4.5 Article

Risk of oral antifungal agent-induced liver injury in Taiwanese

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 77, 期 1, 页码 180-189

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.12178

关键词

drug-induced liver injury; hepatitis; oral antifungal agents; Taiwanese

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimOral antifungal agent-induced liver injury is a common safety concern that may lead to patients' hesitation in treating fungal infections such as onychomycosis. This study evaluated risk of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) caused by oral antifungal agents in Taiwanese populations. MethodsA population-based study was conducted by analyzing who used oral antifungal agents from 2002 to 2008 from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Database. A comparison control group was randomly extracted from the remainder of the original cohort. ResultsOf the 90847 oral antifungal agents users, 52 patients had DILI. Twenty-eight DILI cases used ketoconazole, 12 fluconazole, eight griseofulvin, three itraconazole and two terbinafine. The incidence rates (IR) of DILI per 10000 persons were 31.6, 4.9, 4.3, 3.6 and 1.6 for fluconazole, ketoconazole, griseofulvin, itraconazole and terbinafine, respectively. Longer exposure duration increased the risk of DILI, with IR for exposure duration 60 defined daily dose (DDD) of 170.9, 62.5, and 36.1 per 10000 persons for ketoconazole, itraconazole and terbinafine, respectively. Patients taking antifungal agents had higher incidences of developing DILI compared with those in the control group after adjusting for age, gender and co-morbidities (relative risk 2.38, P < 0.001). All of the six patients with fatal DILI used fluconazole. Old age and fluconazole increased the risk of oral antifungal-induced fatal DILI. ConclusionsOral antifungal agents are associated with low incidence of acute liver injury, but which may be fatal, especially for the elderly. Longer treatment duration may increase the risk of antifungal agent-induced liver injury, especially ketoconazole.

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