Testing Possible Risk Factors for Idiosyncratic Drug-Induced Liver Injury Using an Amodiaquine Mouse Model and Co-treatment with 1-Methyl-d-Tryptophan or Acetaminophen

Disproportionality analysis of acetaminophen-induced hepatic disorders with and without immune checkpoint inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Although acetaminophen is recommended for the treatment of mild-to-moderate cancer pain, acetaminophen-induced hepatic disorders pose an important clinical challenge. Concomitant prescription of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may further increase the risk of hepatic disorders in patients taking acetaminophen; however, there are few clinical studies that confirm this.

AIM

To evaluate the risk of hepatic disorders in patients taking concomitant acetaminophen and ICIs using a disproportionality analysis from the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database.

METHOD

Acetaminophen users aged ≥ 20 years were included; factors that can affect the risk of acetaminophen-induced hepatic disorders were collated. Similar data on the widely used analgesic, loxoprofen, were used for comparison.

RESULTS

Among 233,594 patients surveyed, 10,403 were prescribed acetaminophen, and among them, 1,245 patients developed hepatic disorders. The disproportionality of hepatic disorders was observed in acetaminophen users regardless of concomitant ICI use (without ICI: reporting odds ratio [ROR], 1.18; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 1.10-1.26; with ICI: ROR 1.87, 95%CI 1.59-2.20); it was even higher in concomitant acetaminophen and ICI users (ROR 1.94, 95%CI 1.65-2.29). However, increased disproportionality of hepatic disorders was not observed in patients taking concomitant loxoprofen and ICI. Multivariable logistic regression showed that the risk of hepatic disorders in acetaminophen users was associated with concomitant use of ICI (ROR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.49-2.45); (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that the risk of hepatic disorders is greater with concomitant acetaminophen and ICI treatment than with acetaminophen alone.

Pathophysiology of drug hypersensitivity

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) are type B adverse drug reactions (ADRs) traditionally defined as unpredictable, dose independent and not related to the drug pharmacology. DHRs, also called drug allergy if the immune system involvement is confirmed, represent around one-sixth of all ADRs and can cause major clinical problems due to their vague clinical presentation and irregular time course. Understanding the underlying pathophysiology of DHRs is very important for their diagnosis and management. Multiple layers of evidence exist pointing to the involvement of the immune system in DHRs. Recent data have led to a paradigm shift in our understanding of the exact pathophysiology of these reactions. Numerous hypotheses proposing explanation on how a low molecular weight drug molecule can elicit an immune reaction have been proposed. In addition to the classical "hapten" hypothesis, the reactive metabolite hypothesis, the pharmacological interaction with the immune system (p-i) concept, the danger/injury hypothesis and the altered peptide repertoire hypothesis have been proposed. We here introduce the inflammasome activation hypothesis and the cross-reactivity hypothesis as additional models explaining the pathophysiology of DHRs. Available data supporting these hypotheses are briefly summarized and discussed. We also introduced the cross-reactivity model, which may provide a platform to appreciate the potential role played by other factors leading to the activation of the immune system. We believe that although the drug in question could be the trigger of the reaction, the components of the immune system mediating the reaction do not act in isolation but rather are affected by the proinflammatory milieu occurring at the time of the reaction. This review attempts to summarize the available evidence to further illustrate the pathophysiology of DHRs.

Idiosyncratic Drug Reactions: A 35-Year Chemical Research in Toxicology Perspective

When Larry Marnett founded Chemical Research in Toxicology, the study of idiosyncratic drug reactions (IDRs) was in its infancy. There was evidence that IDRs involve chemically reactive metabolites, and many of the papers in Chemical Research in Toxicology investigated the bioactivation of drugs. However, it became clear that not all drugs that form reactive metabolites are associated with a high risk of IDRs, and some drugs that do not appear to form reactive metabolites do cause IDRs. Some of the early Chemical Research in Toxicology papers investigated involvement of the adaptive immune system in the mechanism of IDRs, and HLA associations provided strong evidence for an immune mechanism of IDRs. This led to the question of how reactive metabolites might induce an immune response. The classic hapten hypothesis provided an obvious explanation, but a new hypothesis the danger hypothesis, added another dimension. Although there are common features to IDRs, it is becoming increasingly clear that there are also many differences in the mechanisms caused by different drugs. Other pharmacological effects of drugs may also play a role in the mechanism, and that is obviously true of IDRs caused by biological agents. The requirement for specific HLA and T-cell receptors is presumably the major factor that makes IDRs idiosyncratic. However, an innate immune response is required to prime the adaptive immune response. In contrast to the adaptive immune response, the innate immune response is unlikely to be idiosyncratic, and studies of the innate immune response to drugs may provide a much more accurate way to screen drugs for their potential to cause IDRs. For essential drugs that are known to cause IDRs, it may be possible to markedly decrease risk by a slow dose titration to induce immune tolerance. Significant progress has been made in the study of IDRs, but there is still a long way to go.

Preclinical models of idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (iDILI): Moving towards prediction

Idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (iDILI) encompasses the unexpected harms that prescription and non-prescription drugs, herbal and dietary supplements can cause to the liver. iDILI remains a major public health problem and a major cause of drug attrition. Given the lack of biomarkers for iDILI prediction, diagnosis and prognosis, searching new models to predict and study mechanisms of iDILI is necessary. One of the major limitations of iDILI preclinical assessment has been the lack of correlation between the markers of hepatotoxicity in animal toxicological studies and clinically significant iDILI. Thus, major advances in the understanding of iDILI susceptibility and pathogenesis have come from the study of well-phenotyped iDILI patients. However, there are many gaps for explaining all the complexity of iDILI susceptibility and mechanisms. Therefore, there is a need to optimize preclinical human in vitro models to reduce the risk of iDILI during drug development. Here, the current experimental models and the future directions in iDILI modelling are thoroughly discussed, focusing on the human cellular models available to study the pathophysiological mechanisms of the disease and the most used in vivo animal iDILI models. We also comment about in silico approaches and the increasing relevance of patient-derived cellular models.

Emerging Roles on Immunological Effect of Indoleamine 2,3-Dioxygenase in Liver Injuries

Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO) is one of the initial rate-limiting enzymes of the kynurenine pathway (KP), which causes immune suppression and induction of T cell anergy. It is associated with the imbalance of immune homeostasis in numerous diseases including cancer, chronic viral infection, allergy, and autoimmune diseases. Recently, IDO has extended its role to liver field. In this review, we summarize the dysregulation and potentials of IDO in the emerging field of liver injuries, as well as current challenges for IDO targets. In particular, we discuss unexpected conclusions against previous work published. IDO is induced by pro-inflammatory cytokines in liver dysfunction and exerts an immunosuppressive effect, whereas the improvement of liver injury may require consideration of multiple factors besides IDO.