Combined use of ursodeoxycholic acid and bosentan prevents liver toxicity caused by endothelin receptor antagonist bosentan monotherapy: two case reports

UDCA for Drug-Induced Liver Disease: Clinical and Pathophysiological Basis

Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is an adverse reaction to medications and other xenobiotics that leads to liver dysfunction. Based on differential clinical patterns of injury, DILI is classified into hepatocellular, cholestatic, and mixed types; although hepatocellular DILI is associated with inflammation, necrosis, and apoptosis, cholestatic DILI is associated with bile plugs and bile duct paucity. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) has been empirically used as a supportive drug mainly in cholestatic DILI, but both curative and prophylactic beneficial effects have been observed for hepatocellular DILI as well, according to preliminary clinical studies. This could reflect the fact that UDCA has a plethora of beneficial effects potentially useful to treat the wide range of injuries with different etiologies and pathomechanisms occurring in both types of DILI, including anticholestatic, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antiapoptotic, antinecrotic, mitoprotective, endoplasmic reticulum stress alleviating, and immunomodulatory properties. In this review, a revision of the literature has been performed to evaluate the efficacy of UDCA across the whole DILI spectrum, and these findings were associated with the multiple mechanisms of UDCA hepatoprotection. This should help better rationalize and systematize the use of this versatile and safe hepatoprotector in each type of DILI scenarios.

Liver injury due to endothelin receptor antagonists: a real-world study based on post-marketing drug monitoring data

BACKGROUND

Liver injury is the hallmark adverse reaction of endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA). Since the first drug, bosentan has been widely used in clinical practice, hepatotoxicity has been accompanied by the history of ERA. The new ERA has been proven to have a lower liver risk but the current research findings are inconsistent. ERA-based targeted drug combinations are commonly used in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension, where the risk of liver injury is difficult to estimate.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the correlation between ERA and different ERA combination regimens with liver injury in the real world.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective study using data from the Adverse Event Reporting System (Food and Drug Administration AERS, FAERS).

METHODS

The study used proportional imbalance and Bayesian analysis to mine FAERS data from January 2004 to December 2022 to determine the association of three ERAs with liver injury and to further mine the risk of liver injury due to the combination of ERAs with other targeted drugs. In addition, we analyzed the onset time, mortality, and hospitalization rate of liver injury caused by different ERA combination regimens.

RESULTS

We screened out 3581 ERA-related liver injury events, of which bosentan (59.82%) had the largest number of cases. The patients with liver injury were mainly female (60.63%), and the age was concentrated between 61 and 75 years (26.75%). According to different signal mining methods, reporting odds ratio (ROR; 3.38, 95% confidence interval = 3.23-3.53), proportional reporting ratio (PRR; 3.22, χ2 = 37.84), Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN; 1.68, 95% confidence interval = 1.61), multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS; 3.21, 95% confidence interval = 3.09), bosentan had the strongest association with liver injury compared to ambrisentan and macitentan. Furthermore, bosentan + sildenafil [ROR (2.52, 95% confidence interval = 2.23-2.84), PRR (2.44, χ2 = 15.92), BCPNN (1.29, 95% confidence interval = 1.14), MGPS (2.44, 95% confidence interval = 2.21)], bosentan + epoprostenol [ROR (5.39, 95% confidence interval = 4.29-6.77), PRR (4.94, χ2 = 65.18), BCPNN (2.30, 95% confidence interval = 1.83), MGPS (4.94, 95% confidence interval = 4.08)], bosentan + iloprost [ROR (2.70, 95% confidence interval = 2.11-3.45), PRR (2.61, χ2 = 31.03), BCPNN (1.38, 95% confidence interval = 1.08), MGPS (2.61, 95% confidence interval = 2.12)] had a higher risk of liver injury caused by the three ERA combination regimens. The median time to onset of hepatotoxicity associated with all ERA combination regimens was 259 days (interquartile range: 58-716.5 days). Finally, the hospitalization rate for patients experiencing hepatotoxicity with ERA combination regimens was 47.86% and the mortality rate was 12.67%.

CONCLUSION

By mining the FAERS, we analyzed and compared the risk of liver injury related to different ERA and ERA combination regimens, and the onset time and adverse reaction outcomes of all ERA combination regimens. According to the results of the study, bosentan had the highest risk of liver injury and the combination regimens bosentan + sildenafil, bosentan + epoprostenol, and bosentan + iloprost had a stronger risk of liver injury. From the early stages of treatment, we need to regularly monitor the liver function of patients, especially for females and the elderly, and discontinue the suspected drug as soon as the liver injury occurs.

Role of Ursodeoxycholic Acid in Treating and Preventing Idiosyncratic Drug-Induced Liver Injury. A Systematic Review

Introduction: Treatment is generally not available for drug-induced liver injury (DILI) patients except in some specific circumstances. The management of DILI is based on the withdrawal of the responsible drug and monitoring the patients and only a few patients need to be referred to a transplant center. Some studies on the role of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in DILI have been published. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the role of UDCA in the treatment and prevention of DILI.

Methods: A search was undertaken in PubMed, with the key words ursodeoxycholic acid, drug-induced liver injury and hepatotoxicity following the PRISMA guidelines.

Results: A total of 33 publications were identified: 25 case reports and 8 case series. In 18 of the 25 cases reports (22 patients), authors reported improvement of liver injury associated with UDCA therapy whereas 7 case reports did not show clinical or biochemical improvement after UDCA treatment. There were 4 studies evaluating the role of UDCA in the treatment of DILI, three prospective (one being a clinical trial) and one retrospective studies. Three studies observed liver profile improvements associated with UDCA. In addition, four studies evaluated UDCA in the prevention of DILI: one pilot study, two randomized clinical trials (RCT) and one retrospective study. Three of these studies observed a lower percentage of patients with an increase in transaminases in the groups that used UDCA for DILI prevention.

Conclusion: According to available data UDCA seems to have some benefits in the treatment and prevention of DILI. However, the design of the published studies does not allow a firm conclusion to be drawn on the efficacy of UDCA in DILI. A well designed RCT to evaluate the role of UDCA in DILI is needed.

Comparative assessment of efficacy and safety of ambrisentan and bosentan in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension: A meta-analysis

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Two endothelin receptor antagonists, ambrisentan and bosentan, have been demonstrated to be effective individually compared with placebo in the treatment of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). This network meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of ambrisentan and bosentan in patients with PAH.

METHODS

Clinical trials were identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL/CCTR), EMBASE and PubMed databases. Weighted mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for continuous outcomes (6-min walk distance [6MWD] and Borg dyspnoea index [BDI]). Hazard ratio (HR) was calculated for binary outcomes, including clinical worsening, discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) and liver dysfunction. Surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to rank the treatments in each index.

RESULTS

Five clinical trials from four published studies (total patients: n = 920) were included. Ambrisentan and bosentan showed no significant difference in 6MWD (MD: -1.32; 95% CI: -27.87, 25.31, SUCRA score: ambrisentan 0.73, bosentan 0.77), BDI (MD: -0.16; 95% CI: -0.98, 0.65, SUCRA score: ambrisentan 0.83, bosentan 0.66), clinical worsening (HR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.33, 2.94, SUCRA score: ambrisentan 0.75, bosentan 0.74) and discontinuation due to AEs (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.11, 5.86, SUCRA score: ambrisentan 0.47, bosentan 0.57). However, ambrisentan was significantly better than bosentan with respect to abnormal liver function (HR: 23.18; 95% CI: 2.24, 377.20, SUCRA score: ambrisentan 0.99, bosentan 0.02).

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that ambrisentan was similar to bosentan in efficacy, while it exhibited better tolerability with respect to abnormal liver function in comparison with bosentan, in patients with PAH.

Bile acids in drug induced liver injury: Key players and surrogate markers

Bile acid research has gained great momentum since the role of bile acids as key signaling molecules in the enterohepatic circulation was discovered. Their physiological function in regulating their own homeostasis, as well as energy and lipid metabolism make them interesting targets for the pharmaceutical industry in the context of diseases such as bile acid induced diarrhea, bile acid induced cholestasis or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Changes in bile acid homeostasis are also linked to various types of drug-induced liver injury (DILI). However, the key question whether bile acids are surrogate markers for monitoring DILI or key pathogenic players in the onset and progression of DILI is under intense investigation. The purpose of this review is to summarize the different facets of bile acids in the context of normal physiology, hereditary defects of bile acid transport and DILI.