BioMed Research International

BioMed Research International / 2019 / Article

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2019 |Article ID 8764093 | 9 pages | https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/8764093

Metabolic Comorbidities and Risk of Development and Severity of Drug-Induced Liver Injury

Academic Editor: Paolo Muratori
Received30 Apr 2019
Revised09 Jul 2019
Accepted25 Jul 2019
Published18 Aug 2019

Abstract

The incidence and rates of diagnosis of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) have been increasing in recent years as findings from basic research and the examination of clinical databases reveal information about the clinical course, etiology, and prognosis of this complex disease. The prevalence of metabolic comorbidities (e.g., diabetes mellitus, fatty liver, obesity, and metabolic syndrome (MetS)) has been increasing during the same period. The results of preclinical and clinical research studies indicate that characteristics of metabolic comorbidities are also factors that affect DILI phenotype and progression. The objective of this review is to present the evidence for DILI and hepatotoxicity mechanisms, incidence, and outcomes in patients with MetS and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Moreover, we also summarize the relationships between drugs used to treat metabolic comorbidities and DILI.

1. Introduction

Liver damage may be caused by drugs or their metabolites, or both, during drug therapy [1]. This drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is a serious adverse drug reaction that may result in acute liver failure [2, 3]. Liver injury can be caused by >1100 currently available drugs [4, 5]. Due to the increase in available drugs and the irrational use of drugs, the numbers of DILI cases increased each year as a result of increases in drug availability and nonscience-based prescription of drugs. The World Health Organization found that DILI is the fifth most common cause of liver disease-associated death [6].

One still-controversial classification system subdivides DILI as ‘intrinsic’ or ‘idiosyncratic’ [7, 8]. Intrinsic DILI is dose-dependent and the disease course is, therefore, predictable. Some dose-dependency is associated with idiosyncratic DILI, but this type is mostly not dose-dependent and the disease course is unpredictable. Idiosyncratic DILI occurs in a small proportion of susceptible individuals experiencing idiosyncratic DILI with a prolonged latency. Patients affected by intrinsic DILI experience the drug-induced direct hepatotoxicity during a short period of a few days.

Risk factors of DILI (e.g., drug characteristics, the host’s metabolic and immunological factors) are complex and interrelated. Females [9], the elderly [10], patients with underlying chronic liver disease [11], obesity, and HIV [12] are at greater risk for DILI. Drug characteristics (e.g., medication dose, extent of hepatic metabolism, and drug lipophilicity) also contribute to the DILI risk. Characteristics of the patient (e.g., viral infection, alcohol intake, and preexisting disease) are also important.

Limited evidence suggests that a higher body mass index (BMI) and metabolic comorbidities (metabolic syndrome (MetS), type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), obesity, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)) contribute to DILI clinical presentation and outcome [13, 14]. Hepatic fat accumulation may reduce susceptibility to tissue injury if the liver is exposed to harmful stimuli (e.g., ischemia/reperfusion, bacterial endotoxins)[15]. However, there are few results of clinical studies that investigate the effects of metabolic comorbidities on DILI risk [16]. The aim of this review is to examine the evidence for DILI and hepatotoxicity mechanisms, incidence, and outcomes in patients with MetS and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Moreover, we also summarize the relationships between drugs used to treat MetS, diabetes and hyperlipidemia and DILI.

2. Biological Mechanisms Linking Metabolic Factors and DILI

Two key mechanisms are associated with DILI onset. First, whether exposure to a drug or metabolite results in reaching the threshold for liver injury is determined by the dose and hepatic processing metabolism. Second, the adaptive immune response (i.e., “alarm-signaling” by damage-associated molecular pattern molecules) is also important [17]. The way that defense mechanisms interact with the toxic drug exposure determines whether cell damage occurs. The adaptive and innate immune responses that react to cell damage have significant roles in the subsequent tissue inflammation and injury. The extent of local tissue inflammation and injury interacts with the tissue repair responses to affect the overall tissue damage and clinical outcomes. During the initial stages of cellular damage, the characteristics of the administered drugs and the extent of drug exposure have primary roles. After induction of cellular repair mechanisms, the host’s factors drive the ‘host responses’ to toxic insults.

Systematic investigations of the metabolic factors that contribute to an individual’s susceptibility to, and the clinical phenotypes of, DILI have not been performed. The objective of this section of the review is to provide a cross-disciplinary discussion of host factors that affect the key mechanistic components of DILI; the four categories are drug processing, toxicological responses, inflammation and immune responses, and imbalances between tissue damage and induction of repair processes (Table 1).


Mechanistic factorsHost metabolism factorsHost responses

Threshold doseHigh body fatReduce drug clearance
Covalent bindingAlcohol, dietInducers/inhibitors of drug
metabolizing enzymes
Oxidative stressObesity/insulin resistance/NAFLD,
advanced cellular senescence
Increase cellular
oxidants
Fatty liverIncrease lipid peroxidation
Obesity/insulin resistance/
NAFLD, nutrition
Depletion of antioxidants
Mitochondrial
liability
Advanced cellular senescence (insulin resistance/NASH, chronic
inflammation)
Mitochondrial
dysfunction
Hepatic
transporters
inhibition
Altered hepatic FXR(e.g., NASH )Hepatic transporter
regulations
Inflammation and
immune responses
Increased influx of LPS (e.g.,
alcohol abuse), obesity
Proinflammatory Conditions influence inflammation and immune response
Tissue injury and repairAltered FXR, nutritional deficienciesInfluence tissue repair

2.1. Metabolic Factors That Affect Drug Processing

Lifestyle, disease conditions, and comedications also modify individual drug processing capability. The cytochrome P450s (CYP450s) 2E1 and 4A can be induced by high fat diets and alcohol. In humans, an increased risk of acetaminophen-induced hepatic injury is associated with CYP2E1 because this CYP induces increased generation of the reactive metabolite N-acetyl-p-benzoquinone imine (NAPQI) [18]. Meanwhile, increased activity of CYPs (CYP2C9, CYP1A2, CYP2E1, and CYP2D6) has been found in individuals with obesity; increased CYP activity could augment toxic metabolite generation [19, 20]. The greater hepatoxicity of halothane and acetaminophen in patients with obesity and NAFLD could be explained by greater CYP2E1 activity. This CYP transforms these drugs into the highly reactive metabolites trichloroacetyl chloride in individuals with obesity and into NAPQI in individuals with NAFLD [19, 21]. Decreased drug clearance and the subsequent slower elimination of drugs and higher drug levels in plasma are associated with high body fat [22].

2.2. Toxicological Responses Modified by Metabolic Factors

The diverse mechanisms via which drugs initiate cell damage include formation of reactive metabolites and subsequent covalent binding to cellular proteins, endoplasmic reticulum stress, oxidative stress, DNA damage, mitochondrial injury, epigenetic modification, and inhibition of bile acid excretion. Metabolic factors modify toxicological responses through processing mentioned above.

Drug-associated induction of cellular oxidative stress can represent a severe toxicological insult. Increases in the host’s preexisting cellular oxidants and in the substrates used for oxidative reactions (e.g., steatosis, lipid peroxidation) and decreases in antioxidants can modify the severity of drug-induced oxidative insult. Cellular oxidative stress is also affected by other host factors: (1) obesity, insulin resistance, and NAFLD increase cellular oxidants, (2) fatty liver increases lipid peroxidation, and (3) obesity, insulin resistance, and NAFLD are related to cellular antioxidation (e.g., SOD2, GPx1[23]) depletion of antioxidants.

In patients with obesity, diabetes, insulin resistance, and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, the metabolic environment characterized by reduced ATP synthesis and higher reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels can increase cytotoxicity [2426]. When significant amounts of ROS are produced, they are usually appropriately detoxified when the mitochondrial biology is normal [27]. However, host factors such as alcohol consumption and overnutrition can affect the mitochondrial aging that is partly due to accumulated oxidative mitochondrial DNA damage [13, 28]. During NAFLD, higher ROS levels can result from reduced antioxidant defenses (e.g., glutathione peroxidases, glutathione, superoxide dismutases) and ROS overproduction by cellular components (e.g., respiratory chain, peroxisomes, CYP2E1)[25, 29].

Inhibition of bile acid transporter could lead to intrahepatocellular bile acid accumulation [30]. Hepatic transporters are influenced by genetic variations, comedications, bacterial endotoxins, and the farconoid xenosensing receptor (FXR), which functions as a bile acid sensor and acts as a key regulator of metabolic processes [31]. Some data have showed that decreased expression of hepatic FXR is associated with an increased expression of SREBP-1C, LXR, and hepatic triglyceride synthesis; furthermore, increased SREBP-1C is associated with the degree of hepatic steatosis in the NAFLD patients [32].

2.3. Metabolic Factors That Modulate Immune Response and Inflammation and Modify Cell Death, Tissue Injury, and Repair

The innate and adaptive immune responses have important roles in determining the degree of ‘injury’ and inducing inflammation. Host factors are known to modulate the inflammation and immune responses which affect DILI susceptibility in turn.

Inflammation and immune responses are affected by sex hormones and gender. Using an immune-mediated DILI model, researchers found gender bias in inflammation and immune response. Compared with males, females had more severe hepatitis, more antibody production, and higher levels of proinflammatory hepatic cytokines [33]. An increased influx of lipopolysaccharide [34, 35], altered microbiomes [36], chronic inflammatory diseases and viral infections, obesity [37], progesterone [38], and depletion of the bile acid pool [39] interact synergistically to enhance hepatotoxic drug-associated liver damage. During nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, high tumor necrosis factor production occurs in the proinflammatory environment. Tumor necrosis factor can sensitize the liver to drug-induced acute cytotoxicity [35, 40].

These experimental results are suggestive, but the available study results for human populations provide little support for an overall increased risk of DILI in patients with diabetes, obesity, or NAFLD [14]. More studies are needed to understand the mechanisms that increase the toxicity of some drugs to the livers of patients with obesity. Meanwhile, the balance between tissue injury and repair also needs to be considered with impaired tissue repair worsening the condition leading to poor clinical outcome. Potential beneficial impacts of lipid-lowering drugs (i.e., statins, fibrates) are associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients diagnosed with dyslipidemia and collagen diseases among DILI cases [41].

Epigenetic modifications of host chromatin may impair regeneration following injury and potentially alter individual susceptibility to hepatotoxicity [42, 43]. Deficiencies of nutrition can cause epigenetic modifications. Deficiencies of choline, vitamin B12, and folic acid deficiency influence cellular metabolism, hepatocyte differentiation, and severe liver damage [4446].

3. Epidemiological Studies Linking Metabolic Comorbidities and DILI Incidence and Severity

In obese individuals with NAFLD, drugs such as halothane that may still be used in some countries and as a generic product in the USA in children, isoflurane, acetaminophen, ticlopidine, losartan, and omeprazole can increase the risk of acute DILI [4749]. Treatment with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with MetS increases the risk of MTX hepatotoxicity. Obesity and diabetes are identified as risk factors for MTX-induced liver injury by American Association of Dermatology and American College of Rheumatology guidelines [50]. With regard to DILI severity in patients with MetS or NAFLD, a recent DILI initiative study found that that preexisting liver disease is a risk factor for a more severe form of DILI at presentation and higher mortality [51].

However, two prospective, population-based studies did not suggest that the metabolic variables BMI, T2DM, or NAFLD were predisposing factors for DILI [9, 52]. In one of the populations (in France) these variables might not have been included in the study or were not available for study. In the other population with DILI (in Iceland), the values for prevalence of diabetes and obesity were low (5% and 10%, respectively)[9]. NAFLD or its shared metabolic risk factors are not usually mentioned by large prospective registries of DILI as determinants of increased odds of hepatotoxicity [13, 22, 53, 54]. The results of one clinical study suggested that the frequency of amiodarone-induced hepatotoxicity was not greater in patients with metabolic syndrome [55]. A series of 308 consecutive cases of acute liver failure admitted to referral centers was examined by the Acute Liver Failure Study group, but results on metabolic risk factors and clinical outcome were not included in the study findings [56].

Some of these studies were performed in populations with low values for the prevalence of T2DM (i.e., Iceland) and obesity. Also, MetS and NAFLD are usually not included as relevant variables in multicenter registry databases. The numbers of adverse events for individual drugs is usually small, so it is difficult to make valid conclusions. Therefore, the values for the strength of association of metabolic factors as risk factors for DILI might have been underestimated in these studies.

3.1. Obesity and NAFLD

A sedentary lifestyle and overconsumption of calories can at least partly explain the epidemics of obesity occurring in many countries. Because obesity increases the risk of many diseases (e.g., coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, NAFLD, and some cancers) the high prevalence of obesity is a major public health problem. Obesity is a risk factor for DILI, at least for some drugs [19, 57] (the volatile halogenated anesthetics halothane and isoflurane, acetaminophen, omeprazole, losartan, and ticlopidine,) [47, 49, 57, 58]. More severe hepatotoxicity occurs in obese rodents given isoflurane [19, 47, 5962], tetracycline [63], phenobarbital [64], or haloperidol [65]. However, a poor acute liver failure outcome was not predicted by BMI in subjects with drug-induced acute liver failure who were on average overweight, but not obese [66]. Whether drug-induced acute liver failure was predicted by a high BMI (i.e., obese) was not examined in this study.

The findings of Tarantino et al. [48] suggested that compared with patients with hepatitis C virus infection, patients with NAFLD have a higher risk of DILI. Their study methodology was problematic, and their study population included only 6 cases of DILI among 74 patients with NAFLD and 1 case of DILI among 174 patients with hepatitis C virus infection. A study performed in Italy found that compared with patients with hepatitis C virus-associated chronic hepatitis, patients with NAFLD have a higher risk of DILI [67]. An odds ratio of 3.95 was found for drug-related hepatotoxicity in middle-aged patients with obesity and NAFLD, but only a small number of cases was included in this study. The results of clinical and experimental studies strongly suggest that acute acetaminophen hepatotoxicity is more severe and frequent in populations of patients with obesity and NAFLD [21, 49, 68, 69]. One prospective study found that middle-aged patients with obesity and preexisting NAFLD had a nearly fourfold increased risk of DILI [48]. There is greater appreciation of the potential increased risk of DILI in patients with NAFLD who are treated with drugs such as fosinopril, piperacillin/tazobactam, omeprazole, ticlopidine, or telithromycin [48]. A study of patients with preexisting liver disease (mainly hepatitis C virus infection and NAFLD)[51] found that the clinical severity of DILI tended to be higher and the lethality was significantly higher in individuals with these preexisting liver diseases [7072].

The increased susceptibility to DILI in individuals with obesity might be associated with other mechanisms associated with drug availability or metabolism or inflammatory changes in adipose tissue that indirectly affect the liver, rather than to steatosis per se [73]. In patients with obesity and NAFLD, DILI could present one of two different clinical entities. In an obesity and related metabolic disease context, some drugs are more likely to cause worsening of preexisting NAFLD and others are more likely to induce an acute hepatitis.

Some drugs stimulate lipogenesis in a steatotic liver. Drug-induced worsening of NAFLD can also occur secondary to an increase in insulin resistance. This key mechanism results in hepatic lipid deposition. An increase in insulin resistance stimulates hepatic lipogenesis secondary to hyperinsulinemia, adipose triacylglycerol hydrolysis, and delivery of free fatty acids to the liver. Synthetic corticosteroids, NRTIs, antipsychotic drugs (e.g., olanzapine, clozapine), thiazide diuretics (e.g., hydrochlorothiazide), and protease inhibitors initiate or increase insulin resistance [57, 7476].

Reduced mitochondrial-associated glutathione (GSH) levels [25] can negatively affect CYP-generated reactive metabolite removal. This mechanism can also account for the higher drug-induced acute hepatitis risk in patients with obesity. Obesity is associated with reduced activity of some CYPs (e.g., CYP3A4)[20]. Therefore, not all drugs that can be converted to toxic metabolites present an increased acute hepatitis risk. The increased glucuronosyltransferase activity that is more common in some patients with obesity [20, 21] can increase the rates of detoxification of some compounds. Underdosing might also occur with drugs whose dosages do not account for a higher body mass index.

The susceptibility of acute liver injury might not be increased by NAFLD for all hepatotoxic drugs. NAFLD-associated changes in xenobiotic metabolizing enzyme activity might not be associated with higher toxic compound (i.e., the parent drugs or the CYP-generated reactive metabolites, or both) levels [15].

3.2. Dyslipidemia and Diabetes Mellitus

Few studies of the links between dyslipidemia and DILI have been performed. Results of an analysis of the Spanish DILI registry [77] indicate that patients with baseline dyslipidemia have a relatively higher risk for chronic liver changes [odds ratio = 4.5, p = 0.04]. However, Robles-Diaz found that dyslipidemia is less frequent in patients with acute liver failure or orthotopic liver transplantation compared with patients with favorable outcomes. The apparent protective effect of dyslipidemia might be associated with the more frequent statin use by those with dyslipidemia (8.7% versus 3.2%, respectively)[78].

Some study results suggest that DM affects DILI severity and incidence. An analysis of a large prospectively case series (data collected by the US DILI Network) performed by Chalasani et al. [79] found that, in the first 300 cases, the group of cases with severe DILI had a greater proportion of diabetes (37%, versus 25% in the group of mild-to-moderate DILI). There were no between-group differences in BMI. The odds of severe DILI was 2.7 in the group with diabetes, independent of age, alcohol consumption, and whether the liver injury had a cytolytic or cholestatic pattern. El Serag and Everson [80] found that, after exclusion of patients with chronic liver disease, viral hepatitis, or congestive heart failure, veterans with type 2 diabetes have a greater risk (40%) of acute liver failure (including drug-induced). This finding suggests that whether it acts directly or indirectly, the presence of diabetes increases the risk of a severe injury when an acute liver injury (e.g., iatrogenic) occurs.

4. Relationships between Drugs for Metabolic Comorbidities and DILI

4.1. Hypolipidemics

Statins decrease the incidence and associated rates of mortality of peripheral vascular disease, stroke, and myocardial infarction [81]. Statins improve the lipid profile via the inhibition of hepatic 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase. Lovastatin, simvastatin, pravastatin, atorvastatin, fluvastatin, and rosuvastatin are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and are metabolized by CYP-450. Statins are the most often-prescribed class of lipid-lowering agents.

The approved statins are metabolized via hepatic clearance. Therefore, whether these drugs or their metabolites increase the risk of hepatic injury in individuals with underlying liver disease has been an issue of concern. The National Cholesterol Education Program ( report) recommends that statin use is contraindicated in patients with active liver disease [82]. Statin manufacturers recommend that baseline serum liver enzymes are evaluated before a patient begins a statin and that statins should not be prescribed for patients with persistently elevated aminotransferase levels.

Statin use is associated with the development of idiosyncratic DILI. The Swedish Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee found that statin-associated DILI affected 1.2/100,000 users; in most cases, a cholestatic/mixed pattern was present. Three patients experienced acute liver failure that resulted in death or liver transplantation [83, 84]. The Chalasani DILI study found that 2.6% of 899 cases of DILI could be attributed to statin use. There were subtle between-drug differences (atorvastatin 1.0%, rosuvastatin 0.8%, pravastatin 0.4%, lovastatin 0.2%, and fluvastatin 0.2%)[51]. The values for the incidence of mild-to-moderate and severe statin hepatotoxicity associated with atorvastatin, lovastatin, and simvastatin use were evaluated during a 6-month period in two large retrospective studies [85, 86].

A prospective study of 300 patients (Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network database) with suspected idiosyncratic DILI (regardless of causality scores) found that in only 14 (5%) patients, a statin alone or combined with another drug was implicated as the etiology of the DILI; there was no associated mortality [79]. Other results of clinical studies suggest that patients with NAFLD do not have a greater risk of statin-induced hepatotoxicity [87]. In one study, three groups of patients were compared. In first group (342 patients), they had hyperlipidemia and liver enzyme elevation and took statins. This group was compared with 1437 patients who had hyperlipidemia, but had normal aminotransferase levels; this group of patients also took statins and served as the statin control group. The third group consisted of 2245 patients who had elevated liver enzymes and were not taking statins. Compared with the liver disease controls who did not take statins, the first group did not have a higher incidence of mild-to-moderate (1.9% versus 4.7%, respectively, P = 0.2) or severe (0.4% versus 0.6%, respectively, P = 0.6) elevation in liver enzymes. The Pravastatin Pooling Project evaluated patients treated with pravastatin during a median period of 5 years [88]. Other pilot studies were used to evaluate atorvastatin, pravastatin, and rosuvastatin therapy over a period of variable duration (range, 6–21 months). The studies found that aminotransferase levels normalized in up to 78% of the patients [8991]. Taken together, these results suggest that statin-associated hepatotoxicity is uncommon [84].

The results of experimental models suggest that statins have potentially beneficial liver effects. They increase nitric oxide production, targeting cholesterol at different points in the mevalonate pathway. They also protect from ischemia/reperfusion [92], hepatotoxicity [93], and drug-induced acute liver failure [94] by inhibiting drug-induced expression of genes involved in drug transport, the oxidative stress response, DNA repair, cell-cycle progression, and cell death.

An extremely rare event, statin-associated hepatotoxicity is generally associated with asymptomatic elevations in aminotransferase levels and results in mild clinical changes [95]. Study results indicate that statin use is safe and they should be used when indicated in patients with MetS or NAFLD, or both [51, 83, 85, 96]. They seem to provide protective effects in patients with NAFLD and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis who have liver injury [97, 98].

4.2. Antidiabetic Drugs

An important drug for T2DM treatment, metformin, is also used to treat patients with fatty liver [99]. Because it is not metabolized via the hepatic route, it is generally not considered to be toxic to the liver [100]; liver injury associated with the use of this drug is rare. Animal model studies found that metformin improves methotrexate-induced hepatotoxicity [101]. In the limited number of case studies, most patients with metformin-induced liver injury were also taking other potentially hepatotoxic drugs [102104]. Only a few cases of metformin-induced liver injury without associated use of other hepatotoxic drugs have been reported [105, 106]. Idiosyncratic, direct, or drug-drug interaction [107] are possible mechanisms of injury that result in acute hepatocellular or cholestatic jaundice, or both.

T2DM is often treated using medications from the thiazolidinedione drug class. A higher incidence of hepatotoxicity and death led to the withdrawal of troglitazone, which was the first US Food and Drug Administration-approved thiazolidinedione [108110]. Compared to troglitazone, the glitazones rosiglitazone and pioglitazone have similar efficacy for control of blood glucose levels in patients with T2DM. They are also considered to be less hepatotoxic. However, they were withdrawn from use in some countries due to apparent associated adverse cardiac effects [109, 110]. Impairment of mitochondrial function via inhibition of mitochondrial respiration, altered membrane potential, decreased ATP reserves, and increased oxidative stress are possible hepatotoxicity mechanisms found by in vitro studies [111114]. Troglitazone has the highest potency to inhibit mitochondrial function [113].

The oral antidiabetic agents, acarbose [115] and gliclazide [116], have also been implicated in liver toxicity [108].

5. Conclusion

Drug-induced hepatotoxicity is a significant clinical problem. Patients with obesity, diabetes, or NAFLD have an increased risk of hepatotoxicity and of more severe hepatotoxicity. The associations between dyslipidemia and DILI require further examination. The complex interactions between deleterious and protective mechanisms of cytotoxicity in human hepatic steatosis are evident given the contrast between the many experimental results that indicate the presence of a heightened risk of hepatotoxicity in the fatty liver and the few recorded clinical cases of DILI in patients with NAFLD. Expansion of both clinical and basic research into the mechanisms of DILI is warranted. Special care is therefore needed to determine the associations between drugs used to treat metabolic disorders and DILI development.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest associated with the publication of this manuscript.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Science and Technology Development Program of Jilin Province under Grant no. 20190103079JH and the Youth Development Foundation of the First Hospital of Jilin University under Grant no. JDYY102019004.

References

  1. D. Han, M. Shinohara, M. D. Ybanez, B. Saberi, and N. Kaplowitz, “Signal transduction pathways involved in drug-induced liver injury,” in Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology, pp. 267–310, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  2. J. Krauskopf, F. Caiment, S. M. Claessen et al., “Application of high-throughput sequencing to circulating microRNAs reveals novel biomarkers for drug-induced liver injury,” Toxicological Sciences, vol. 143, no. 2, pp. 268–276, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. C. M. Hunt, J. I. Papay, V. Stanulovic, and A. Regev, “Drug rechallenge following drug-induced liver injury,” in Hepatology, vol. 66, pp. 646–654, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. G. Stirnimann, K. Kessebohm, and B. Lauterburg, “Liver injury caused by drugs: an update,” Swiss Medical Weekly, vol. 140, Article ID 13080, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. S. J. Lee, Y. J. Lee, and K. K. Park, “The pathogenesis of drug-induced liver injury,” Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, pp. 1175–1185, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. R.-J. Lu, Y. Zhang, F.-L. Tang et al., “Clinical characteristics of drug-induced liver injury and related risk factors,” Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, vol. 12, pp. 2606–2616, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  7. V. J. Navarro and J. R. Senior, “Drug-related hepatotoxicity,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 354, pp. 731–739, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  8. N. Chalasani and E. Bjornsson, “Risk factors for idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury,” Gastroenterology, vol. 138, pp. 2246–2259, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. E. S. Bjornsson, O. M. Bergmann, H. K. Bjornsson, R. B. Kvaran, and S. Olafsson, “Incidence, presentation, and outcomes in patients with drug-induced liver injury in the general population of Iceland,” Gastroenterology, vol. 144, pp. 1419–1425, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  10. G. Abboud and N. Kaplowitz, “Drug-induced liver injury,” Drug Safety, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 277–294, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. NA, “Gather and weigh the evidence when judging whether a drug has induced liver injury,” Drugs & Therapy Perspectives, vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 23–26, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  12. M. D. Leise, J. J. Poterucha, and J. A. Talwalkar, “Drug-induced liver injury,” Mayo Clinic Proceedings, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 95–106, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  13. B. Fromenty, “Drug-induced liver injury in obesity,” Journal of Hepatology, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 824–826, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. R. Pais, E. Rusu, and V. Ratziu, “The impact of obesity and metabolic syndrome on chronic hepatitis B and drug-induced liver disease,” Clinics in Liver Disease, vol. 18, pp. 165–178, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  15. J. Massart, K. Begriche, C. Moreau, and B. Fromenty, “Role of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease as risk factor for drug-induced hepatotoxicity,” Journal of Clinical and Translational Research, vol. 3, pp. 212–232, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  16. J. I. Vargas, J. P. Arab, F. Bessone, M. I. Lucena, R. J. Andrade, and M. Arrese, “Hepatotoxicity in patients with metabolic syndrome: causes and consequences,” Current Hepatology Reports, pp. 1–7, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  17. N. Kaplowitz, “Avoiding idiosyncratic DILI: two is better than one,” Hepatology, vol. 58, pp. 15–17, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  18. L. B. Seeff, B. A. Cuccherini, H. J. Zimmerman, E. Adler, and S. B. Benjamin, “Acetaminophen hepatotoxicity in alcoholics. A therapeutic misadventure,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 104, no. 3, pp. 399–404, 1986. View at: Google Scholar
  19. J. Aubert, K. Begriche, L. Knockaert, M. A. Robin, and B. Fromenty, “Increased expression of cytochrome P450 2E1 in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: mechanisms and pathophysiological role,” Clinics and Research in Hepatology and Gastroenterology, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 630–637, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. M. J. Brill, J. Diepstraten, A. van Rongen et al., “Impact of obesity on drug metabolism and elimination in adults and children,” Clinical Pharmacokinetics, vol. 51, pp. 277–304, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. J. Aubert, K. Begriche, M. Delannoy et al., “Differences in early acetaminophen hepatotoxicity between obese ob/ob and db/db mice,” The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, vol. 342, no. 3, pp. 676–687, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. M. Chen, A. Suzuki, J. Borlak, R. J. Andrade, and M. I. Lucena, “Drug-induced liver injury: Interactions between drug properties and host factors,” Journal of Hepatology, vol. 63, pp. 503–514, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  23. D. Pessayre, B. Fromenty, A. Berson et al., “Central role of mitochondria in drug-induced liver injury,” Drug Metabolism Reviews, vol. 44, pp. 34–87, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. H. Cortez-Pinto, J. Chatham, V. P. Chacko, C. Arnold, A. Rashid, and A. M. Diehl, “Alterations in liver ATP homeostasis in human nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: a pilot study,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 282, no. 17, pp. 1659–1664, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. K. Begriche, J. Massart, M. A. Robin, F. Bonnet, and B. Fromenty, “Mitochondrial adaptations and dysfunctions in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” in Hepatology, vol. 58, pp. 1497–1507, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  26. C. Koliaki and M. Roden, “Hepatic energy metabolism in human diabetes mellitus, obesity and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease,” Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, vol. 379, pp. 35–42, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  27. D. F. Dai, Y. A. Chiao, D. J. Marcinek, H. H. Szeto, and P. S. Rabinovitch, “Mitochondrial oxidative stress in aging and healthspan,” Longevity & Healthspan, vol. 3, no. 6, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. G. Labbe, D. Pessayre, and B. Fromenty, “Drug-induced liver injury through mitochondrial dysfunction: mechanisms and detection during preclinical safety studies,” Fundamental & clinical pharmacology, vol. 22, pp. 335–353, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. G. Serviddio, F. Bellanti, and G. Vendemiale, “Free radical biology for medicine: learning from nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” Free Radical Biology & Medicine, vol. 65, pp. 952–968, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  30. A. D. Rodrigues, Y. Lai, M. E. Cvijic, L. L. Elkin, T. Zvyaga, and M. G. Soars, “Drug-induced perturbations of the bile acid pool, cholestasis, and hepatotoxicity: mechanistic considerations beyond the direct inhibition of the bile salt export pump,” Drug Metabolism and Disposition, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 566–574, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. C. Pauli-Magnus and P. J. Meier, “Hepatobiliary transporters and drug-induced cholestasis,” Hepatology, vol. 44, pp. 778–787, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. Z. X. Yang, W. Shen, and H. Sun, “Effects of nuclear receptor FXR on the regulation of liver lipid metabolism in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease,” Hepatology International, vol. 4, pp. 741–748, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  33. J. Cho, L. Kim, Z. Li et al., “Sex bias in experimental immune-mediated, drug-induced liver injury in BALB/c mice: suggested roles for tregs, estrogen, and IL-6,” PLoS ONE, vol. 8, no. 4, p. e61186, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. X. Deng, R. F. Stachlewitz, and M. J. Liguori, “Modest inflammation enhances diclofenac hepatotoxicity in rats: role of neutrophils and bacterial translocation,” Journal of Pharmacology Experimental Therapeutics, vol. 319, no. 3, pp. 1191–1199, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. P. J. Shaw, M. J. Hopfensperger, P. E. Ganey, and R. A. Roth, “Lipopolysaccharide and trovafloxacin coexposure in mice causes idiosyncrasy-like liver injury dependent on tumor necrosis factor-alpha,” Toxicological Sciences : An Official Journal of The Society of Toxicology, vol. 100, pp. 259–266, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  36. J. Plaza-Diaz, C. Gomez-Llorente, L. Fontana, and A. Gil, “Modulation of immunity and inflammatory gene expression in the gut, in inflammatory diseases of the gut and in the liver by probiotics,” World Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 20, no. 42, pp. 15632–15649, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. N. Kloting and M. Bluher, “Adipocyte dysfunction, inflammation and metabolic syndrome,” Reviews in Endocrine & Metabolic Disorders, vol. 15, pp. 277–287, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  38. Y. Toyoda, T. Miyashita, S. Endo et al., “Estradiol and progesterone modulate halothane-induced liver injury in mice,” Toxicology Letters, vol. 204, no. 1, pp. 17–24, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. B. Bhushan, P. Borude, G. Edwards et al., “Role of bile acids in liver injury and regeneration following acetaminophen overdose,” The American Journal of Pathology, vol. 183, no. 5, pp. 1518–1526, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. S. Ramm and A. Mally, “Role of drug-independent stress factors in liver injury associated with diclofenac intake,” Toxicology, vol. 312, pp. 83–96, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. A. Suzuki, N. Yuen, J. Walsh, J. Papay, C. M. Hunt, and A. M. Diehl, “Co-medications that modulate liver injury and repair influence clinical outcome of acetaminophen-associated liver injury,” Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 882–888, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. K. Murata, M. Hamada, K. Sugimoto, and T. Nakano, “A novel mechanism for drug-induced liver failure: inhibition of histone acetylation by hydralazine derivatives,” Journal of Hepatology, vol. 46, pp. 322–329, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  43. V. Shukla, C. Cuenin, N. Dubey, and Z. Herceg, “Loss of histone acetyltransferase cofactor transformation/transcription domain-associated protein impairs liver regeneration after toxic injury,” Hepatology, vol. 53, pp. 954–963, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. C. H. Halsted, J. A. Villanueva, A. M. Devlin et al., “Folate deficiency disturbs hepatic methionine metabolism and promotes liver injury in the ethanol-fed micropig,” Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 99, no. 15, pp. 10072–10077, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. L. Brunaud, J. Alberto, A. Ayav et al., “Effects of vitamin B12 and folate deficiencies on dna methylation and carcinogenesis in rat liver,” Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 1012–1019, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. J. A. Villanueva, F. Esfandiari, M. E. White, S. Devaraj, S. W. French, and C. H. Halsted, “S-adenosylmethionine attenuates oxidative liver injury in micropigs fed ethanol with a folate-deficient diet,” Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 1934–1943, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. N. T. Gunaratnam, J. Benson, A. J. Gandolfi, and M. Chen, “Suspected isoflurane hepatitis in an obese patient with a history of halothane hepatitis,” Anesthesiology, vol. 83, no. 6, pp. 1361–1364, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. G. Tarantino, P. Conca, V. Basile et al., “A prospective study of acute drug-induced liver injury in patients suffering from non-alcoholic fatty liver disease,” Hepatology Research, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 410–415, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. G. C. Nguyen, J. Sam, and P. J. Thuluvath, “Hepatitis C is a predictor of acute liver injury among hospitalizations for acetaminophen overdose in the United States: a nationwide analysis,” Hepatology, vol. 48, pp. 1336–1341, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. A. Shetty, W. Cho, W. Alazawi, and W. K. Syn, “Methotrexate hepatotoxicity and the impact of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” American Journal of the Medical Sciences, vol. 354, Article ID S0002962917301398, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  51. N. Chalasani, H. L. Bonkovsky, R. Fontana et al., “Features and outcomes of 899 patients with drug-induced liver injury: the DILIN prospective study,” Gastroenterology, vol. 148, pp. 1340.e1347–1352.e1347, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. C. Sgro, F. Clinard, K. Ouazir et al., “Incidence of drug-induced hepatic injuries: a French population-based study,” Hepatology, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 451–455, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. R. J. Andrade, M. I. Lucena, M. C. Fernandez et al., “Drug-induced liver injury: an analysis of 461 incidences submitted to the Spanish registry over a 10-year period,” Gastroenterology, vol. 129, no. 2, pp. 512–521, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. F. Bessone, N. Hernandez, M. I. Lucena, and R. J. Andrade, “The latin american DILI registry experience: a successful ongoing collaborative strategic initiative,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 17, no. 313, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  55. W. Mattar, B. Juliar, I. Gradus-Pizlo, and P. Y. Kwo, “Amiodarone hepatotoxicity in the context of the metabolic syndrome and right-sided heart failure,” Journal of Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 419–423, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  56. G. Ostapowicz, R. J. Fontana, F. V. Schioødt et al., “Results of a prospective study of acute liver failure at 17 tertiary care centers in the United States,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 137, no. 12, pp. 947–954, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. K. Begriche, J. Massart, M.-A. Robin, A. Borgne-Sanchez, and B. Fromenty, “Drug-induced toxicity on mitochondria and lipid metabolism: mechanistic diversity and deleterious consequences for the liver,” Journal of Hepatology, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 773–794, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. B. Stuart, J. Lloyd, L. Zhao, and S. Kamal-Bahl, “Obesity, disease burden, and prescription spending by community-dwelling medicare beneficiaries,” Current Medical Research and Opinion, vol. 24, pp. 2377–2387, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  59. A. H. Qizilbash, “Halothane hepatitis.,” Canadian Medical Association Journal, vol. 108, no. 2, pp. 171–177, 1973. View at: Google Scholar
  60. P. J. A. Moult and S. Sherlock, “Halothane related hepatitis. A clinical study of twenty six cases,” QJM: An International Journal of Medicine, vol. 44, no. 173, pp. 99–114, 1975. View at: Google Scholar
  61. E. M. Brunt, H. White, J. W. Marsh, B. Holtmann, and M. G. Peters, “Fulminant hepatic failure after repeated exposure to isoflurane anesthesia: A case report,” Hepatology, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 1017–1021, 1991. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  62. P. Eghtesadi-Araghi, A.-A. Sohrabpour, H. Vahedi, and M. Saberi-Firoozi, “Halothane hepatitis in Iran: A review of 59 cases,” World Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 14, no. 34, pp. 5322–5326, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  63. M. Ito, J. Suzuki, M. Sasaki et al., “Development of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis model through combination of high-fat diet and tetracycline with morbid obesity in mice,” Hepatology Research, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 92–98, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  64. J. Sugatani, T. Wada, M. Osabe et al., “Dietary inulin alleviates hepatic steatosis and xenobiotics-induced liver injury in rats fed a high-fat and high-sucrose diet: association with the suppression of hepatic cytochrome p450 and hepatocyte nuclear factor 4 expression,” Drug Metabolism and Disposition, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 1677–1687, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  65. M. Hanagama, H. Inoue, M. Kamiya, K. Shinone, and M. Nata, “Gene expression on liver toxicity induced by administration of haloperidol in rats with severe fatty liver,” Legal Medicine, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 177–184, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  66. A. Reuben, D. G. Koch, and W. M. Lee, “Drug-induced acute liver failure: results of a U.S. multicenter, prospective study,” Hepatology, vol. 52, pp. 2065–2076, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  67. F. Bril, P. Portillo Sanchez, R. Lomonaco et al., “Liver safety of statins in prediabetes or T2DM and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: post Hoc analysis of a randomized trial,” The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, vol. 102, no. 8, pp. 2950–2961, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. R. P. Myers and A. A. Shaheen, “Hepatitis C, alcohol abuse, and unintentional overdoses are risk factors for acetaminophen-related hepatotoxicity,” Hepatology, vol. 49, pp. 1399-1400, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  69. A. Michaut, C. Moreau, M. A. Robin, and B. Fromenty, “Acetaminophen-induced liver injury in obesity and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” Liver International : Official Journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver, vol. 34, pp. e171–e179, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  70. R. Teschke and R. J. Andrade, “Drug-induced liver injury: expanding our knowledge by enlarging population analysis with prospective and scoring causality assessment,” Gastroenterology, vol. 148, pp. 1271–1273, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  71. R. Teschke and R. J. Andrade, “Drug, herb, and dietary supplement hepatotoxicity,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 17, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  72. A. Ortega-Alonso, C. Stephens, M. I. Lucena, and R. J. Andrade, “Case characterization, clinical features and risk factors in drug-induced liver injury,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 17, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  73. A. Hassan and R. J. Fontana, “The diagnosis and management of idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury,” Liver International : Official Journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver, vol. 39, pp. 31–41, 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  74. G. C. Farrell, “Drugs and steatohepatitis,” Seminars in Liver Disease, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 185–194, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  75. M. Lemoine, L. Serfaty, and J. Capeau, “From nonalcoholic fatty liver to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and cirrhosis in HIV-infected patients: diagnosis and management,” Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases, vol. 25, pp. 10–16, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  76. S. Larrain and M. E. Rinella, “A myriad of pathways to NASH,” Clinics in Liver Disease, vol. 16, pp. 525–548, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  77. I. Medina-Caliz, M. Robles-Diaz, B. Garcia-Muñoz et al., “Definition and risk factors for chronicity following acute idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury,” Journal of hepatology, vol. 65, pp. 532–542, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  78. M. Robles-Diaz, M. Isabel Lucena, N. Kaplowitz et al., “Use of Hy's law and a new composite algorithm to predict acute liver failure in patients with drug-induced liver injury,” Gastroenterology, vol. 147, pp. 109–118, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  79. N. Chalasani, R. J. Fontana, and H. L. Bonkovsky, “Causes, clinical features, and outcomes from a prospective study of drug-induced liver injury in the United States,” Gastroenterology, vol. 135, no. 6, pp. 1924–1934.e4, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  80. H. B. El-Serag and J. E. Everhart, “Diabetes increases the risk of acute hepatic failure,” Gastroenterology, vol. 122, no. 7, pp. 1822–1828, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  81. V. Shalev, G. Chodick, H. Silber, E. Kokia, J. Jan, and A. D. Heymann, “Continuation of statin treatment and all-cause mortality: a population-based cohort study,” JAMA Internal Medicine, vol. 169, no. 3, pp. 260–268, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  82. Expert Panel on Detection Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults, “Executive summary of the third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) expert panel on detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood cholesterol in adults (adult treatment panel III),” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 285, no. 19, pp. 2486–2497, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  83. E. Björnsson, E. I. Jacobsen, and E. Kalaitzakis, “Hepatotoxicity associated with statins: reports of idiosyncratic liver injury post-marketing,” Journal of Hepatology, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 374–380, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  84. M. W. Russo, J. H. Hoofnagle, J. Gu et al., “Spectrum of statin hepatotoxicity: experience of the drug-induced liver injury network,” Hepatology, vol. 60, pp. 679–686, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  85. N. Chalasani, H. Aljadhey, J. Kesterson, M. D. Murray, and S. D. Hall, “Patients with elevated liver enzymes are not at higher risk for statin hepatotoxicity,” Gastroenterology, vol. 126, no. 5, pp. 1287–1292, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  86. R. Vuppalanchi, E. Teal, and N. Chalasani, “Patients with elevated baseline liver enzymes do not have higher frequency of hepatotoxicity from lovastatin than those with normal baseline liver enzymes,” The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, vol. 329, no. 2, pp. 62–65, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  87. H. Bays, D. E. Cohen, N. Chalasani, and S. A. Harrison, “The national lipid association's statin safety task, F. an assessment by the statin liver safety task force: 2014 update,” Journal of Clinical Lipidology, vol. 8, pp. S47–S57, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  88. M. A. Pfeffer, A. Keech, F. M. Sacks et al., “Safety and tolerability of pravastatin in long-term clinical trials,” Circulation, vol. 105, no. 20, pp. 2341–2346, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  89. L. S. Rallidis, C. K. Drakoulis, and A. S. Parasi, “Pravastatin in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: results of a pilot study,” Atherosclerosis, vol. 174, pp. 193–196, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  90. M. H. Ahmed, “Rosuvastatin: a safe and effective treatment for dyslipidaemia associated with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH),” Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 41, no. 5, p. 631, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  91. H. Hyogo, S. Tazuma, K. Arihiro et al., “Efficacy of atorvastatin for the treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis with dyslipidemia,” Metabolism, vol. 57, no. 12, pp. 1711–1718, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  92. L. Llacuna, A. Fernández, C. V. Montfort et al., “Targeting cholesterol at different levels in the mevalonate pathway protects fatty liver against ischemia-reperfusion injury,” Journal of Hepatology, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 1002–1010, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  93. C. Henninger, J. Huelsenbeck, S. Huelsenbeck et al., “The lipid lowering drug lovastatin protects against doxorubicin-induced hepatotoxicity,” Toxicology And Applied Pharmacology, vol. 261, pp. 66–73, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  94. H. C. Huang, C. C. Chang, S. S. Wang et al., “Pravastatin for thioacetamide-induced hepatic failure and encephalopathy,” European Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 139–145, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  95. S. Tandra and R. Vuppalanchi, “Use of statins in patients with liver disease,” Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 272–278, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  96. M. W. Russo, J. A. Galanko, R. Shrestha, M. W. Fried, and P. Watkins, “Liver transplantation for acute liver failure from drug induced liver injury in the United States,” Liver Transplantation : Official Publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the International Liver Transplantation Society, vol. 10, pp. 1018–1023, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  97. V. G. Athyros, C. Boutari, K. Stavropoulos et al., “Statins: an under-appreciated asset for the prevention and the treatment of NAFLD or NASH and the related cardiovascular risk,” Current Vascular Pharmacology, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 246–253, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  98. P. Dongiovanni, S. Petta, V. Mannisto et al., “Statin use and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis in at risk individuals,” Journal of Hepatology, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 705–712, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  99. T. Saadi, M. Waterman, H. Yassin, and Y. Baruch, “Metformin-induced mixed hepatocellular and cholestatic hepatic injury: case report and literature review,” International Journal of General Medicine, vol. 6, pp. 703–706, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  100. C. R. Sirtori, G. Franceschini, M. Galli-Kienle et al., “Disposition of metformin (N,N-dimethylbiguanide) in man,” Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 683–693, 1978. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  101. N. R. Hadi, F. G. Al-Amran, and A. Swadi, “Metformin ameliorates methotrexate-induced hepatotoxicity,” Journal of Pharmacology & Pharmacotherapeutics, vol. 3, pp. 248–253, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  102. M. M. Babich, I. Pike, and M. L. Shiffman, “Metformin-induced acute hepatitis,” The American Journal of Medicine, vol. 104, pp. 490–492, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  103. F. E. Nammour, N. F. Fayad, and S. R. Peikin, “Metformin-induced cholestatic hepatitis,” Endocrine Practice : Official Journal of the American College of Endocrinology and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, vol. 9, pp. 307–309, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  104. M. Deutsch, D. Kountouras, and S. P. Dourakis, “Metformin hepatotoxicity.,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 140, no. 5, p. W25, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  105. L. Zheng, “Metformin as a rare cause of drug-induced liver injury, a case report and literature review,” American Journal of Therapeutics, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. e315–e317, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  106. F. Miralles-Linares, S. Puerta-Fernandez, M. Rosa Bernal-Lopez et al., “Metformin-induced hepatotoxicity,” Diabetes Care, vol. 35, p. e21, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  107. D. J. Desilets, A. F. Shorr, K. A. Moran, and K. C. Holtzmuller, “Cholestatic jaundice associated with the use of metformin,” American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 96, no. 7, pp. 2257-2258, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  108. S. Chitturi and J. George, “Hepatotoxicity of commonly used drugs: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antihypertensives, antidiabetic agents, anticonvulsants, lipid-lowering agents, psychotropic drugs,” Seminars in Liver Disease, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 169–183, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  109. A. J. Scheen, “Hepatotoxicity with thiazolidinediones: is it a class effect?” Drug Safety, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 873–888, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  110. K. G. Tolman and J. Chandramouli, “Hepatotoxicity of the thiazolidinediones,” Clinics in Liver Disease, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 369–379, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  111. T. Okuda, M. Norioka, Y. Shitara, and T. Horie, “Multiple mechanisms underlying troglitazone-induced mitochondrial permeability transition,” Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, vol. 248, pp. 242–248, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  112. I. Garcia-Ruiz, P. Solis-Munoz, D. Fernandez-Moreira, T. Munoz-Yague, and J. A. Solis-Herruzo, “Pioglitazone leads to an inactivation and disassembly of complex I of the mitochondrial respiratory chain,” BMC Biology, vol. 11, no. 88, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  113. D. Hu, C. Q. Wu, Z. J. Li et al., “Characterizing the mechanism of thiazolidinedione-induced hepatotoxicity: an in vitro model in mitochondria,” Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, vol. 284, pp. 134–141, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  114. A. R. Mehrabadi, A. Jamshidzadeh, M. Rashedinia, and H. Niknahad, “Study of the effects of ATP suppliers and thiol reductants on toxicity of pioglitazone in isolated rat liver mitochondria,” Iranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 825–832, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  115. M. Carrascosa, F. Pascual, and S. Aresti, “Acarbose-induced acute severe hepatotoxicity,” Lancet, vol. 349, pp. 698-699, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
  116. S. P. Dourakis, E. Tzemanakis, C. Sinani, G. Kafiri, and S. J. Hadziyannis, “Gliclazide-induced acute hepatitis,” European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 119–121, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2019 Xu Li et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

739 Views | 346 Downloads | 0 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly and safely as possible. Any author submitting a COVID-19 paper should notify us at help@hindawi.com to ensure their research is fast-tracked and made available on a preprint server as soon as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted articles related to COVID-19. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.