CLINICAL LIVER BACKGROUND & AIMS: We performed a nationwide, retrospective study to determine the incidence and causes of druginduced liver injury (DILI) in mainland China. METHODS: We collected data on a total of 25,927 confirmed DILI cases, hospitalized from 2012 through 2014 at 308 medical centers in mainland China. We collected demographic, medical history, treatment, laboratory, disease severity, and mortality data from all patients. Investigators at each site were asked to complete causality assessments for each case whose diagnosis at discharge was DILI (n ¼ 29,478) according to the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method. RESULTS: Most cases of DILI presented with hepatocellular injury (51.39%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 50.76-52.03), followed by mixed injury (28.30%; 95% CI 27.73-28.87) and cholestatic injury (20.31%; 95% CI 19.80-20.82). The leading single classes of implicated drugs were traditional Chinese medicines or herbal and dietary supplements (26.81%) and antituberculosis medications (21.99%). Chronic DILI occurred in 13.00% of the cases and, although 44.40% of the hepatocellular DILI cases fulfilled Hy's Law criteria, only 280 cases (1.08%) progressed to hepatic failure, 2 cases underwent liver transplantation (0.01%), and 102 patients died (0.39%). Among deaths, DILI was judged to have a primary role in 72 (70.59%), a contributory role in 21 (20.59%), and no role in 9 (8.82%). Assuming the proportion of DILI in the entire hospitalized population of China was represented by that observed in the 66 centers where DILI capture was complete, we estimated the annual incidence in the general population to be 23.80 per 100,000 persons (95% CI 20.86-26.74). Only hospitalized patients were included in this analysis, so the true incidence is likely to be higher. CONCLUSIONS: In a retrospective study to determine the incidence and causes of DILI in mainland China, the annual incidence in the general population was estimated to be 23.80 per 100,000 persons; higher than that reported from Western countries. Traditional Chinese medicines, herbal and dietary supplements, and antituberculosis drugs were the leading causes of DILI in mainland China.

Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is an important clinical problem, which has received more attention in recent decades. It can be induced by small chemical molecules, biological agents, traditional Chinese medicines (TCM), natural medicines (NM), health products (HP), and dietary supplements (DS). Idiosyncratic DILI is far more common than intrinsic DILI clinically and can be classified into hepatocellular injury, cholestatic injury, hepatocellular-cholestatic mixed injury, and vascular injury based on the types of injured target cells. The CSH guidelines summarized the epidemiology, pathogenesis, pathology, and clinical manifestation and gives 16 evidence-based recommendations on diagnosis, differential diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of DILI.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background and Aim: In recent years, a great interest has been dedicated to the development of noninvasive predictive models to substitute liver biopsy for fibrosis assessment and follow-up. Our aim was to provide a simpler model consisting of routine laboratory markers for predicting liver fibrosis in patients chronically infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV) in order to optimize their clinical management. Methods: Liver fibrosis was staged in 386 chronic HBV carriers who underwent liver biopsy and routine laboratory testing. Correlations between routine laboratory markers and fibrosis stage were statistically assessed. After logistic regression analysis, a novel predictive model was constructed. This S index was validated in an independent cohort of 146 chronic HBV carriers in comparison to the SLFG model, Fibrometer, Hepascore, Hui model, Forns score and APRI using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Results:The diagnostic values of each marker panels were better than single routine laboratory markers. The S index consisting of g-glutamyltransferase (GGT), platelets (PLT) and albumin (ALB) (S-index: 1000 ¥ GGT/(PLT ¥ ALB

383 Background: The anti–PD-1 antibody pembro showed efficacy and manageable safety in the global phase 2 KEYNOTE-224 and phase 3 KEYNOTE-240 studies of patients (pts) with previously treated advanced HCC, a population of high unmet need. KEYNOTE-394 is a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study conducted in Asia to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pembro vs placebo, both given with BSC, as second-line therapy for previously treated advanced HCC (NCT03062358). Methods: Eligible pts in Asia with confirmed advanced HCC and progression on or intolerance to sorafenib or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to pembro 200 mg or placebo Q3W for ≤35 cycles plus BSC per local guidelines. The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints were PFS, ORR, DOR, DCR, and TTP, all assessed per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review, and safety. Treatment differences were assessed using the stratified log-rank test (OS and PFS) or the stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method (ORR). The P value boundary for OS superiority at final analysis (FA) was 0.019307. If OS was superior, PFS and ORR superiority at the second interim analysis (IA2; primary analysis timepoint for these endpoints) could be tested at boundaries of 0.013447 and 0.009139, respectively. Results: 453 pts were randomized to pembro (N = 300) or placebo (N = 153). Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between arms; 90.7% had received sorafenib as first-line therapy. As of the June 30, 2021 cutoff date for FA, median study follow-up was 33.8 mo (range 18.7-49.0). At FA, pembro significantly improved OS vs placebo (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.99, P = 0.0180); median (95% CI) OS was 14.6 mo (12.6-18.0) for pembro vs 13.0 mo (10.5-15.1) for placebo and 24-mo OS rate was 34.3% vs 24.9%. At IA2, pembro significantly improved PFS (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.60-0.92, P = 0.0032) and ORR (estimated difference 11.4%, 95% CI 6.7-16.0, P = 0.00004); median (95% CI) PFS was 2.6 mo (1.5-2.8) for pembro vs 2.3 mo (1.4-2.8) for placebo, 12-mo PFS rates were 15.9% vs 1.4%, and ORR was 12.7% vs 1.3%. At FA, ORR was 13.7% vs 1.3%, median DOR was 23.9 mo vs 5.6 mo, DCR was 52.7% vs 47.7%, and median TTP was 2.7 mo vs 1.7 mo (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58-0.90). At FA, treatment-related AEs occurred in 66.9% of pts in the pembro arm and 49.7% in the placebo arm, including 14.4% and 5.9% with grade 3-5 events. 3 pts (1.0%) in the pembro arm and 0 in the placebo arm died of treatment-related AEs. Conclusions: Pembro plus BSC significantly improved OS, PFS, and ORR compared with placebo plus BSC as second-line therapy for patients from Asia with advanced HCC. The pembro safety profile was as expected. Overall, results were consistent with those previously observed in KEYNOTE-224 and KEYNOTE-240 and thus add to the body of evidence supporting the use of pembro as second-line therapy for advanced HCC. Clinical trial information: NCT03062358.