinical practice.6  Real world surveillance practices among primary providers have not been assessed for coinfected patients in the United States.