MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2115681278 · doi:10.1002/hep.22798

Hepatitis C, alcohol abuse, and unintentional overdoses are risk factors for acetaminophen-related hepatotoxicity #

2009· letter· en· W2115681278 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Robert P. Myers, Abdel Aziz Shaheen

Notice bibliographique

RevueHepatology · 2009
Typeletter
Langueen
DomainePharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
ThématiqueDrug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and Protection
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineAcetaminophenInternal medicineOdds ratioLiver diseaseHepatitis CLiver injuryAlcohol abuseAlcoholic hepatitisHepatitis C virusRisk factorAlcoholic liver diseaseGastroenterologyCirrhosisPsychiatryImmunologyAnesthesiaVirus

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Nguyen et al.1 recently described an increased risk of acute liver injury (ALI) due to acetaminophen overdose (AO) in patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV). ALI occurred in 16.7% and 7.1% of HCV-positive and HCV-negative patients, respectively [odds ratio (OR), 1.64; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.18–2.26]. Alcoholic and nonalcoholic fatty liver diseases also conferred 5- to 8-fold risks. This commendable study adds to the literature supporting an association between liver disease and acetaminophen-related ALI.2-4 In an analysis of 1543 AO admissions identified with a Canadian database,4 we reported an increased risk of ALI (OR, 3.50; 95% CI, 1.57–7.77) and mortality (15.2% versus 0.5%; P < 0.0005) in patients with pre-existing liver disease. Although this study included a small number of HCV patients (n = 10), it provided insight into additional risk factors. Specifically, ALI was more common in patients with unintentional overdoses (OR, 5.18; 95% CI, 3.00–8.95) and alcohol abuse (OR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.30–3.76).4 Because patients with liver diseases including HCV are more likely to overdose unintentionally,4 we wondered whether the increased risk reported by Nguyen et al. could be explained by differences in overdose circumstance. Therefore, we reanalyzed the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database5 with adjustment for this factor using codes for external causes of injury (ICD-9-CM E850.4, E935.4) that have been validated for defining suicidal intent due to poisoning.4, 6, 7 To reduce unmeasured confounding, we adjusted for race, hospital characteristics, and alcohol abuse8 in addition to previously reported factors.1 These characteristics differed significantly according to HCV status. We also adjusted for case mix with the Elixhauser algorithm rather than the Charlson/Deyo algorithm because it is more discriminative in patients with liver disease.8, 9 Finally, we performed a sensitivity analysis excluding patients with acute HCV (ICD-9-CM codes 070.41 and 070.51) because differentiating viral ALI versus drug-related ALI is difficult in this setting. All analyses employed SAS-callable SUDAAN (version 9.0.1, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC) to account for the complexities of Nationwide Inpatient Sample data.5 Between 1998 and 2005, we identified 42,718 AO hospitalizations; 705 (1.7%) had HCV, and 36% of these infections were acute. HCV patients had a higher prevalence of unintentional ingestions (26% versus 13%), alcohol abuse (42% versus 22%), and comorbidities (≥3: 24% versus 13%) and were more frequently hospitalized in urban teaching centers (52% versus 41%; P < 0.0001). ALI and liver failure7 occurred in 8.2% and 4.5% of patients, respectively; 1.4% died. ALI (16.7% versus 8.0%; P < 0.0001), liver failure (11.4% versus 4.4%; P < 0.0001), and death (3.0% versus 1.4%; P = 0.01), but not transplantation (0.13% versus 0.08%; P = 0.68), were more common in HCV patients. The risk of ALI was higher in HCV patients with intentional (12.2% versus 6.4%) and unintentional (29.6% versus 18.4%; P < 0.005) overdoses. In multivariate analysis, HCV remained a significant predictor of ALI (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.12–1.79; Fig. 1) and liver failure (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.22–2.10) but not mortality. Sensitivity analyses excluding patients with acute HCV (OR for ALI, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.15–2.00) and cirrhosis revealed similar results. Unintentional AOs (OR, 2.94; 95% CI, 2.69–3.21), alcohol abuse (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.00–1.20), and African American (versus whites: OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.62–0.0.84) and Hispanic race (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.44–0.64) were also associated with hepatotoxicity. Predictors of acute liver injury in patients hospitalized for acetaminophen overdose in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample between 1998 and 2005. Solid diamonds indicate the reference categories for polychotomous variables. The x axis is on a logarithmic scale. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; HCV, hepatitis C virus; NAFLD, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. In summary, our reanalysis supports Nguyen and colleagues' findings1 of an increased risk of acetaminophen-related hepatotoxicity in patients with HCV, although the magnitude of this risk was attenuated. We confirmed observations that AO-related ALI is more common in patients with unintentional overdoses and alcohol abuse.4, 10-12 These findings may have substantial public health importance because rates of unintentional AO are rising10, 13 It emphasizes the necessity of clear package labeling of acetaminophen content and perhaps reductions in the maximum daily dosage recommended in at-risk populations.2 If this is confirmed, studies exploring the mechanisms behind the racial differences that we observed may help explain heterogeneity in AO outcomes. Robert P. Myers is supported by a Clinical Investigator Award from the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research and by a New Investigator Award from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. The authors thank Frank Myers for graphical assistance. Robert P. Myers M.D., M.Sc.*, Abdel Aziz M. Shaheen M.D., M.P.H.*, * Liver Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,133
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,264

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,120
Tête enseignante GPT0,383
Écart entre enseignants0,264 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations34
Publié2009
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHepatologyMême sujetDrug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and ProtectionTravaux en français237 207