4.8 Article

Phenotypic Characterization of Idiosyncratic Drug-Induced Liver Injury: The Influence of Age and Sex

期刊

HEPATOLOGY
卷 49, 期 6, 页码 2001-2009

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hep.22895

关键词

-

资金

  1. Spanish Medicine Agency
  2. Fondo de Investigacion Sanitaria (FIS) [PI 0710980, EC07190910]
  3. Instituto de Salud Carlos III

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increased age and female sex are suggested risk factors for drug-induced hepatotoxicity (DILI). We studied the influence of these variables on the propensity to develop DILI, as well as its clinical expression and outcome. All cases of DILI submitted to the Spanish Registry between April 1994 and August 2007 were analyzed. Six hundred three DILI cases (310 men; mean age, 54 years) showed a similar sex distribution, reaching two peaks in the 40- to 49-year-old and 60- to 69-year-old age groups. No cases were recorded in the 20- to 29-year-old group. Patients aged >= 60 years accounted for 46% of the cases, with a male predominance (158 males, 118 females; P = 0.009), as opposed to younger patients. Older age was independently associated with cholestatic type of injury (odds ratio for an age interval for 1 year: 1.024 [95% confidence interval: 1.010-1.038]; male/female ratio, 1:2; P = 0.001) and younger age with hepatocellular damage (odds ratio: 0.983 [95% confidence interval: 0.972-0.994]; female/male ratio, 1:2; P = 0.002). In the mixed group, no age effect was evident. Outcome with fluminant liver failure/liver transplantation was more frequently encountered in women (P < 0.01). Conclusion: Neither older age nor female sex are predisposing factors to overall DILI. However, older age is a determinant for cholestatic damage with a male predominance, whereas younger age is associated with cytolytic damage and a female overrepresentation. Women distinctly exhibit the worst outcome. Knowledge of these phenotypic associations could guide differential diagnosis and attribution of causality in DILI. (HEPATOLOGY 2009;49:2001-2009.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据