RUCAM和Maria诊断标准用于评估1352例中国人药物性肝损伤文献分析
|
摘要
目的分析文献应用RUCAM标准和Maria标准诊断中国人药物性肝损伤情况。方法以"药物性肝损伤、诊断标准、诊断评分系统或drug-induced liver injury,diagnostic criteria, diagnostic scale, RUCAM scale,Maria scale"为关键词检索中国期刊全文数据库、万方数据库、pubmed数据库,排除文献综述、重复文献、病例报道、未使用诊断标准或诊断评分系统进行诊断的文献,对文献中患者年龄、性别、诊断标准的诊断评估情况进行总结和描述。结果在检索到的7篇文献中,共有1352例药物性肝损伤患者,年龄2～91岁。采用RUCAM诊断标准者6篇,共1027例病例,诊断DILI 997例(97.1%),不能诊断DILI者有30例(2.9%);采用Maria诊断标准诊断者4篇,共736例病例,诊断DILI者433例(58.8%),不能诊断DILI者303例(41.2%)。结论应用RUCAM诊断标准或Maria诊断标准诊断中国人药物性肝损伤的结果存在不一致性。
Objective To summarize the diagnostic value of two diagnostic criteria in diagnosis of patients with drug-induced liver injury(DILI) in Chinese population. Methods We searched publications about Chinese patients in journal full-text database, Wanfang database and pubmed database with keywords of drug-induced liver injury,diagnostic criteria,diagnostic scoring system,RUCAM and Maria scale. Literature review,case reports,and duplication data were excluded. Age,gender and diagnostic criteria were summarized. Results A total of 7 papers including 1352 patients with DILI were included in this analysis. The age range of the patients in this series was2 to 91 years old. Six papers having 997 cases(97.1%) were diagnosed as DILI,and 30 cases(2.9%) were not diagnosed as DILI by RUCAM scale. Four papers having 736 cases(58.8%) were diagnosed as DILI,and 303 cases(41.2%) were not diagnosed as DILI by Maria scale. Conclusion The diagnostic results of DILI by RUCAM scale and Maria scale were not the same sometimes,which warrants further study.
Objective To summarize the diagnostic value of two diagnostic criteria in diagnosis of patients with drug-induced liver injury(DILI) in Chinese population. Methods We searched publications about Chinese patients in journal full-text database, Wanfang database and pubmed database with keywords of drug-induced liver injury,diagnostic criteria,diagnostic scoring system,RUCAM and Maria scale. Literature review,case reports,and duplication data were excluded. Age,gender and diagnostic criteria were summarized. Results A total of 7 papers including 1352 patients with DILI were included in this analysis. The age range of the patients in this series was2 to 91 years old. Six papers having 997 cases(97.1%) were diagnosed as DILI,and 30 cases(2.9%) were not diagnosed as DILI by RUCAM scale. Four papers having 736 cases(58.8%) were diagnosed as DILI,and 303 cases(41.2%) were not diagnosed as DILI by Maria scale. Conclusion The diagnostic results of DILI by RUCAM scale and Maria scale were not the same sometimes,which warrants further study.
引文
[1]中华医学会肝病学分会药物性肝病学组.药物性肝损伤诊治指南.实用肝脏病杂志,2017,20(2),257-274.
[2] Danan G,Benichou C. Causality assessment of adverse reactions to drug-1. A novel method based on the conclusions of international consensus meetings:application to drug-induced liver injuries. J Clin Epidemiol, 1993,46,1323-1330.
[3] Maria VA, Victiorino RM. Development and validation of a clinical scale for the diagnosis of drug-induced hepatitis.Hepatology, 1997,26,664-669.
[4]#12
[5] Rochkey DC,Seeff LB, Rochon J, et al. Causality assessment in drug-induced liver injury using a structured expert opinion process:comparison to the roussel-uclaf causality assessment method. Hpeatology,2010,51(6),2117-2126.
[6]中华中医药学会肝胆病分会,中华中医药学会中成药分会.中草药相关肝损伤临床诊疗指南.临床肝胆病杂志,2016,32(5),835-843.
[7]于涛,文卓夫.两种药物性肝病诊断标准的对比研究.中国现代医学杂志,2007,17(17),2157-2159.
[8]刘思纯,马博.两种急性药物性肝病诊断标准的评价及临床应用比较.新医学,2009,40(1),21-24.
[9]高旭东,樊艳华.药物性肝损伤诊断评分系统的比较及应用体会.中日友好医院学报,2011,25(5),259-266.
[10]刘建锋,雷建平,吴于青,等.3种诊断标准在处治结核病药物性肝损伤诊断的对比分析.江西医药,2015,50(9):927-930.
[11]何婷婷,宫馒,白云峰,等.2种药物性肝损伤诊断指南的应用分析.中国中药杂志,2016,41(16),3096-3099.
[12]徐琴,刘浩,张跃新.3种药物性肝损伤诊断评分系统的应用比较.中国药房,2016,(27)26,3633-3635.
[13] Zhang P,Ye Y,Yang X,et al. Systematic review on Chinese herbal medicine induced liver injury. Evid-Based Complement Alternat Med, 2016,2016,3560812.
[14]舛本後,恩地森一.薬物性肝障害の诊断.肝胆胰,2000,40,887-897.
[15] Bgaud B,Evreux JC,Jouglard J,et al. Unexpected or toxic drug reaction assessment(imputation). Actualization of the method used in France. Therapie, 1985,40(2), 111-118.
[16] Benchiou C. Criteria of drug-induced liver disorders report of an international consensus meeting. J Hepatol, 1990,11(2):272-276.
[17] Garcia-Cortes M, Lucena MI, Pachkoria K, et al. Evaluation of naranjo adverse drug reactions probability scale in causality assessment of drug-induced liver injury. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2008,27(9):780-789.
[18] Hanatani T,Sai K,Tohkin M,et al. A detection algorithm for drug-induced liver injury in medical information databases using the Japanese diagnostic scale and its comparison with the Council for international organizations of medical sciences/the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment method scale. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf,2014,23(9),984-988.
[19] Sanjay S, Girish C. Role of miRNA and its potential as a novel diagnostic biomarker in drug-induced liver injury. Eur J Clin Pharmacol,2017,73(4),399-407.
[20] Kullak-Ublick GA,Andrade RJ,Merz M,et al. Drug-induced liver injury:recent advances in diagnosis and risk assessment.Gut,2017,66(6),1154-1164.
[2] Danan G,Benichou C. Causality assessment of adverse reactions to drug-1. A novel method based on the conclusions of international consensus meetings:application to drug-induced liver injuries. J Clin Epidemiol, 1993,46,1323-1330.
[3] Maria VA, Victiorino RM. Development and validation of a clinical scale for the diagnosis of drug-induced hepatitis.Hepatology, 1997,26,664-669.
[4]#12
[5] Rochkey DC,Seeff LB, Rochon J, et al. Causality assessment in drug-induced liver injury using a structured expert opinion process:comparison to the roussel-uclaf causality assessment method. Hpeatology,2010,51(6),2117-2126.
[6]中华中医药学会肝胆病分会,中华中医药学会中成药分会.中草药相关肝损伤临床诊疗指南.临床肝胆病杂志,2016,32(5),835-843.
[7]于涛,文卓夫.两种药物性肝病诊断标准的对比研究.中国现代医学杂志,2007,17(17),2157-2159.
[8]刘思纯,马博.两种急性药物性肝病诊断标准的评价及临床应用比较.新医学,2009,40(1),21-24.
[9]高旭东,樊艳华.药物性肝损伤诊断评分系统的比较及应用体会.中日友好医院学报,2011,25(5),259-266.
[10]刘建锋,雷建平,吴于青,等.3种诊断标准在处治结核病药物性肝损伤诊断的对比分析.江西医药,2015,50(9):927-930.
[11]何婷婷,宫馒,白云峰,等.2种药物性肝损伤诊断指南的应用分析.中国中药杂志,2016,41(16),3096-3099.
[12]徐琴,刘浩,张跃新.3种药物性肝损伤诊断评分系统的应用比较.中国药房,2016,(27)26,3633-3635.
[13] Zhang P,Ye Y,Yang X,et al. Systematic review on Chinese herbal medicine induced liver injury. Evid-Based Complement Alternat Med, 2016,2016,3560812.
[14]舛本後,恩地森一.薬物性肝障害の诊断.肝胆胰,2000,40,887-897.
[15] Bgaud B,Evreux JC,Jouglard J,et al. Unexpected or toxic drug reaction assessment(imputation). Actualization of the method used in France. Therapie, 1985,40(2), 111-118.
[16] Benchiou C. Criteria of drug-induced liver disorders report of an international consensus meeting. J Hepatol, 1990,11(2):272-276.
[17] Garcia-Cortes M, Lucena MI, Pachkoria K, et al. Evaluation of naranjo adverse drug reactions probability scale in causality assessment of drug-induced liver injury. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2008,27(9):780-789.
[18] Hanatani T,Sai K,Tohkin M,et al. A detection algorithm for drug-induced liver injury in medical information databases using the Japanese diagnostic scale and its comparison with the Council for international organizations of medical sciences/the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment method scale. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf,2014,23(9),984-988.
[19] Sanjay S, Girish C. Role of miRNA and its potential as a novel diagnostic biomarker in drug-induced liver injury. Eur J Clin Pharmacol,2017,73(4),399-407.
[20] Kullak-Ublick GA,Andrade RJ,Merz M,et al. Drug-induced liver injury:recent advances in diagnosis and risk assessment.Gut,2017,66(6),1154-1164.