Drug-induced liver injury due to the long-term oral administration of rosuvastatin

A 67-year-old man was admitted to our hospital presenting with a liver injury. He had used several types of oral medication for the prior 2 years, including rosuvastatin calcium for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and prostatic hypertrophy. His liver dysfunction was noted for the first time in February 2013, and at re-examination in March 2013 he showed exacerbation of the liver dysfunction, he was admitted to our hospital at that time. We stopped all of his oral medications, and his liver function improved steadily. We conducted a drug-induced lymphocyte transformation test (DLST), and the rosuvastatin calcium result was positive. He was diagnosed as having a drug-induced (by rosvastatin calcium) liver injury. He resumed oral medications other than rosuvastatin calcium from the time of discharge, with no exacerbation of liver dysfunction since then. Reports of drug-induced liver injury due to drugs with a long-term oral administration are extremely rare. We discuss the relevant literature herein

Liver Sarcoidosis with Unique MRI Images Using Gadolinium Ethoxybenzyl Diethylenetriamine Pentaacetic Acid

Sarcoidosis is a systemic disease characterized by the formation of non-caseating granulomas in multiple organs. In the diagnosis of sarcoidosis, imaging modalities such as ultrasonography, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are useful;however, there are few reports of MRI imaging using gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Gd-EOB) MRI. A 46-year-old Japanese female with suspected pulmonary sarcoidosis was admitted to our hospital because low-density mottles in the liver were observed incidentally by chest CT. The low-density mottles were not enhanced at the arterial phase or portal phase by abdominal CT and MRI, and decreased uptake was observed in the hepatobiliary phase of Gd-EOB MRI. No hematological disorder was observed except for a slight increase of biliary enzymes. The lesion was diagnosed as liver sarcoidosis by the liver biopsy. Since the patient refused steroid therapy, we prescribed ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA). 600mg/day. The serum levels of biliary enzymes were normalized and the abdominal CT findings gradually improved after the initiation of UDCA medication. Gd-EOB MRI showed unique hypointense areas in the liver at the hepatobiliary phase, which might be useful in the diagnosis of liver sarcoidosis

Safety and Efficacy of Radiofrequency Ablation with Artificial Ascites for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

The artificial ascites technique is often used during radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment because it prevents visceral damage and improves visualization by minimizing interference of the lungs and mesentery. This study determined the efficacy and safety of RFA using the artificial ascites technique in HCC patients. We examined 188 HCC patients who were treated by RFA and fulfilled the Milan criteria. Treatment outcomes (complete ablation rate, local recurrence rate, complication rate, liver function including total bilirubin level, alanine aminotransferase level, albumin level, and prothrombin time) were compared among patients divided into 3 groups based on the volume of artificial ascites injected:GroupⅠ (n＝86), no artificial ascites injected;GroupⅡ (n＝35), ＜1,000ml artificial ascites injected;and Group Ⅲ (n＝67), ＞1,000ml artificial ascites injected. No significant difference was observed in complete ablation or local recurrence rates among the 3 groups, or in the extent of liver function damage after RFA. Artificial ascites disappeared within 7 days; additional diuretics were needed only in 5 (all from Group Ⅲ) of 102 patients. No serious complications such as intestinal perforation or intraperitoneal bleeding were observed. Thus, we found that artificial ascites injection during RFA is effective and safe, and can be used to prevent major procedural complications

Correlations between Depressive Condition and Gastroesophageal Reflux Symptoms in Patients Visiting a Department of General Medicine

To clarify the potential relevance of patients’ chief complaints at a general medicine department to their self-rating depression scale (SDS) and frequency scale for symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (FSSG) scores, we analyzed data of 478 patients who visited our general medicine department. The chief complaints (553 symptoms of 447 patients) were categorized into major symptom-based groups: respiratory (31%), circulatory (3%), gastrointestinal (GI) tract (26%), neurology (8%), orthopedic and skin (10%), and systemic (22%) symptoms. The SDS score tended to be higher in females and younger patients. The FSSG score did not differ by gender but was higher in younger patients. The patients receiving social welfare had higher SDS and FSSG scores. A close inter-relationship between the FSSG (including both degrees of reflux and dysmotility) and SDS was observed in all patients. Although the averages of the SDS and FSSG scores were not significantly different among the symptom-based categories, we observed significantly positive correlations between the FSSG and SDS in each category, suggesting that depressive status may be closely related to GERD-related symptoms regardless of the patients’ chief complaints. An initial checkup of patients’ psychological condition and/or GERD-like symptoms could help screen for latent disorders in outpatients with uncertain complaints

Entecavir Reduces Hepatocarcinogenesis in Chronic Hepatitis B Patients

Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) leads to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). With a cohort of 1,206 CHB patients who visited Okayama University Hospital and related hospitals in 2011 and 2012, we compared the incidence rates of HCC among the patients grouped by age, hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA, hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg), and treatment. HCCs were observed in 115 patients with the median observation period of 1,687 days. Among the HCC patients aged ≥ 35 years, HBV DNA ≥ 4 log copies/mL and positive HBeAg at diagnosis (n=184), the HCC incidence rate was 8.4% at 5 years in the entecavir (ETV)-treated patients, 21.8% in the lamivudine (LVD)-treated patients, and 26.4% among the patients not treated with drugs. The cumulative HCC incidence was significantly reduced in the ETV-treated patients compared to those treated with LVD or not treated (p=0.013). Among the patients aged ≥ 35 years with HBV DNA ≥ 4 log copies/mL and negative HBeAg (n=237), the cumulative HCC incidence was 14.6% in 5 years in ETV group and 13.9% among those not treated with a drug (p>0.05). Only small numbers of HCCs occurred in other patients. In CHB patients aged≥35 years with HBV DNA ≥4 log copies/mL and positive HBeAg, ETV treatment is recommended for the suppression of HCC development

Mixed HCV Infection of Genotype 1B and Other Genotypes Influences Non-response during Daclatasvir + Asunaprevir Combination Therapy

Daclatasvir (DCV) + asunaprevir (ASV) combination therapy has become available for patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) serogroup 1 infection. We studied the efficacy of this therapy by focusing on the factors associated with sustained virological responses (SVR) including resistance-associated variants (RAVs) and mixed infection of different HCV genotypes. We enrolled 951 HCV serogroup 1-positive patients who received this combination therapy at our hospital or affiliated hospitals. The presence of RAVs in non-structural (NS) regions 3 and 5A was analyzed by direct sequencing. HCV genotypes were determined by PCR with genotype-specific primers targeting HCV core and NS5B regions. SVR was achieved in 91.1% of patients. Female sex, age > 70 years, and RAVs were significantly associated with non-SVR (p<0.01 for all). Propensity score-matching results among the patients without RAVs regarding sex, age, and fibrosis revealed that mixed HCV infection determined by HCV NS5B genotyping showed significantly lower SVR rates than 1B-mono infection (p=0.02). Female sex and RAVs were significant factors associated with treatment failure of this combination therapy for patients with HCV serogroup 1 infection. Mixed HCV infection other than 1B-mono infection would be useful for predicting treatment failure

Prevalence and Outcomes of Acute Hepatitis B in Okayama, Japan, 2006-2010

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) is one of the major viruses causing acute hepatitis. Recently, the incidence of acute hepatitis with genotype A has been increasing in Japan. The aim of this study was to investigate acute hepatitis B (AHB) in Okayama prefecture, with special attention to HBV genotype A. AHB patients who visited one of 12 general hospitals in Okayama prefecture between 2006 and 2010 were retrospectively analyzed. Over the course of the study period, 128 patients were diagnosed with AHB. Sexual transmission was supposed in the majority of patients (78 patients, 61%), including 59 (76%) having sex with heterosexual partners. The genotypes of HBV were assessed in 90 patients (70%), of whom 27 patients were infected with genotype A, 5 with genotype B, and 58 with genotype C. The prevalence of genotype A was significantly higher among male patients (28.7%), aged 20-29 (35.6%, p＜0.01), among men who had sex with men (100%, p＜0.005), and among patients having sex with unspecified partners (44.8%, p＜0.005). Genotype A was not a significant factor associated with delayed HBsAg disappearance. Caution should be exercised with regard to sexually transmissible diseases in order to slow the pandemic spread of AHB due to genotype A

Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Japan : JSH Consensus Statements and Recommendations 2021 Update

The Clinical Practice Manual for Hepatocellular Carcinoma was published based on evidence confirmed by the Evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hepatocellular Carcinoma along with consensus opinion among a Japan Society of Hepatology (JSH) expert panel on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Since the JSH Clinical Practice Guidelines are based on original articles with extremely high levels of evidence, expert opinions on HCC management in clinical practice or consensus on newly developed treatments are not included. However, the practice manual incorporates the literature based on clinical data, expert opinion, and real-world clinical practice currently conducted in Japan to facilitate its use by clinicians. Alongside each revision of the JSH Guidelines, we issued an update to the manual, with the first edition of the manual published in 2007, the second edition in 2010, the third edition in 2015, and the fourth edition in 2020, which includes the 2017 edition of the JSH Guideline. This article is an excerpt from the fourth edition of the HCC Clinical Practice Manual focusing on pathology, diagnosis, and treatment of HCC. It is designed as a practical manual different from the latest version of the JSH Clinical Practice Guidelines. This practice manual was written by an expert panel from the JSH, with emphasis on the consensus statements and recommendations for the management of HCC proposed by the JSH expert panel. In this article, we included newly developed clinical practices that are relatively common among Japanese experts in this field, although all of their statements are not associated with a high level of evidence, but these practices are likely to be incorporated into guidelines in the future. To write this article, coauthors from different institutions drafted the content and then critically reviewed each other’s work. The revised content was then critically reviewed by the Board of Directors and the Planning and Public Relations Committee of JSH before publication to confirm the consensus statements and recommendations. The consensus statements and recommendations presented in this report represent measures actually being conducted at the highest-level HCC treatment centers in Japan. We hope this article provides insight into the actual situation of HCC practice in Japan, thereby affecting the global practice pattern in the management of HCC

Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Japan: JSH Consensus Statements and Recommendations 2021 Update

The Clinical Practice Manual for Hepatocellular Carcinoma was published based on evidence confirmed by the Evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hepatocellular Carcinoma along with consensus opinion among a Japan Society of Hepatology (JSH) expert panel on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Since the JSH Clinical Practice Guidelines are based on original articles with extremely high levels of evidence, expert opinions on HCC management in clinical practice or consensus on newly developed treatments are not included. However, the practice manual incorporates the literature based on clinical data, expert opinion, and real-world clinical practice currently conducted in Japan to facilitate its use by clinicians. Alongside each revision of the JSH Guidelines, we issued an update to the manual, with the first edition of the manual published in 2007, the second edition in 2010, the third edition in 2015, and the fourth edition in 2020, which includes the 2017 edition of the JSH Guideline. This article is an excerpt from the fourth edition of the HCC Clinical Practice Manual focusing on pathology, diagnosis, and treatment of HCC. It is designed as a practical manual different from the latest version of the JSH Clinical Practice Guidelines. This practice manual was written by an expert panel from the JSH, with emphasis on the consensus statements and recommendations for the management of HCC proposed by the JSH expert panel. In this article, we included newly developed clinical practices that are relatively common among Japanese experts in this field, although all of their statements are not associated with a high level of evidence, but these practices are likely to be incorporated into guidelines in the future. To write this article, coauthors from different institutions drafted the content and then critically reviewed each other’s work. The revised content was then critically reviewed by the Board of Directors and the Planning and Public Relations Committee of JSH before publication to confirm the consensus statements and recommendations. The consensus statements and recommendations presented in this report represent measures actually being conducted at the highest-level HCC treatment centers in Japan. We hope this article provides insight into the actual situation of HCC practice in Japan, thereby affecting the global practice pattern in the management of HCC

Sequential therapies after atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or lenvatinib first-line treatments in hepatocellular carcinoma patients

Introduction: The aim of this retrospective proof-of-concept study was to compare different second-line treatments for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and progressive disease (PD) after first-line lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.Materials and methods: A total of 1381 patients had PD at first-line therapy. 917 patients received lenvatinib as first-line treatment, and 464 patients atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line.Results: 49.6% of PD patients received a second-line therapy without any statistical difference in overall survival (OS) between lenvatinib (20.6 months) and atezolizumab plus bev-acizumab first-line (15.7 months; p = 0.12; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.80). After lenvatinib first-line, there wasn't any statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p = 0.27; sorafenib HR: 1; immunotherapy HR: 0.69; other therapies HR: 0.85). Patients who under-went trans-arterial chemo-embolization (TACE) had a significative longer OS than patients who received sorafenib (24.7 versus 15.8 months, p &lt; 0.01; HR = 0.64). After atezolizumab plus bevacizumab first-line, there was a statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p &lt; 0.01; sorafenib HR: 1; lenvatinib HR: 0.50; cabozantinib HR: 1.29; other therapies HR: 0.54). Patients who received lenvatinib (17.0 months) and those who under-went TACE (15.9 months) had a significative longer OS than patients treated with sorafenib (14.2 months; respectively, p = 0.01; HR = 0.45, and p &lt; 0.05; HR = 0.46).Conclusion: Approximately half of patients receiving first-line lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab access second-line treatment. Our data suggest that in patients progressed to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is lenvatinib, while in patients progressed to lenvatinib, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is immunotherapy