Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: What is the actual risk of liver damage?

Summary: Background: Nonalcoholic fatty disease (NAFLD) is the most common liver disease, since it is strongly associated with obesity and metabolic syndrome pandemics.NAFLDmay affect drug disposal and has common pathophysiological mechanisms with drug‐induced liver injury (DILI); this may predispose to hepatoxicity induced by certain drugs that share these pathophysiological mechanisms. In addition, drugs may trigger fatty liver and inflammationper seby mimickingNAFLDpathophysiological mechanisms.Aims: To provide a comprehensive update on (a) potential mechanisms whereby certain drugs can be more hepatotoxic inNAFLDpatients, (b) the steatogenic effects of drugs, and (c) the mechanism involved in drug‐induced steatohepatitis (DISH).Methods: A language‐ and date‐unrestricted Medline literature search was conducted to identify pertinent basic and clinical studies on the topic.Results: Drugs can induce macrovesicular steatosis by mimickingNAFLDpathogenic factors, including insulin resistance and imbalance between fat gain and loss. Other forms of hepatic fat accumulation exist, such as microvesicular steatosis and phospholipidosis, and are mostly associated with acute mitochondrial dysfunction and defective lipophagy, respectively. Drug‐induced mitochondrial dysfunction is also commonly involved in DISH. Patients with pre‐existingNAFLDmay be at higher risk ofDILIinduced by certain drugs, and polypharmacy in obese individuals to treat their comorbidities may be a contributing factor.Conclusions: The relationship betweenDILIandNAFLDmay be reciprocal: drugs can causeNAFLDby acting as steatogenic factors, and pre‐existingNAFLDcould be a predisposing condition for certain drugs to causeDILI. Polypharmacy associated with obesity might potentiate the association between this condition andDILI.

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) encompass a broad spectrum of liver diseases. We propose here to classify them as follows: (1) immunological comorbilities (overlap syndromes); (2) non-immunological comorbilities associated to SLE; and (3) a putative liver damage induced by SLE itself, referred to as "lupus hepatitis". In the first group, liver injury can be ascribed to overlapping hepatopathies triggered by autoimmune mechanisms other than SLE occurring with higher incidence in the context of lupus (e.g., autoimmune hepatitis, primary biliary cirrhosis). The second group includes non-autoimmune liver diseases, such as esteatosis, hepatitis C, hypercoagulation state-related liver lesions, hyperplasic parenchymal and vascular lesions, porphyria cutanea tarda, and drug-induced hepatotoxicity. Finally, the data in the literature to support the existence of a hepatic disease produced by SLE itself, or the occurrence of a SLE-associated prone condition that increases susceptibility to acquire other liver diseases, is critically discussed. The pathological mechanisms underlying each of these liver disorders are also reviewed. Despite the high heterogeneity in the literature regarding the prevalence of SLE-associated liver diseases and, in most cases, lack of histopathological evidence or clinical studies large enough to support their existence, it is becoming increasingly apparent that liver is an important target of SLE. Consequently, biochemical liver tests should be routinely carried out in SLE patients to discard liver disorders, particularly in those patients chronically exposed to potentially hepatotoxic drugs. Diagnosing liver disease in SLE patients is always challenging, and the systematization of the current information carried out in this review is expected to be of help both to attain a better understanding of pathogenesis and to build an appropriate work-up for diagnosis.

The proportion of hepatitis B virus (HBV) previously exposed patients who receive immunosuppressive treatment is usually very small. However, if these individuals are exposed to potent immunosuppressive compounds, the risk of HBV reactivation (HBVr) increases with the presence of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) in the serum. Chronic HBsAg carriers have a higher risk than those who have a total IgG anticore as the only marker of resolved/occult HBV disease. The loss of immune control in these patients may results in the reactivation of HBV replication within hepatocytes. Upon reconstitution of the immune system, infected hepatocytes are once again targeted and damaged by immune surveillance in an effort to clear the virus. There are different virological scenarios, and a wide spectrum of associated drugs with specific and stratified risk for the development of HBVr. Some of this agents can trigger a severe degree of hepatocellular damage, including hepatitis, acute liver failure, and even death despite employment of effective antiviral therapies. Currently, HBVr incidence seems to be increasing around the world; a fact mainly related to the incessant appearance of more powerful immunosuppressive drugs launched to the market. Moreover, there is no consensus on the length of prophylactic treatment before the patients are treated with immunosuppressive therapy, and for how long this therapy should be extended once treatment is completed. Therefore, this review article will focus on when to treat, when to monitor, what patients should receive HBV therapy, and what drugs should be selected for each scenario. Lastly, we will update the definition, risk factors, screening, and treatment recommendations based on both current and different HBV management guidelines.

Drug induced liver injury (DILI) is a rare but well recognized serious adverse reaction. Pre-marketing studies may not detect liver injury, and DILI becomes very often apparent after the drug is launched to the market. Specific biomarkers for DILI prediction or diagnosis are not available. Toxic liver reactions present with a wide spectrum of phenotypes and severity, and our knowledge on the mechanisms underlying idiosyncratic reactions and individual susceptibility is still limited. To overcome these limitations, country-based registries and multicenter research networks have been created in Europe and North America. Reliable epidemiological data on DILI in Latin America (LA), a region with a large variety of ethnic groups, were however lacking. Fortunately, a LA network of DILI was set up in 2011, with the support of the Spanish DILI Registry from the University of Malaga. The primary aim of the Latin DILI Network (LATINDILIN) Registry was to prospectively identify bona fide DILI cases and to collect biological samples to study genetic biomarkers. Physicians involved in the project must complete a structured report form describing the DILI case presentation and follow-up which is submitted to a Coordinator Center in each country, where it is further assessed for completeness. During the last four years, several LA countries (Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Mexico, Paraguay, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela and Colombia) have joined the network and committed with this project. At that point, to identify both our strengths and weaknesses was a very important issue. In this review, we will describe how the LATINDILI Registry was created. The aims and methods to achieve these objectives will be discussed in depth. Additionally, both the difficulties we have faced and the strategies to solve them will be also pinpointed. Finally, we will report on our preliminary results, and discuss ideas to expand and to keep running this network.