Search

Copyright of Journal of Clinical Hepatology / Linchuang Gandanbing Zazhi is the property of Journal of Clinical Hepatology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Clinical Hepatology / Linchuang Gandanbing Zazhi is the property of Journal of Clinical Hepatology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Due to a lack of specific biomarkers,the diagnosis of drug-induced liver injury(DILI) mainly depends on the method of exclusion. The Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method(RUCAM) scale is the most widely used causality assessment scale and is relatively objective,but it is still waiting for further improvement. Another method is global introspection or expert opinion,which is relatively subjective,and the simplified global introspection method is commonly used in clinical practice. The Structured Expert Opinion Procedure(SEOP)created by the US DILI network(DILIN) is very complicated and time-consuming and thus cannot be used in clinical practice. The drug rechallenge test(DRT) with a positive result is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of DILI,but DILI cannot be excluded based on the negative result of DRT. The value of lymphocyte transformation test(LTT),modified LTT,monocyte-derived hepatocyte-like cell lactate-dehydrogenase release test,and various predictive models for drug hepatotoxicity in the diagnosis of DILI awaits further assessment.The differential diagnosis of autoimmune-mediated DILI and traditional autoimmune liver diseases usually depends on liver biopsy,the type and titer of autoantibody,and response to glucocorticoids. Reasonable timing of drug withdrawal and application of anti-inflammatory liver-protecting drugs may help most DILI patients recover. Generally,the prophylactic use of anti-inflammatory liver-protecting drugs is not recommended,except in special situations. In-depth studies are needed for the precise diagnosis and prevention/treatment of DILI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dual infection with hepatitis C virus ( HCV) and hepatitis B virus ( HBV ) has significantly different clinical, immunological, and virological features from single infection with HCV or HBV , which brings various challenges to clinical diagnosis/treatment and management. Direct - acting antiviral agents used for effective control of HCV infection may cause HBV activation, onset of hepatitis B, and even liver failure. Therefore, during the antiviral treatment of HCV infection, it is of great importance to select appropriate anti - HBV therapy and follow-up management strategies based on the status of HCV/HBV dual infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Up to now, the diagnosis of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) still relies on the exclusive method, and the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) is the most commonly used scale. Since the release of the first version of RUCAM scale in 1993, the second version was released in 2015, in which the definition and scoring criteria of each key element were revised appropriately and explained in detail. The Structured Expert Opinion Process (SEOP) was designed by the workgroup of DILI network prospective study, but since it is too complicated and time- and energy-consuming, its application in clinical practice is limited. This article introduces the research and development history and application method of RUCAM, as well as the modifications made in the 2015 version of RUCAM, and briefly compares the difference in bias between RUCAM and SEOP in the diagnosis of DILI. It is pointed out that both RUCAM and SEOP have marked interobserver and intraobserver variabilities, and therefore, it is necessary to explore a more objective, reproducible, accurate, and convenient strategy for the diagnosis of DILI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]