4.5 Article

Serum markers for mitochondrial dysfunction and cell death are possible predictive indicators for drug-induced liver injury by direct acting antivirals

期刊

HEPATOLOGY RESEARCH
卷 48, 期 1, 页码 78-86

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/hepr.12893

关键词

cytokeratin-18 fragment; drug-induced liver injury; interferon-inducible protein-10; super oxidase dismutase-2

资金

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [JP16K21307]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimWe prospectively screened patients treated with direct-acting antivirals (DAA) in order to detect and analyze serum markers that are present prior to the development of drug-induced liver injury (DILI). MethodsThe levels of various serum markers among DILI, non-DILI and control groups were compared. The DILI group consisted of eight patients whose alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels exceeded 32IU/L during the DAA treatment. Eight patients without DILI were selected for the non-DILI group via a matched-group design based on age, sex and disease severity. Additionally, eight healthy volunteers were employed as the controls. Serum measurements of cytokines/chemokines, cytokeratin-18 fragment (CK-18F) and super oxidase dismutase-2 (SOD2) were evaluated on the date at which hepatitis C virus RNA was absent (baseline). For patients with DILI, serum measurements taken before treatment, 1week before pronounced transaminase elevation (prominence-1W) and on the date at which pronounced elevation of transaminase occurred (prominence) were also evaluated. ResultsAll patients treated with DAA had normalized transaminase levels at baseline. In patients with DILI, interferon-inducible protein-10 (IP-10) levels were higher at prominence-1W than at baseline. Those patients also had significantly higher levels of SOD2 and CK-18F at prominence-1W than at baseline. ConclusionElevated IP-10 may be a preconditioning chemokine for DAA-induced liver injury, and damage markers associated with cell death and mitochondrial dysfunction are potential predictive serum markers for DILI.

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

4.5
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