Preliminary data of case-control study on acute serious drug-induced liver injury.

Il danno epatico indotto dall'assunzione di farmaci viene comunemente indicato con il termine inglese DILI (Drug-Induced Liver Injury). Il paracetamolo rappresenta la causa più comune di DILI, seguito da antibiotici, FANS e farmaci antitubercolari. In particolare, i FANS sono una delle classi di farmaci maggiormente impiegate in terapia. Numerosi case report descrivono pazienti che hanno sviluppato danno epatico fatale durante il trattamento con FANS; molti di questi farmaci sono stati ritirati dal commercio in seguito a gravi reazioni avverse a carico del fegato. L'ultimo segnale di epatotossicità indotto da FANS è associato alla nimesulide; in alcuni paesi europei come la Finlandia, la Spagna e l'Irlanda, la nimesulide è stata sospesa dalla commercializzazione perché associata ad un'alta frequenza di epatotossicità. Sulla base dei dati disponibili fino a questo momento, l'Agenzia Europea dei Medicinali (EMA) ha recentemente concluso che i benefici del farmaco superano i rischi; un possibile aumento del rischio di epatotossicità associato a nimesulide rimane tuttavia una discussione aperta di cui ancora molto si dibatte. Tra le altre classi di farmaci che possono causare danno epatico acuto la cui incidenza tuttavia non è sempre ben definita sono gli antibiotici, quali amoxicillina e macrolidi, le statine e gli antidepressivi.Obiettivo dello studio è stato quello di determinare il rischio relativo di danno epatico indotto da farmaci con una prevalenza d'uso nella popolazione italiana maggiore o uguale al 6%. E’ stato disegnato uno studio caso controllo sviluppato intervistando pazienti ricoverati in reparti di diversi ospedali d’Italia. Il nostro studio ha messo in evidenza che il danno epatico da farmaci riguarda numerose classi farmacologiche e che la segnalazione di tali reazioni risulta essere statisticamente significativa per numerosi principi attivi. I dati preliminari hanno mostrato un valore di odds ratio significativo statisticamente per la nimesulide, i FANS, alcuni antibiotici come i macrolidi e il paracetamolo.Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is a term that describes abnormalities in liver function tests related to medication intake. Acetaminophen is the most common cause of DILI followed by antibiotics, NSAIDs, and antitubercular medications. NSAIDs represent one of the most widely used classes of drugs. Numerous case reports have described patients who develop fatal liver injury while taking NSAIDs. Several NSAIDs were withdrawn from the market because of hepatic ADRs. The latest warning signal for hepatotoxicity induced by a NSAID is related to nimesulide. In some European countries, Finland, Spain, and Ireland, nimesulide was suspended from the market because of an associated high frequency of hepatotoxicity. In contrast, a recent referral of the EMEA concluded that the benefits of the drug outweigh its risks. However, the full extent of the risk of nimesulide-induced liver injury is still a much debated issue within the EMEA. Primary objectives was to estimate the relative risk of liver injury induced by drugs with a prevalence of use in the Italian population > or = 6% This study is designed as a multicenter case–control study where cases and controls will all be recruited among patients seen in a hospital context in various parts of Italy. Information regarding demographic data, medical history, coexisting illnesses, lifestyles and dietary habits, alcohol, tobacco and coffee intake, use of herbal products, and drug use (including doses taken and indication for use on each day of exposure) will be collected directly from all patients through a structured interview. Preliminary results of this study confirm a significant relative risk (Odds Ratio) of liver injury associated with the use of nimesulide, NSAIDs, some antibiotics like macrolides and paracetamol. The results of this study could strongly affect regulatory decisions within the National Health Service

Apelin signaling modulates splanchnic angiogenesis and portosystemic collateral vessel formation in rats with portal hypertension

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Angiogenesis is a pathological hallmark of portal hypertension. Although VEGF is considered to be the most important proangiogenic factor in neoangiogenesis, this process requires the coordinated action of a variety of factors. Identification of novel molecules involved in angiogenesis is highly relevant, since they may represent potential new targets to suppress pathological neovascularization in angiogenesis-related diseases like portal hypertension. The apelin/APJ signaling pathway plays a crucial role in angiogenesis. Therefore, we determined whether the apelin system modulates angiogenesis-driven processes in portal hypertension. METHODS: Partial portal vein-ligated rats were treated with the APJ antagonist F13A for seven days. Splanchnic neovascularization and expression of angiogenesis mediators (Western blotting) was determined. Portosystemic collateral formation (microspheres), and hemodynamic parameters (flowmetry) were also assessed. RESULTS: Apelin and its receptor APJ were overexpressed in the splanchnic vasculature of portal hypertensive rats. F13A effectively decreased, by 52%, splanchnic neovascularization and expression of proangiogenic factors VEGF, PDGF and angiopoietin-2 in portal hypertensive rats. F13A also reduced, by 35%, the formation of portosystemic collateral vessels. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first experimental evidence showing that the apelin/APJ system contributes to portosystemic collateralization and splanchnic neovascularization in portal hypertensive rats, presenting a potential novel therapeutic target for portal hypertension

Liver hemangioma and vascular liver diseases in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus

AIM: To investigate whether systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is associated with benign focal liver lesions and vascular liver diseases, since these have been occasionally reported in SLE patients

Prognostic value of a single HVPG measurement and Doppler-ultrasound evaluation in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension

Background In patients with cirrhosis the onset of clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH; i.e., hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) C 10 mmHg) is associated with an increased risk of complications. However, most cirrhotic patients already have CSPH at presentation, and limited information is available on further risk stratification in this population. This study assessed the prognostic value of a single HVPG measurement and Doppler-ultrasound (US) evaluation in patients with cirrhosis and CSPH. Methods Eighty-six consecutive patients with cirrhosis (73% compensated) and untreated CSPH (mean HVPG 17.8 ± 5.1 mmHg) were included. All were studied by paired HVPG and US, and followed up for a minimum of 12 months (mean 28 ± 20 months). Results Sixteen (25.3%) patients developed a first decompensation, and 11.6% died on follow-up. HVPG (per 1 mmHg increase OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.05–1.40, p = 0.007) and bilirubin (per 1 mg/ml increase OR 2.42, 95% CI 0.93–6.26, p = 0.06) independently predicted first decompensation, and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (per 1 point increase OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03–1.51, p = 0.03) and HVPG (per 1 mmHg increase OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01–1.26, p = 0.05) independently predicted mortality. The best HVPG cutoff predicting these events was 16 mmHg. Ultrasonographic parameters lacked independent predictive value. The ultrasonographic detection of abdominal collaterals had a high positive likelihood ratio (7.03, 95% CI 2.23–22.16) for the prediction of HVPG C 16 mmHg, implying an increase of the probability of belonging to this higher-risk population from 58 to 91%. Conclusions HVPG holds an independent predictive value for first decompensation and death in patients with CSPH. The ultrasonographic detection of collaterals allows the non-invasive identification of patients with HVPG C 16 mmHg, who are at higher risk

Antidepressant-Induced Acute Liver Injury: A Case-Control Study in an Italian Inpatient Population

Introduction: Pre-marketing clinical trials show that antidepressant-induced liver injury seems to be a rare adverse event. Because of short follow-up trial duration, the incidence of liver injury due to antidepressant use could be underestimated. Objectives: We aimed to quantify the risk of acute liver injury associated with antidepressant use through a caseâcontrol analysis among an inpatient population. Methods: A multicenter study was carried out in nine Italian hospitals from October 2010 to January 2014, within the DILI-IT (Drug-Induced Liver Injury in Italy) study project. After exclusion of all patients with a clear competing cause of liver injury, cases were defined as adults admitted to the hospital with a diagnosis of acute liver injury, while controls had any other acute clinical condition not related to the liver. Antidepressant exposure was evaluated within 90 days prior to the date of the first sign/symptom of liver injury. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was calculated as a measure of risk estimates for liver injury. Results: We included 17 cases exposed to antidepressants matched to 99 controls. According to the features of liver injury, all cases showed symptomatic liver function test abnormalities at hospital admission, with the main signs/symptoms represented by fatigue, nausea, asthenia, or dark urine. Citalopram was the antidepressant mostly involved in the increase of liver enzymes, mainly alanine aminotransferase. Compared with non-use, current use of antidepressants was associated with a significantly increased risk of liver injury (adjusted OR, ORADJ, 1.84; 95% CI 1.02â3.32). Specifically, an increased, but not significant, risk of developing liver injury was observed for citalopram, a selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitor (ORADJ1.82; 95% CI 0.60â5.53). Conclusion: The use of antidepressants is not as safe in terms of liver injury as expected; instead, the risk of antidepressant-induced liver injury is likely underestimated. The lack of significance does not reflect the absence of risk, but rather suggests the need to evaluate it in a wider setting of antidepressant users