4.3 Article

Paracetamol in therapeutic dosages and acute liver injury: causality assessment in a prospective case series

期刊

BMC GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-230X-11-80

关键词

-

资金

  1. CIRIT (Comisionat per a Universitats i Recerca, Generalitat de Catalunya) Accions Mobilitzadores [1995XT 00030]
  2. Boehringer-Ingelheim, Barcelona

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Acute liver injury (ALI) induced by paracetamol overdose is a well known cause of emergency hospital admission and death. However, there is debate regarding the risk of ALI after therapeutic dosages of the drug. The aim is to describe the characteristics of patients admitted to hospital with jaundice who had previous exposure to therapeutic doses of paracetamol. An assessment of the causality role of paracetamol was performed in each case. Methods: Based on the evaluation of prospectively gathered cases of ALI with detailed clinical information, thirty-two cases of ALI in non-alcoholic patients exposed to therapeutic doses of paracetamol were identified. Two authors assessed all drug exposures by using the CIOMS/RUCAM scale. Each case was classified into one of five categories based on the causality score for paracetamol. Results: In four cases the role of paracetamol was judged to be unrelated, in two unlikely, and these were excluded from evaluation. In seven of the remaining 26 cases, the RUCAM score associated with paracetamol was higher than that associated with other concomitant medications. The estimated incidence of ALI related to the use of paracetamol in therapeutic dosages was 0.4 per million inhabitants older than 15 years of age and per year (99% CI, 0.2-0.8) and of 10 per million paracetamol users-year (95% CI 4.3-19.4). Conclusions: Our results indicate that paracetamol in therapeutic dosages may be considered in the causality assessment in non-alcoholic patients with liver injury, even if the estimated incidence of ALI related to paracetamol appears to be low.

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

4.3
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