不同年龄非酒精性脂肪性肝病合并急性药物性肝损伤患者的临床特点分析

肝脏 ›› 2023, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (9): 1088-1092.

不同年龄非酒精性脂肪性肝病合并急性药物性肝损伤患者的临床特点分析

张思敏, 袁乙富, 吴小溪, 杜晟楠, 曹勤, 蒋元烨

200062 上海中医药大学附属普陀医院教育规培科(张思敏),消化内科(袁乙富,吴小溪,杜晟楠,曹勤,蒋元烨)

收稿日期:2023-04-18 出版日期:2023-09-30 发布日期:2023-10-24
通讯作者: 蒋元烨,Email:yuanye1014@126.com
基金资助:
上海市自然科学基金(22ZR1455900);上海市卫计委临床研究专项面上项目(201940449);上海市普陀区卫生健康系统科技创新项目重点项目(ptkwws202201);上海中医药大学后备卓越中医人才项目(20D-RC-02);上海市名中医沈红权普陀传承工作室(ptzygzs2201,SHGZS-202224);上海市普陀区杏林优青人才培养计划(ptxlyq2201);上海市普陀区卫生健康系统特色专病建设项目(2023tszb01)

Clinical characteristics of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease patients with concurrent acute drug-induced liver injury across varied age cohorts

ZHANG Si-min¹, YUAN Yi-fu², WU Xiao-xi², DU Sheng-nan², CAO Qin², JIANG Yuan-ye²

1. Education Planning and Training Department,Putuo Hospital,Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai 200062, China;
2. Department of Gastroenterology,Putuo Hospital,Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai 200062, China

Received:2023-04-18 Online:2023-09-30 Published:2023-10-24
Contact: JIANG Yuan-ye,Email:yuanye1014@126.com

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的探讨非酒精性脂肪肝(NAFLD)合并急性药物性肝损伤(DILI)患者的临床特点。方法选取上海中医药大学附属普陀医院2020年至2022年住院及门诊治疗的68例NAFLD合并急性DILI临床患者的一般资料、既往使用药物资料及实验室数据,进行统计分析。结果导致急性DILI的前五位药物依次为心血管系统药、非甾体消炎药、抗痛风药、糖尿病药、抗肿瘤药。65例(95.59%)临床评估为1级(轻度)。青中年组ALT高于老年组,为88(60.5)U/L比58.5(24.25)U/L(P<0.01);青中年组HDL、Apo A指标低于老年组,为1.09(0.3525)μmol/L比1.21(0.3425)μmol/L、(1.15±0.27)g/L比(1.34±0.22)g/L(P<0.05),Apo B指标高于老年组,为0.88(0.28)g/L比0.74(0.27)g/L(P<0.05)。青中年组N低于老年组,为(52.17±9.3)%比(57.94±9.05)%(P<0.05),而L、PLT高于老年组为(36.11±8.93)%比(30.86±8.56)%、248.5(63.75)×10⁹/L比205.5(69.25)×10⁹/L(P<0.05)。结论 NAFLD合并急性DILI患者临床以轻度肝损伤为主;与青中年人群相比,老年NAFLD患者发生急性DILI的概率更大,但总体损伤程度与年龄无直接相关性。诱发急性DILI的药物可能与老年基础疾病用药相关。

关键词: 非酒精性脂肪性肝病, 急性药物性肝损伤, 临床特点

Abstract: Objective The clinical characteristics of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) complicated by acute drug-induced liver injury (DILI) were analyzed retrospectively to furnish both clinical and experimental frameworks for guiding therapeutic drug choices in NAFLD patients.Methods In this retrospective analysis, the general demographics, medication utilization patterns, and laboratory data for a cohort of 68 patients diagnosed with NAFLD concomitant with DILI in our hospital between the years 2020 to 2022 were statistically analyzed. Results The sample comprised 32 males and 36 females, with an age range spanning 24 to 82 years. The cohort included 44 elderly patients and 24 middle-aged individuls. The primary medications imlicated in acute DILI were cardiovascular drugs, followed by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, anti-gout medications, antidiabetic agents, and anti-tumor drugs. With respect to the clinical severity of DILI, the majority of cases were catogorized as Grade 1(mild), accounting for 65 patients (95.59%). In terms of liver function, the ALT levels were notably elevated in the young and middle-aged group as compared to the elderly cohort[88 (60.5) U/L vs. 58.5 (24.25) U/L, P<0.01]; Lipid profile analyses revealed that levels of HDL and Apo A were significantly lower in the middle-aged group compared to the elderly[1.09 (0.3525) μmol/L vs. 1.21 (0.3425) μmol/L and 1.15 ± 0.27 g/L vs. 1.34 ± 0.22 g/L, P<0.05, P<0.01]. Converstly, Apo B levels were elevated in the middle-age cohort[0.88 (0.28) g/L vs. 0.74 (0.27) g/L, P<0.05]. From a hematological standpoint, the percentage of neutrophils(N)was lower in the middle-aged group compared to the elderly group [52.17 ± 9.3% vs. 57.94 ± 9.05%, P<0.05], whereas levels of lymphocyes(L) and platelets(PLT) were significantly higher[36.11 ± 8.93% vs. 30.86 ± 8.56%, and 248.5 (63.75)] × 10⁹/L vs. 205.5 (69.25) × 10⁹/L,P＜0.05,P＜0.01]. Conclusion Mild liver injury emerged as the predominat clinical manifestation among NAFLD patients experiencing acute DILI. Interestingle, while elderly NAFLD patients appeared to be more susceptible to developing acute DILI compared to their younger and middle-aged counterparts, the severity of liver injury did not demonstrate a direst correlation with age. The etiology of acute DILI in this cohort may be linked to the medications prescribed for comorbidities commonly found in the elderly population.

Key words: Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, Acute Drug-induced Liver Injury, Clinical Characteristics

张思敏, 袁乙富, 吴小溪, 杜晟楠, 曹勤, 蒋元烨. 不同年龄非酒精性脂肪性肝病合并急性药物性肝损伤患者的临床特点分析[J]. 肝脏, 2023, 28(9): 1088-1092.

ZHANG Si-min, YUAN Yi-fu, WU Xiao-xi, DU Sheng-nan, CAO Qin, JIANG Yuan-ye. Clinical characteristics of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease patients with concurrent acute drug-induced liver injury across varied age cohorts[J]. Chinese Hepatolgy, 2023, 28(9): 1088-1092.

参考文献

[1] Mundi MS, Velapati S, Patel J, et al. Evolution of NAFLD and its management. Nutrition in clinical practice, 2020,35(1):72-84.
[2] Zhou J, Zhou F, Wang W, et al. Epidemiological features of NAFLD from 1999 to 2018 in China. Hepatology, 2020,71(5):1851-1864.
[3] Yu YC, Mao YM, Chen C W, et al. CSH guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of drug-induced liver injury. Hepatol Int, 2017,11(3):221-241.
[4] Ahmad J, Odin JA. Epidemiology and genetic risk factors of drug hepatotoxicity. Clin Liver Dis, 2017,21(1):55-72.
[5] Shen T, Liu Y, Shang J, et al. Incidence and etiology of drug-induced liver injury in mainland China. Gastroenterology, 2019,156(8):2230-2241.
[6] Teschke R, Danan G. Drug-induced liver injury: is chronic liver disease a risk factor and a clinical issue? Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol, 2017,13(4):425-438.
[7] Bessone F, Dirchwolf M, Rodil MA, et al. Review article: drug‐induced liver injury in the context of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease – a physiopathological and clinical integrated view. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2018,48(9):892-913.
[8] 中华医学会肝病学分会脂肪肝和酒精性肝病学组中国医师协会脂肪性肝病专家委员会范建高等. 非酒精性脂肪性肝病防治指南(2018年更新版). 临床肝胆病杂志, 2018,34(5):947-957.
[9] Shi Q, Hong H, Senior J, et al. Biomarkers for drug-induced liver injury. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2010,4(2):225-234.
[10] Weng Z, Wang K, Li H, et al. A comprehensive study of the association between drug hepatotoxicity and daily dose, liver metabolism, and lipophilicity using 975 oral medications. Oncotarget, 2015,6(19):17031-17038.
[11] Bjornsson ES, Hoofnagle JH. Categorization of drugs implicated in causing liver injury: critical assessment based on published case reports. Hepatology, 2016,63(2):590-603.
[12] Schoepfer AM, Engel A, Fattinger K, et al. Herbal does not mean innocuous: ten cases of severe hepatotoxicity associated with dietary supplements from Herbalife? products. J Hepatol, 2007,47(4):521-526.
[13] Chalasani N, Fontana RJ, Bonkovsky HL, et al. Causes, clinical features, and outcomes from a prospective study of drug-induced liver injury in the United States. Gastroenterology, 2008,135(6):1924-1934.
[14] Seeff LB, Bonkovsky HL, Navarro VJ, et al. Herbal products and the liver: a review of adverse effects and mechanisms. Gastroenterology, 2015,148(3):517-532.
[15] Younossi Z, Anstee QM, Marietti M, et al. Global burden of NAFLD and NASH: trends, predictions, risk factors and prevention. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2018,15(1):11-20.
[16] Cairns R, Brown JA, Wylie CE, et al. Paracetamol poisoning-related hospital admissions and deaths in Australia, 2004-2017. Med J Aust, 2019,211(5):218-223.
[17] Chen S, Yu K, Huang C, et al. The characteristics and clinical outcome of drug-induced liver injury in a Chinese hospital: a retrospective cohort study. Medicine (Baltimore), 2016,95(34):e4683.
[18] Ou P, Chen Y, Li B, et al. Causes, clinical features and outcomes of drug-induced liver injury in hospitalized patients in a Chinese tertiary care hospital. Springerplus, 2015,4:802.
[19] Martin A, Lang S, Goeser T, et al. Management of dyslipidemia in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Curr Atheroscler Rep, 2022,24(7):533-546.