Clinical diagnostic scale: a useful tool in the evaluation of suspected hepatotoxic adverse drug reactions

被引:93
|
作者
Aithal, GP
Rawlins, MD
Day, CP
机构
[1] Univ Newcastle Upon Tyne, Liver Res Ctr, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE2 4HH, Tyne & Wear, England
[2] Univ Newcastle Upon Tyne, Dept Pharmacol Sci, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE2 4HH, Tyne & Wear, England
关键词
diagnosis; drug; hepatotoxicity; liver injury;
D O I
10.1016/S0168-8278(00)80127-0
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background/Aim: Due to an absence of specific markers, the diagnosis of drug-induced hepatotoxicity is necessarily based on circumstantial evidence and is often inaccurate. We have evaluated the use of the clinical diagnostic scale (CDS) in the causality assessment of hepatotoxic adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports. Methods: 135 hepatic adverse ADRs reported to the Committee on Safety of Medicines in North East England 1992-6 were evaluated. Initially, "International Consensus Criteria" were used to classify reactions as "drug-related", "drug-unrelated" and "indeterminate", Using the CDS, each ADR was then categorised as either definite drug hepatotoxicity (score >17), probable (14-17), possible (10-13), unlikely (6-9), or drug hepatotoxicity excluded (<6). Results: 49 ADRs were considered drug-related, 65 unrelated and 21 indeterminate, Reports classified as drug-related by consensus criteria scored higher on the CDS, with a median score of 12, range: 8-15, than either the indeterminate (8; [3-12]) or drug-unrelated reports (5; [2-11]) (p<0.0001), A CDS score of >9, identified 88% of the cases classified as drug-related hepatotoxicity by consensus criteria and excluded 98% of those unrelated to the drugs. Conclusions: CDS scoring correlates web with the international consensus classification and may be a useful tool in the routine evaluation of suspected hepatotoxic drug reactions.
引用
收藏
页码:949 / 952
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Evaluation of the clinical diagnostic scale in the assessment of suspected hepatotoxic adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports
    Aithal, PG
    Rawlins, MD
    Day, CP
    [J]. GUT, 2000, 46 : A61 - A61
  • [2] Evaluation of suspected adverse drug reactions - Reply
    Strom, BL
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2005, 293 (11): : 1324 - 1325
  • [3] Pharmacogenomics and adverse drug reactions in diagnostic and clinical practice
    Manolopoulos, Vangelis G.
    [J]. CLINICAL CHEMISTRY AND LABORATORY MEDICINE, 2007, 45 (07) : 801 - 814
  • [4] Suspected adverse drug reactions in 2004
    Müntener, CR
    Gassner, B
    Demuth, DC
    Althaus, FR
    Zwahlen, R
    [J]. SCHWEIZER ARCHIV FUR TIERHEILKUNDE, 2005, 147 (07): : 304 - 310
  • [5] Potential for conflict of interest in the evaluation of suspected adverse drug reactions - A counterpoint
    Strom, BL
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2004, 292 (21): : 2643 - 2646
  • [6] Prospective identification and causality evaluation of suspected adverse drug reactions in neonates
    Roberts, Eve K.
    Hawcutt, Daniel B.
    Turner, Mark A.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, 2021, 87 (03) : 1541 - 1546
  • [7] Evaluation of Predisposing Factors Associated with Suspected Adverse Drug Reactions of Hospitalized Patients
    Mudigubba, Manoj K.
    Rajashekarachari, Yogananda
    Dahiya, Saurabh
    [J]. JOURNAL OF YOUNG PHARMACISTS, 2018, 10 (02) : 202 - 207
  • [8] The yellow card scheme: Evaluation of patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions
    Ekins-Daukes, S.
    Irvine, D.
    Wise, L.
    Fiddes, S.
    [J]. PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2006, 15 : S105 - S105
  • [9] Drug patch test in severe cutaneous adverse reactions: is it useful for clinical practice?
    Tanno, L.
    Ensina, L.
    Aun, W.
    Mello, J.
    Kalil, J.
    Motta, A.
    [J]. ALLERGY, 2011, 66 : 86 - 86
  • [10] Is FENO50 useful diagnostic tool in suspected asthma?
    Schleich, F. N.
    Asandei, R.
    Manise, M.
    Sele, J.
    Seidel, L.
    Louis, R.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2012, 66 (02) : 158 - 165