Paul H. Hayashi

Acute hepatitis E infection accounts for some cases of suspected drug-induced liver injury.

BACKGROUND & AIMS The diagnosis of drug-induced liver injury relies on exclusion of other causes, including viral hepatitis A, B, and C. Hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection has been proposed as another cause of suspected drug-induced liver disease. We assessed the frequency of HEV infection among patients with drug-induced liver injury in the United States. METHODS The Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN) is a prospective study of patients with suspected drug-induced liver injury; clinical information and biological samples are collected to investigate pathogenesis and disease progression. We analyzed serum samples, collected from patients enrolled in DILIN, for immunoglobulin (Ig) G and IgM against HEV; selected samples were tested for HEV RNA. RESULTS Among 318 patients with suspected drug-induced liver injury, 50 (16%) tested positive for anti-HEV IgG and 9 (3%) for anti-HEV IgM. The samples that contained anti-HEV IgM (collected 2 to 24 weeks after onset of symptoms) included 4 that tested positive for HEV RNA genotype 3. Samples from the 6-month follow-up visit were available from 4 patients; they were negative for anti-HEV IgM, but levels of anti-HEV IgG increased with time. Patients who had anti-HEV IgM were mostly older men (89%; mean age, 67 years), and 2 were human immunodeficiency virus positive. Clinical reassessment of the 9 patients with anti-HEV IgM indicated that acute hepatitis E was the most likely diagnosis for 7 and might be the primary diagnosis for 2. CONCLUSIONS HEV infection contributes to a small but important proportion of cases of acute liver injury that are suspected to be drug induced. Serologic testing for HEV infection should be performed, particularly if clinical features are compatible with acute viral hepatitis.

Causality assessment in drug-induced liver injury using a structured expert opinion process: Comparison to the Roussel-Uclaf causality assessment method

Drug‐induced liver injury (DILI) is largely a diagnosis of exclusion and is therefore challenging. The US Drug‐Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN) prospective study used two methods to assess DILI causality: a structured expert opinion process and the Roussel‐Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM). Causality assessment focused on detailed clinical and laboratory data from patients with suspected DILI. The adjudication process used standardized numerical and descriptive definitions and scored cases as definite, highly likely, probable, possible, or unlikely. Results of the structured expert opinion procedure were compared with those derived by the RUCAM approach. Among 250 patients with suspected DILI, the expert opinion adjudication process scored 78 patients (31%) as definite, 102 (41%) as highly likely, 37 (15%) as probable, 25 (10%) as possible, and 8 (3%) as unlikely. Among 187 enrollees who had received a single implicated drug, initial complete agreement was reached for 50 (27%) with the expert opinion process and for 34 (19%) with a five‐category RUCAM scale (P = 0.08), and the two methods demonstrated a modest correlation with each other (Spearmans r = 0.42, P = 0.0001). Importantly, the RUCAM approach substantially shifted the causality likelihood toward lower probabilities in comparison with the DILIN expert opinion process. Conclusion: The structured DILIN expert opinion process produced higher agreement rates and likelihood scores than RUCAM in assessing causality, but there was still considerable interobserver variability in both. Accordingly, a more objective, reliable, and reproducible means of assessing DILI causality is still needed. HEPATOLOGY 2010

ACG Clinical Guideline: The Diagnosis and Management of Idiosyncratic Drug-Induced Liver Injury

Idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is a rare adverse drug reaction and it can lead to jaundice, liver failure, or even death. Antimicrobials and herbal and dietary supplements are among the most common therapeutic classes to cause DILI in the Western world. DILI is a diagnosis of exclusion and thus careful history taking and thorough work-up for competing etiologies are essential for its timely diagnosis. In this ACG Clinical Guideline, the authors present an evidence-based approach to diagnosis and management of DILI with special emphasis on DILI due to herbal and dietary supplements and DILI occurring in individuals with underlying liver disease.

Features and Outcomes of 899 Patients With Drug-Induced Liver Injury: The DILIN Prospective Study

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 < .001). Azithromycin was the implicated agent in a higher proportion of patients with pre-existing liver disease compared with those without liver disease (6.7% vs 1.5%; P = .006). Forty-one cases with latency ≤7 days were caused predominantly by antimicrobial agents (71%). Two most common causes for 60 DILI cases with latency >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.

Hepatic histological findings in suspected drug‐induced liver injury: Systematic evaluation and clinical associations

Drug‐induced liver injury (DILI) is considered to be a diagnosis of exclusion. Liver biopsy may contribute to diagnostic accuracy, but the histological features of DILI and their relationship to biochemical parameters and outcomes are not well defined. We have classified the pathological pattern of liver injury and systematically evaluated histological changes in liver biopsies obtained from 249 patients with suspected DILI enrolled in the prospective, observational study conducted by the Drug Induced Liver Injury Network. Histological features were analyzed for their frequency within different clinical phenotypes of liver injury and to identify associations between clinical and laboratory findings and histological features. The most common histological patterns were acute (21%) and chronic hepatitis (14%), acute (9%) and chronic cholestasis (10%), and cholestatic hepatitis (29%). Liver histology from 128 patients presenting with hepatocellular injury had more severe inflammation, necrosis, and apoptosis and more frequently demonstrated lobular disarray, rosette formation, and hemorrhage than those with cholestasis. Conversely, histology of the 73 patients with cholestatic injury more often demonstrated bile plugs and duct paucity. Severe or fatal hepatic injury in 46 patients was associated with higher degrees of necrosis, fibrosis stage, microvesicular steatosis, and ductular reaction among other findings, whereas eosinophils and granulomas were found more often in those with milder injury. Conclusion: We describe an approach for evaluating liver histology in DILI and demonstrate numerous associations between pathological findings and clinical presentations that may serve as a foundation for future studies correlating DILI pathology with its causality and outcome. (Hepatology 2014;59:661–670)

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide, particularly in Asia. Surgical resection may be the treatment likely to result in long-term survival. The indications for surgical resection are limited, however, to patients with satisfactory functional liver reserve. Liver transplantation can provide longer disease-free survival rates in HCC patients irrespective of live function if selected based on the size and number of tumors. The usefulness of chemotherapy and local ablative treatment for HCC prior to transplantation remains unclear. Cadaveric graft shortage remains a problem and optimal management during the waiting time must be determined. Living donor liver transplantation and domino transplantation remain alternative therapeutic modalities for HCC.

Hepatotoxicity Due to Hydroxycut: A Case Series

OBJECTIVES:Muscletech Hydroxycut (Iovate Health Sciences Research, Oakville, Ontario, Canada) was a popular weight-loss supplement that was recalled by the manufacturer in May 2009 on the basis of reports of hepatotoxicity associated with this supplement. We sought to characterize the clinical presentation of Hydroxycut-associated liver injury and to adjudicate these cases for causal association with Hydroxycut.METHODS:We assessed the causality and grading of severity of liver injury using methodology developed by the Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN) study.RESULTS:Eight patients who developed liver injury after taking Hydroxycut treated at different medical centers were identified. All were hospitalized, and three of eight patients required liver transplantation. Nine other cases with adequate clinical information were obtained from the FDA MedWatch database, including one fatal case of acute liver failure. Usual symptoms were jaundice, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. Most patients exhibited a hepatocellular pattern of injury. Adjudication for causality revealed eight cases as definite, five highly likely, two probable, and two were considered to be possible.CONCLUSIONS:Hydroxycut has been clearly implicated as a cause for severe liver injury that may lead to acute liver failure and death. Weight-loss supplements represent a class of dietary supplements that should be regarded as capable of causing severe hepatic toxicity when the usual causes of identified liver injury cannot be otherwise elucidated.

Liver allograft antibody‐mediated rejection with demonstration of sinusoidal C4d staining and circulating donor‐specific antibodies

The importance of antibody‐mediated rejection (AMR) in ABO‐compatible liver transplantation is controversial. Here we report a prospective series of liver recipients with a preoperative positive crossmatch. To establish the diagnosis of AMR in liver recipients, the criteria described for kidney allografts were adopted. In approximately 10% of 197 liver transplants, we observed a positive T and B cell flow crossmatch before transplantation. Fifteen of 19 patients converted to negative crossmatches early after transplantation and displayed normal liver function while they were on routine immunosuppression. Four patients maintained positive crossmatches. Three of the 4 met the criteria for AMR and showed evidence of graft dysfunction, the presence of donor‐specific antibodies (DSAs), morphological tissue destruction with positive C4d linear staining on the graft sinusoidal endothelium, and improved function with attempts to eliminate DSAs. A persistently positive crossmatch after liver transplantation may lead to early, severe AMR and liver failure. C4d staining in the liver sinusoidal endothelium should alert one to the possibility of AMR. In our experience, patients with a positive crossmatch should have it repeated at 2 weeks and, if it is positive, again at 3 to 5 weeks. Recipients with an unknown preoperative crossmatch who develop early cholestasis of unclear etiology should be crossmatched or tested for the presence of DSAs to evaluate for AMR. Liver Transpl, 2011.

Liver transplant recipient survival benefit with living donation in the model for endstage liver disease allocation era

Receipt of a living donor liver transplant (LDLT) has been associated with improved survival compared with waiting for a deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT). However, the survival benefit of liver transplant has been questioned for candidates with Model for Endstage Liver Disease (MELD) scores <15, and the survival advantage of LDLT has not been demonstrated during the MELD allocation era, especially for low MELD patients. Transplant candidates enrolled in the Adult‐to‐Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study after February 28, 2002 were followed for a median of 4.6 years. Starting at the time of presentation of the first potential living donor, mortality for LDLT recipients was compared to mortality for patients who remained on the waiting list or received DDLT (no LDLT group) according to categories of MELD score (<15 or ≥15) and diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Of 868 potential LDLT recipients (453 with MELD <15; 415 with MELD ≥15 at entry), 712 underwent transplantation (406 LDLT; 306 DDLT), 83 died without transplant, and 73 were alive without transplant at last follow‐up. Overall, LDLT recipients had 56% lower mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32‐0.60; P < 0.0001). Among candidates without HCC, mortality benefit was seen both with MELD <15 (HR = 0.39; P = 0.0003) and MELD ≥15 (HR = 0.42; P = 0.0006). Among candidates with HCC, a benefit of LDLT was not seen for MELD <15 (HR = 0.82, P = 0.65) but was seen for MELD ≥15 (HR = 0.29, P = 0.043). Conclusion: Across the range of MELD scores, patients without HCC derived a significant survival benefit when undergoing LDLT rather than waiting for DDLT in the MELD liver allocation era. Low MELD candidates with HCC may not benefit from LDLT. (HEPATOLOGY 2011;54:1313–1321)

Liver Injury From Tumor Necrosis Factor-α Antagonists: Analysis of Thirty-four Cases

BACKGROUND & AIMS Tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α antagonists have been associated with drug-induced liver injury (DILI). We reviewed cases of DILI in the United States to identify those associated with use of TNF-α antagonists. METHODS We searched the U.S. DILI Network (DILIN) database, from 2003 to 2011, for cases associated with TNF-α antagonists. Mean Roussel-Uclaf Causality Assessment Method scores were calculated. A DILIN severity score was assigned according to a previously published scale, and we identified 6 subjects likely to have DILI associated with use of TNF-α antagonists. We also searched PubMed for articles that reported hepatotoxicity from TNF-α antagonists, identifying 28 additional cases suitable for analysis. RESULTS The drugs presumed to have caused DILI were infliximab (n = 26), etanercept (n = 4), and adalimumab (n = 4). The anti-TNF-α agent was the probable cause of 12 cases of DILI (35%), a very likely cause for 21 (62%), and a definite cause for 1 (3%). Median latency was 13 weeks (range, 2-104); however, 7 cases (20%) had latency periods longer than 24 weeks. Twenty-two of 33 subjects who underwent serologic analysis (67%) tested positive for anti-nuclear and/or smooth muscle antibodies. Of these 22, 17 underwent liver biopsy; 15 subjects had clear features of autoimmunity. The 22 subjects with autoimmune features had longer median latency (16 vs 10 weeks) and higher peak levels of alanine aminotransferase (784 vs 528 U/L) than the 12 without such features. There was 1 case of severe cholestasis. All but one subject improved after discontinuation of the implicated drug; 12 subjects received corticosteroid therapy. No deaths were attributed to liver injury, although one patient with preexistent cirrhosis required liver transplantation. CONCLUSIONS Acute liver injury caused by TNF-α antagonists may be a class effect because multiple agents in this category have been implicated. The most common presentation is an autoimmune phenotype with marked hepatocellular injury, but a mixed non-autoimmune pattern or predominant cholestasis also occurs. The prognosis is usually good after drug discontinuation, although some patients may benefit from a course of corticosteroids. ClinicalTrials.gov: Number, NCT00345930.