Liver histopathological features of patients with drug-induced liver injury due to Chinese herbal medicine or Western medicine: A comparative analysis of 50 cases
10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2020.03.025
- VernacularTitle:50例中草药与西药致药物性肝损伤患者的肝组织病理学特点比较
- Author:
Qiong LUO
1
;
Gerui ZHU
;
Hongtu GU
Author Information
1. Institute of Liver Diseases, Shuguang Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai 201203, China
- Publication Type:Research Article
- Keywords:
drug-induced liver injury;
pathological conditions, signs and symptoms;
drugs, Chinese herbal;
Western medicine
- From:
Journal of Clinical Hepatology
2020;36(3):596-601
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
ObjectiveTo compare the liver histopathological features of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) caused by Chinese herbal medicine (HM) and that caused by Western medicine (WM), and to investigate the pathological features of HM-DILI. MethodsA total of 50 patients with drug-induced liver injury(DILI) who were diagnosed and treated in Shuguang Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine from March 2014 to June 2019. All the patients with DILI were enrolled and divided into HM-DILI group and WM-DILI group. A retrospective analysis was performed for the clinical features and the pathological features of the two groups, including the clinical type of DILI, severity of liver injury, and liver histopathological features, especially location and grade of liver inflammation, type and degree of steatosis, and iron deposition. The t test and Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparison of continuous data between two groups; the chi-square test was used for comparison of categorical data between two groups; the Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparison of ranked data. ResultsOf all 50 patients, 20 (40.0%) had HM-DILI and 30 (60%) had WM-DILI. There were no significant differences in sex, age, course of disease, and biochemical parameters of liver function between the two groups (all P＞0.05). The main clinical types of the two groups were hepatocellular injury type and the degree of injury which was mainly grade l, and there were no significant differences in the clinical type of DILI and the severity of liver injury between the two groups (both P＞0.05). As for liver histopathological features, both groups had varying degrees of focal necrosis of hepatocytes, steatosis (microvesicular, macrovesicular, and mixed), and fibrous tissue proliferation at the portal area, and compared with the WM-DILI group, the HM-DILI group had significantly greater lymphocyte/plasma cell infiltration in the portal area (χ2=3.860, P＜0.05) and iron deposition in Kupffer cells (χ2=4787, P＜0.05). ConclusionThere are no significant differences in clinical manifestations between HM-DILI and WM-DILI, but patients with HM-DILI have more obvious inflammation in the portal area and iron deposition in Kupffer cells than those with WM-DILI.
