Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2007
Long-term follow-up of patients with mild to moderate drug-induced liver injury.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Björnsson E, Kalaitzakis E, Av Klinteberg V, Alem N, Olsson R
Аннотация
AIM: To evaluate the long-term prognosis of patients diagnosed with drug-induced liver injury, and the nature of the liver injury.
METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of drug-induced liver injury between 1994 and 2005 were identified in a university hospital clinic. Patients surviving drug-induced liver injury-associated liver failure were excluded.
RESULTS: Seventy-seven cases were identified and those who were alive (69) were invited to attend follow-up. Of those patients who had died, none had died of liver disease. Of those patients who had survived, 59 were reviewed in the clinic. Patients had a median follow-up of 48 months. Before the diagnosis of drug-induced liver injury, nine had a chronic liver disease, four with autoimmune hepatitis, two with non-alcoholic liver disease, one each with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, primary biliary cirrhosis and primary sclerosing cholangitis. There was no evidence of progression of their liver disease during follow-up. Among 50 patients without a known liver disease prior to the drug-induced liver injury, 10 had abnormal liver tests. Diagnostic work-up revealed alternative cause of liver disease in all except three patients (6%), who had asymptomatic abnormal liver tests (but normal bilirubin in all).
CONCLUSIONS: Chronic abnormalities in liver tests, not explained by an identified liver disease, are very rare in patients previously diagnosed with drug-induced liver injury. This group of patients did not seem to have a clinically significant liver injury at long-term follow-up.
METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of drug-induced liver injury between 1994 and 2005 were identified in a university hospital clinic. Patients surviving drug-induced liver injury-associated liver failure were excluded.
RESULTS: Seventy-seven cases were identified and those who were alive (69) were invited to attend follow-up. Of those patients who had died, none had died of liver disease. Of those patients who had survived, 59 were reviewed in the clinic. Patients had a median follow-up of 48 months. Before the diagnosis of drug-induced liver injury, nine had a chronic liver disease, four with autoimmune hepatitis, two with non-alcoholic liver disease, one each with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, primary biliary cirrhosis and primary sclerosing cholangitis. There was no evidence of progression of their liver disease during follow-up. Among 50 patients without a known liver disease prior to the drug-induced liver injury, 10 had abnormal liver tests. Diagnostic work-up revealed alternative cause of liver disease in all except three patients (6%), who had asymptomatic abnormal liver tests (but normal bilirubin in all).
CONCLUSIONS: Chronic abnormalities in liver tests, not explained by an identified liver disease, are very rare in patients previously diagnosed with drug-induced liver injury. This group of patients did not seem to have a clinically significant liver injury at long-term follow-up.