Oral Azole Antifungal Medications and Risk of Acute Liver Injury, Overall and by Chronic Liver Disease Status

Reports on associations between azole antifungal medications and acute liver injury are inconsistent and have not been based on liver-related laboratory tests. We evaluated incidence rates of acute liver injury associated with oral azole antifungals. We conducted a cohort study among Kaiser Permanente Northern California members who initiated an oral azole antifungal in an outpatient setting during 2004-2010. We determined development of: (1) liver aminotransferases >200 U/L, (2) severe acute liver injury (coagulopathy with hyperbilirubinemia), and (3) acute liver failure. We calculated incidence rates of endpoints. Cox regression was used to determine whether chronic liver disease was a risk factor for outcomes. Among 195,334 azole initiators (178,879 fluconazole; 14,296 ketoconazole; 1653 itraconazole; 478 voriconazole; 28 posaconazole), incidence rates (events/1000 person-years [95% confidence intervals (CIs)]) of liver aminotransferases >200 U/L were similarly low with fluconazole (13.0 [11.4-14.6]), ketoconazole (19.3 [13.8-26.3]), and itraconazole (24.5 [10.6-48.2]). Rates were higher with voriconazole (181.9 [112.6-278.0]) and posaconazole (191.1 [23.1-690.4]), but comparable. Severe acute liver injury was uncommon with fluconazole (2.0 [1.4-2.7]), ketoconazole (2.9 [1.1-6.3]), and itraconazole (0.0 [0.0-11.2]), but more frequent with voriconazole (16.7 [2.0-60.2]) and posaconazole (93.4 [2.4-520.6]). One patient developed acute liver failure due to ketoconazole. Pre-existing chronic liver disease increased risks of aminotransferases >200 U/L (hazard ratio 4.68 [95% CI, 3.68-5.94]) and severe acute liver injury (hazard ratio 5.62 [95% CI, 2.56-12.35]). Rates of acute liver injury were similarly low for fluconazole, ketoconazole, and itraconazole. Events were more common among voriconazole and posaconazole users but were comparable. Pre-existing chronic liver disease increased risk of azole-induced liver injury

Validity of diagnostic codes and laboratory tests of liver dysfunction to identify acute liver failure events

PurposeIdentification of acute liver failure (ALF) is important for post-marketing surveillance of medications, but the validity of using ICD-9 diagnoses and laboratory data to identify these events within electronic health records is unknown. We examined positive predictive values (PPVs) of hospital ICD-9 diagnoses and laboratory tests of liver dysfunction for identifying ALF within a large, community-based integrated care organization. MethodsWe identified Kaiser Permanente Northern California health plan members (2004-2010) with a hospital diagnosis suggesting ALF (ICD-9 570, 572.2, 572.4, 572.8, 573.3, 573.8, or V42.7) plus an inpatient international normalized ratio 1.5 (off warfarin) and total bilirubin 5.0mg/dL. Hospital records were reviewed by hepatologists to adjudicate ALF events. PPVs for confirmed outcomes were determined for individual ICD-9 diagnoses, diagnoses plus prescriptions for hepatic encephalopathy treatment, and combinations of diagnoses in the setting of coagulopathy and hyperbilirubinemia. ResultsAmong 669 members with no pre-existing liver disease, chart review confirmed ALF in 62 (9%). Despite the presence of co-existing coagulopathy and hyperbilirubinemia, individual ICD-9 diagnoses had low PPVs (range, 5-15%); requiring prescriptions for encephalopathy treatment did not increase PPVs of these diagnoses (range, 2-23%). Hospital diagnoses of other liver disorders (ICD-9 573.8) plus hepatic coma (ICD-9 572.2) had high PPV (67%; 95%CI, 9-99%) but only identified two (3%) ALF events. ConclusionsAlgorithms comprising relevant hospital diagnoses, laboratory evidence of liver dysfunction, and prescriptions for hepatic encephalopathy treatment had low PPVs for confirmed ALF events. Studies of ALF will need to rely on medical records to confirm this outcome. Copyright (c) 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Risk of Acute Liver Failure in Patients With Drug-Induced Liver Injury: Evaluation of Hy’s Law and a New Prognostic Model

Few studies have evaluated the ability of laboratory tests to predict risk of acute liver failure (ALF) among patients with drug-induced liver injury (DILI). We aimed to develop a highly sensitive model to identify DILI patients at increased risk of ALF. We compared its performance with that of Hy’s Law, which predicts severity of DILI based on levels of alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase and total bilirubin, and validated the model in a separate sample. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 15,353 Kaiser Permanente Northern California members diagnosed with DILI from 2004 through 2010, liver aminotransferase levels above the upper limit of normal, and no pre-existing liver disease. Thirty ALF events were confirmed by medical record review. Logistic regression was used to develop prognostic models for ALF based on laboratory results measured at DILI diagnosis. External validation was performed in a sample of 76 patients with DILI at the University of Pennsylvania. Hy’s Law identified patients that developed ALF with a high level of specificity (0.92) and negative predictive value (0.99), but low level of sensitivity (0.68) and positive predictive value (0.02). The model we developed, comprising data on platelet count and total bilirubin level, identified patients with ALF with a C statistic of 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76–0.96) and enabled calculation of a risk score (Drug-Induced Liver Toxicity ALF Score). We found a cut-off score that identified patients at high risk patients for ALF with a sensitivity value of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.71–0.99) and a specificity value of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.75–0.77). This cut-off score identified patients at high risk for ALF with a high level of sensitivity (0.89; 95% CI, 0.52–1.00) in the validation analysis. Hy’s Law identifies patients with DILI at high risk for ALF with low sensitivity but high specificity. We developed a model (the Drug-Induced Liver Toxicity ALF Score) based on platelet count and total bilirubin level that identifies patients at increased risk for ALF with high sensitivity

“Extrauterine growth restriction” and “postnatal growth failure” are misnomers for preterm infants

Preterm infants are increasingly diagnosed as having“extrauterine growth restriction”(EUGR) or“postnatal growth failure”(PGF). Usually EUGR/PGF is diagnosed when weight is <10th percentile at either discharge or 36–40 weeks postmenstrualage. The reasons why the phrases EUGR/PGF are unhelpful include, they: (i) are not predictive of adverse outcome; (ii) arebased only on weight without any consideration of head or length growth, proportionality, body composition, or geneticpotential; (iii) ignore normal postnatal weight loss; (iv) are usually assessed prior to growth slowing of the reference fetus,around 36–40 weeks, and (v) are usually based on an arbitrary statistical growth percentile cut-off. Focus on EUGR/PGFprevalence may benefit with better attention to nutrition but may also harm with nutrition delivery above infants’actualneeds. In this paper, we highlight challenges associated with such arbitrary cut-offs and opportunities for further refinementof understanding growth and nutritional needs of preterm neonate