Drugs Associated with Hepatotoxicity and their Reporting Frequency of Liver Adverse Events in VigiBase (TM) Unified List Based on International Collaborative Work

BACKGROUND Challenges exist in the clinical diagnosis of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) and in obtaining information on hepatotoxicity in humans. OBJECTIVE (i) To develop a unified list that combines drugs incriminated in well vetted or adjudicated DILI cases from many recognized sources and drugs that have been subjected to serious regulatory actions due to hepatotoxicity; and (ii) to supplement the drug list with data on reporting frequencies of liver events in the WHO individual case safety report database (VigiBase). DATA SOURCES AND EXTRACTION (i) Drugs identified as causes of DILI at three major DILI registries; (ii) drugs identified as causes of drug-induced acute liver failure (ALF) in six different data sources, including major ALF registries and previously published ALF studies; and (iii) drugs identified as being subjected to serious governmental regulatory actions due to their hepatotoxicity in Europe or the US were collected. The reporting frequency of adverse events was determined using VigiBase, computed as Empirical Bayes Geometric Mean (EBGM) with 90% confidence interval for two customized terms, 'overall liver injury' and 'ALF'. EBGM of >or=2 was considered a disproportional increase in reporting frequency. The identified drugs were then characterized in terms of regional divergence, published case reports, serious regulatory actions, and reporting frequency of 'overall liver injury' and 'ALF' calculated from VigiBase. DATA SYNTHESIS After excluding herbs, supplements and alternative medicines, a total of 385 individual drugs were identified; 319 drugs were identified in the three DILI registries, 107 from the six ALF registries (or studies) and 47 drugs that were subjected to suspension or withdrawal in the US or Europe due to their hepatotoxicity. The identified drugs varied significantly between Spain, the US and Sweden. Of the 319 drugs identified in the DILI registries of adjudicated cases, 93.4% were found in published case reports, 1.9% were suspended or withdrawn due to hepatotoxicity and 25.7% were also identified in the ALF registries/studies. In VigiBase, 30.4% of the 319 drugs were associated with disproportionally higher reporting frequency of 'overall liver injury' and 83.1% were associated with at least one reported case of ALF. CONCLUSIONS This newly developed list of drugs associated with hepatotoxicity and the multifaceted analysis on hepatotoxicity will aid in causality assessment and clinical diagnosis of DILI and will provide a basis for further characterization of hepatotoxicity.

La notificación on line de reacciones adversas a medicamentos, un avance de la Web del Centro Andaluz de Farmacovigilancia

Boletín semanal para profesionales sanitarios de la Secretaría General de Salud Pública y Participación Social de la Consejería de Salud

Adverse hepatic reactions associated with calcium carbimide and disulfiram therapy: is there still a role for these drugs?

Disulfiram and calcium carbimide are two alcohol deterrants widely used in alcoholism treatment, however, there exist great concerns over their safety. Reports on hepatotoxicity, mainly related to disulfiram therapy, have been published. The hepatotoxic potential of calcium carbimide is less well characterized. Here, we describe four cases of liver damage related to this therapeutic group that were submitted to a Registry of hepatotoxicity and point out the limitations that we face when prescribing these compounds. A reassessment of the role of these compounds in the management of alcohol dependence is clearly needed.

Assessment of drug-induced hepatotoxicity in clinical practice: a challenge for gastroenterologists.

Currently, pharmaceutical preparations are serious contributors to liver disease; hepatotoxicity ranking as the most frequent cause for acute liver failure and post-commercialization regulatory decisions. The diagnosis of hepatotoxicity remains a difficult task because of the lack of reliable markers for use in general clinical practice. To incriminate any given drug in an episode of liver dysfunction is a step-by-step process that requires a high degree of suspicion, compatible chronology, awareness of the drug's hepatotoxic potential, the exclusion of alternative causes of liver damage and the ability to detect the presence of subtle data that favors a toxic etiology. This process is time-consuming and the final result is frequently inaccurate. Diagnostic algorithms may add consistency to the diagnostic process by translating the suspicion into a quantitative score. Such scales are useful since they provide a framework that emphasizes the features that merit attention in cases of suspected hepatic adverse reaction as well. Current efforts in collecting bona fide cases of drug-induced hepatotoxicity will make refinements of existing scales feasible. It is now relatively easy to accommodate relevant data within the scoring system and to delete low-impact items. Efforts should also be directed toward the development of an abridged instrument for use in evaluating suspected drug-induced hepatotoxicity at the very beginning of the diagnosis and treatment process when clinical decisions need to be made. The instrument chosen would enable a confident diagnosis to be made on admission of the patient and treatment to be fine-tuned as further information is collected.

Hepatic safety of antibiotics used in primary care

Antibiotics used by general practitioners frequently appear in adverse-event reports of drug-induced hepatotoxicity. Most cases are idiosyncratic (the adverse reaction cannot be predicted from the drug's pharmacological profile or from pre-clinical toxicology tests) and occur via an immunological reaction or in response to the presence of hepatotoxic metabolites. With the exception of trovafloxacin and telithromycin (now severely restricted), hepatotoxicity crude incidence remains globally low but variable. Thus, amoxicillin/clavulanate and co-trimoxazole, as well as flucloxacillin, cause hepatotoxic reactions at rates that make them visible in general practice (cases are often isolated, may have a delayed onset, sometimes appear only after cessation of therapy and can produce an array of hepatic lesions that mirror hepatobiliary disease, making causality often difficult to establish). Conversely, hepatotoxic reactions related to macrolides, tetracyclines and fluoroquinolones (in that order, from high to low) are much rarer, and are identifiable only through large-scale studies or worldwide pharmacovigilance reporting. For antibiotics specifically used for tuberculosis, adverse effects range from asymptomatic increases in liver enzymes to acute hepatitis and fulminant hepatic failure. Yet, it is difficult to single out individual drugs, as treatment always entails associations. Patients at risk are mainly those with previous experience of hepatotoxic reaction to antibiotics, the aged or those with impaired hepatic function in the absence of close monitoring, making it important to carefully balance potential risks with expected benefits in primary care. Pharmacogenetic testing using the new genome-wide association studies approach holds promise for better understanding the mechanism(s) underlying hepatotoxicity.

Dapagliflozina

Dapagliflozin is a new oral antidiabetic agent whose mechanism of action increases renal glucose excretion, independently of insulin secretion or insulin action. The efficacy of dapagliflozin is dependent on renal function. The use of dapagliflozin has been licensed to improve glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus as: - monotherapy when diet and exercise alone do not provide adequate glycaemic control in patients for whom the use of metformin is considered inappropriate due to intolerance. - Add-on combination therapy with other glucose-lowering agents including insulin, when these, together with diet and exercise, do not provide adequate glycaemic control. Funding has been restricted to the use of dapagliflozin, prior approval, as dual therapy in combination with metformin. This report aims to assess the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, rate the added therapeutic value of dapagliflozin in type 2 diabetes mellitus and identify its current place in therapy. A systematic literature search was carried out, for the purpose of this evaluation, using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and IDIS databases as well as other secondary sources of evidence-based medicine, therapeutic bulletins and national and international drug agencies. Following the critical reading and analysis of the selected articles, a summary is made out of the scientific evidence available, using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria. Only one randomised clinical trial, out of the ten trials found, was considered to be a suitable comparison (versus a dual therapy in combination with the sulfonylurea glipizide in patients inadequately controlled with metformin, diet and exercise). No trials have evaluated variables of relevance to patients, except for safety variables. The main efficacy variable in the trials was the change from baseline in HbA1c, except for a study which evaluated the change from baseline in total body weight as main variable. Baseline characteristics of the patients enrolled in the trials significantly differ from those of the population with diabetes in our society which tend to be of an older age and have a longer history of type 2 diabetes mellitus. The major limitation of dapagliflozin derives from its mechanism of action, since its efficacy decreases as renal function declines. The use of dapagliflozin is not recommended in patients with moderate to severe renal impairment ((CrCl<60ml/min or GFG <60 ml/min/1.73 m2) nor in elderly patients, in which a decrease in renal function can be expected. The assessment of safety includes the incidence and rate of discontinuations due to adverse events, episodes of hypoglycaemia, signs or symptoms of genital and urinary tract infections, dehydration, hypovolaemia and hypotension. Further pharmacoepidemiological studies are to be carried out to clarify the long-term effects of dapagliflozin on renal function and the potential effect in the development of breast and bladder tumours. Dapagliflozin as monotherapy has not been evaluated against adequate comparators (sulfonylureas, pioglitazone, gliptins). In combination therapy with metformin, the efficacy of dapagliflozin was shown to be non-inferior to glipizide plus metformin, resulting in a mean reduction of 0.52% in HbA1c, with a difference of 0.00 among both groups (95% CI: -0.11 a 0.11). There are no comparative data against other second-line treatment options. As shown in the studies, the overall incidence of adverse events with dapagliflozin as monotherapy (21.5%) was similar to that observed with placebo, and greater to that observed with metformin (15.4%). Hypoglycaemia of any type was the adverse event more frequently reported. The incidence of severe hypoglycaemic events observed in most of the studies was low. The overall incidence of adverse events observed in the study that compared dapagliflozin+metformin against glipizide+metformin was similar for both groups (27%) and incidence of hypoglycaemic events with dapagliflozin (3.5%) was significantly lower to that observed with glipizide (40.8%). Reductions of body weight of about 2 to 3 kg and a slight decrease in blood pressure (1 to 5 mmHg) have been observed in all studies in the groups treated with dapagliflozin together with diet and exercise. Dosing scheme (every 24 hours) is similar to other oral antidiabetic agents and its cost is similar to that for gliptines and higher to that for sulfonylureas or generic pioglitazone. Funding has been limited to the use of dapagliflozin as dual therapy regimen in combination with metformin as an option for patients with contraindication or intolerance to sulfonylureas, such a those experiencing frequent hypoglycaemic events, weight loss associated risks, as long as they are under 75 years of age and have no moderate to severe renal impairment. In the light of the above, we consider dapagliflozin means no therapeutic innovation in the therapy of type 2 diabetes mellitus over other therapeutic alternatives available.