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

The Association Between Antidepressant Use and Drug-Induced Liver Injury: A Nationwide, Population-Based Case-Control Study in Taiwan

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The complex risk factors of liver injury have prevented the establishment of causal relationships. This study aimed to explore the effects of antidepressant class, cumulative days of medication exposure, presence of comorbidities, and the use of confounding drugs on the risk of antidepressant-induced liver injury.

METHODS

The population-based case-control study sample included individuals registered on the Taiwan National Health Insurance Database between 2000 and 2018. Hospitalized patients with suspected drug-induced liver injury were considered as cases, while control subjects were matched 1:1 by age, gender, and index date (the first observed diagnosis of liver injury). Multivariable regression models were performed to evaluate the association between antidepressants and liver injury.

RESULTS

The findings showed that antidepressant users exhibited a higher risk of liver injury (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-1.20), particularly those prescribed non-selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (NSRIs; aOR 1.05; 95% CI 1.01-1.10), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs; aOR 1.22; 95% CI 1.16-1.29), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs; aOR 1.18; 95% CI 1.13-1.24), and others (aOR 1.27; 95% CI 1.14-1.42). Moreover, cases exhibited a more significant proportion of antidepressant usage and longer durations of treatment compared with controls. The risk of liver injury was higher in the first 30 days of use across all classes of antidepressants (aOR 1.24; 95% CI 1.18-1.29).

CONCLUSION

SSRIs or SNRIs are commonly used to treat depression and other psychological disorders, and consideration of their potential effects on the liver is essential.

Interplay Between Drug-Induced Liver Injury and Gut Microbiota: A Comprehensive Overview

Drug-induced liver injury is a prevalent severe adverse event in clinical settings, leading to increased medical burdens for patients and presenting challenges for the development and commercialization of novel pharmaceuticals. Research has revealed a close association between gut microbiota and drug-induced liver injury in recent years. However, there has yet to be a consensus on the specific mechanism by which gut microbiota is involved in drug-induced liver injury. Gut microbiota may contribute to drug-induced liver injury by increasing intestinal permeability, disrupting intestinal metabolite homeostasis, and promoting inflammation and oxidative stress. Alterations in gut microbiota were found in drug-induced liver injury caused by antibiotics, psychotropic drugs, acetaminophen, antituberculosis drugs, and antithyroid drugs. Specific gut microbiota and their abundance are associated closely with the severity of drug-induced liver injury. Therefore, gut microbiota is expected to be a new target for the treatment of drug-induced liver injury. This review focuses on the association of gut microbiota with common hepatotoxic drugs and the potential mechanisms by which gut microbiota may contribute to the pathogenesis of drug-induced liver injury, providing a more comprehensive reference for the interaction between drug-induced liver injury and gut microbiota.

Hepatobiliary Adverse Reactions during Treatment with Cladribine: Analysis of Data from the European Spontaneous Reporting System

BACKGROUND

Cladribine belongs to the group of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) used to treat multiple sclerosis (MS). According to the highlights of a meeting held by the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) on 14 January 2022, cladribine may be associated with the occurrence of liver injury, and thus liver function monitoring is recommended.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

Using data from the European spontaneous reporting database (EudraVigilance-EV), we aimed to describe the main characteristics of Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) reporting cases of hepatobiliary disorders related to cladribine. The reporting odds ratio (ROR) was calculated to provide the probability of reporting hepatobiliary ICSRs among DMTs used to treat MS.

RESULTS

Overall, 118 ICSRs described the occurrence of cladribine-induced hepatobiliary ADRs. The majority of the ICSRs reported ADRs that were classified as serious (93%), and the outcome was mostly reported as "unknown" (50.8%). The most reported hepatobiliary disorders were drug-induced liver injury, abnormal hepatic function, ALT increases, liver disorders, hepatic failure, jaundice, lymphocyte count decreases, hepatotoxicity and hypertransaminasemia. The majority of cladribine-induced hepatic ADRs occurred in female patients belonging to the age group of 18-65 years.

CONCLUSION

Considering the seriousness of cladribine-induced hepatic ADRs, a close monitoring of patients receiving this drug is highly recommended. In this context, further pharmacovigilance studies evaluating the hepatic safety profile of cladribine are strongly needed.

Isoliquiritigenin ameliorates paroxetine-induced sexual dysfunction in male albino mice

Paroxetine (PRX), a widely prescribed antidepressant, often leads to sexual dysfunction. The available management options such as sildenafil (SDF), are associated with side effects. The present study investigates the fertility-boosting properties of isoliquiritigenin (ISL) on PRX-induced sexual dysfunction in male mice. We allocated fertile mice into six different groups (n = 5): group I- DMSO; group II- PRX; group III- co-administered PRX and SDF; group IV- ISL alone; group V- co-administered PRX and ISL (low dose); and, group VI- co-administered PRX and ISL (high dose). 14 days post treatment, animals were sacrificed, and the weights of the testis and epididymis were evaluated. Furthermore, sperm parameters, testicular and epididymal antioxidant levels, serum testosterone and nitric oxide (NO) levels, histoarchitecture of testis and epididymis, and markers of cellular toxicity were assessed. Results revealed that the PRX administration reduced organ weights, sperm count, intact acrosome, catalase (CAT), superoxide dismutase (SOD), glutathione (GSH), serum testosterone, and NO levels, and increased sperm abnormalities and MDA levels (a biomarker for lipid peroxidation). Additionally, we observed damage in the testis and epididymis. The toxicity biomarker study revealed a higher concentration of SGOT, SGPT, and ALP enzymes in the PRX-treated group. However, the co-administration of PRX with ISL ameliorated the adverse effect of PRX on the parameters mentioned above. The PRX+ISL (high) results were almost at par with the PRX+SDF group. The group that received ISL alone showed overall improvements. In conclusion, our comprehensive panel of tests indicates that ISL could be helpful in managing sexual dysfunction.

Drug-Induced Liver Injury: Highlights of the Recent Literature

Drug-induced liver injury (DILI), herbal-induced liver injury, and herbal and dietary supplement (HDS)-induced liver injury are an important aspect of drug safety. Knowledge regarding responsible drugs, mechanisms, risk factors, and the diagnostic tools to detect liver injury have continued to grow in the past year. This review highlights what we considered the most significant publications from among more than 1800 articles relating to liver injury from medications, herbal products, and dietary supplements in 2017 and 2018. The US Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN) prospective study highlighted several areas of ongoing study, including the potential utility of human leukocyte antigens and microRNAs as DILI risk factors and new data on racial differences, the role of alcohol consumption, factors associated with prognosis, and updates on the clinical signatures of autoimmune DILI, thiopurines, and HDS agents. Novel data were also generated from the Spanish and Latin American DILI registries as well as from Chinese and Korean case series. A few new agents causing DILI were added to the growing list in the past 2 years, including sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors, as were new aspects of chemotherapy-associated liver injury. A number of cases reported previously described hepatotoxins confirmed via the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM; e.g., norethisterone, methylprednisolone, glatiramer acetate) and/or the DILIN method (e.g., celecoxib, dimethyl fumarate). Additionally, much work centered on elucidating the pathophysiology of DILI, including the importance of bile salt export pumps and immune-mediated mechanisms. Finally, it must be noted that, while hundreds of new studies described DILI in 2017-2018, the quality of such reports must always be addressed. Björnsson reminds us to remain very critical of the data when addressing the future utility of a study, which is why it is so important to adhere to a standardized method such as RUCAM when determining DILI causality. While drug-induced hepatotoxicity remains a diagnosis of exclusion, the diverse array of publications that appeared in 2017 and 2018 provided important advances in our understanding of DILI, paving the way for our improved ability to make a more definitive diagnosis and risk assessment.

Risk of Acute Liver Injury in Agomelatine and Other Antidepressant Users in Four European Countries: A Cohort and Nested Case-Control Study Using Automated Health Data Sources

BACKGROUND

Agomelatine is a melatonin receptor agonist and serotonin 5-HT2C receptor antagonist indicated for depression in adults. Hepatotoxic reactions like acute liver injury (ALI) are an identified risk in the European risk management plan for agomelatine. Hepatotoxic reactions have been reported for other antidepressants, but population studies quantifying these risks are scarce. Antidepressants are widely prescribed, and users often have risk factors for ALI (e.g. metabolic syndrome).

OBJECTIVE

The goal was to estimate the risk of ALI associated with agomelatine and other antidepressants (fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, escitalopram, mirtazapine, venlafaxine, duloxetine, and amitriptyline) when compared with citalopram in routine clinical practice.

METHOD

A nested case-control study was conducted using data sources in Denmark, Germany, Spain, and Sweden (study period 2009-2014). Three ALI endpoints were defined using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes: primary (specific codes) and secondary (all codes) endpoints used only hospital discharge codes; the tertiary endpoint included both inpatient and outpatient settings (all codes). Validation of endpoints was implemented. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for current use were estimated for each data source and combined.

RESULTS

We evaluated 3,238,495 new antidepressant and 74,440 agomelatine users. For the primary endpoint, the OR for agomelatine versus citalopram was 0.48 (CI 0.13-1.71). Results were also < 1 when no exclusion criteria were applied (OR 0.37; CI 0.19-0.74), when all exclusion criteria except alcohol and drug abuse were applied (OR 0.47; CI 0.20-1.07), and for the secondary (OR 0.40; CI 0.05-3.11) and tertiary (OR 0.79; CI 0.50-1.25) endpoints. Regarding other antidepressants versus citalopram, most OR point estimates were also below one, although with varying widths of the 95% CIs. The result of the tertiary endpoint and the sensitivity analyses of the primary endpoint were the most precise.

CONCLUSION

In this study, using citalopram as a comparator, agomelatine was not associated with an increased risk of ALI hospitalisation. The results for agomelatine should be interpreted in the context of the European risk minimisation measures in place. Those measures may have induced selective prescribing and could explain the lower risk of ALI for agomelatine when compared with citalopram. Most other antidepressants evaluated had ORs suggesting a lower risk than citalopram, but additional studies are required to confirm or refute these results.

Did the New Italian Law on Mandatory Vaccines Affect Adverse Event Following Immunization's Reporting? A Pharmacovigilance Study in Southern Italy

Despite the well-recognized role of vaccines, coverage is far from optimal especially in children, representing a growing concern also in Italy. In order to reverse this emergency, the Italian Ministry approved in July 2017 the Law 119/2017, which renders mandatory and free of charge 10 vaccinations for patients aged 0–16. We aim to investigate the effects of the new Law 119/2017 on the reporting of adverse events following immunization related to mandatory vaccines into the Italian Pharmacovigilance database (Rete Nazionale di Farmacovigilanza – RNF). Therefore, we analyzed the spontaneous reports of suspected adverse events following immunization recorded in Campania Region (South of Italy) from December 1, 2016, to March 31, 2018. During the study period, 69 reports, covering 179 AEFIs, related to mandatory vaccines were sent to Campania Pharmacovigilance Regional Center. A substantial increase in AEFIs reporting was observed after the adoption of Law 119/2017. Out of 69 reports, 62% reported AEFIs that were considered as not serious and 78% had a favorable outcome. Out of 179 AEFIs, more than half referred to the following SOC: “general disorders and administration site conditions,” “nervous system disorders,” and “psychiatric disorders.” The highest number of reports came from patient/citizen. After the adoption of the Law 119/2017, there was an increase in the number of reports (18 before the adoption of the Law vs. 51 after). According to reported AEFIs during the entire period, no worrying safety data have emerged. In our opinion, the increase in the number of AEFIs’ reports should be related to the increase in vaccination coverage as well as to the intense debate that has followed the new Law. In this context, the continuous monitoring of vaccine safety and the fully implementation of vaccine–vigilance programs play a key role in achieving higher confidence in immunization programs and optimal vaccination coverage rate.

Agreement Among Different Scales for Causality Assessment in Drug-Induced Liver Injury

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The causality assessment of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) remains a challenge and eagerly awaits the development of reliable hepatotoxicity biomarkers. None of the different available algorithms used for the causality assessment of DILI has been universally accepted as the gold standard. This study was conducted to examine the agreement among different causality assessment scales in reporting DILI.

METHODS

The World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Center (WHO-UMC), Naranjo, Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM), Maria & Victorino (M & V) and Digestive Disease Week-Japan (DDW-J) assessment scales were used to compare the causalities in all the reported cases of DILI in our adverse drug reaction (ADR) monitoring centre from January 2014 to June 2017. The probability of the causality assessment was classified as 'definite', 'probable', 'possible' and 'unlikely'. The agreement obtained among the causality assessments was analysed using the weighted kappa (κ _w) test.

RESULTS

A total of 33 cases of DILI were included in our analyses. Anti-tubercular therapy (ATT) and methotrexate were the drugs that most commonly caused DILI. The overall agreement among the different scales was poor. The best agreement was found between RUCAM and DDW-J scales (κ _w: 0.685).

CONCLUSION

There were discrepancies among the different causality scales in assessing DILI. This might be due to the different definitions of causality criteria and subjective variability during assessment. A personalised assessment scale incorporating the latest information on specific risk factors and evidence-based criteria for DILI is warranted.