Abstract
Idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (DILI) associated with drug reactions with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is poorly characterized among patients of Western countries. We aimed to comprehensively assess the clinical characteristics, outcomes, and causative agents in a prospective, well-vetted cohort of DILI patients with DRESS (DILI-DRESS). We identified 53 DILI-DRESS cases from the Spanish DILI Registry and the Latin American DILI Network. For comparison purposes, we defined a group of DILI patients (n = 881). DILI-DRESS cases were younger (47 vs. 53 years, respectively; p = 0.042) and presented more frequently with cholestatic/mixed damage (p = 0.018). Most DILI-DRESS patients showed moderate liver injury, 13% developed severe damage, and only one patient (with hepatocellular injury due to anti-tuberculosis drugs) progressed to acute liver failure and died. DILI-DRESS cases showed a distinctive causative drug pattern compared to DILI cases. The most frequent drugs were carbamazepine (13%), anti-tuberculosis drugs (13%), amoxicillin-clavulanate (11%), and allopurinol and lamotrigine (7.6% each). Among all cases of DILI due to allopurinol and lamotrigine, 67% presented with a DILI-DRESS phenotype, respectively. Higher total bilirubin (TBL) levels at DILI recognition (odds ratio [OR] 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04–1.45) and absence of eosinophilia (OR 8.77; 95% CI 1.11–69.20) increased the risk for developing a severe-fatal injury in DILI-DRESS patients. DILI-DRESS patients have a more frequent cholestasis/mixed pattern of injury at presentation, with antiepileptics as distinctive causative drug class. Most of the lamotrigine and allopurinol cases present with this phenotype. Higher TBL levels and absence of eosinophilia at DILI recognition are markers of poor outcomes.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is an unexpected reaction to conventional medications, herbal products, or dietary supplements (Andrade et al. 2019). From 14 to 25% of DILI cases courses with immunoalergic characteristics (Chalasani et al. 2015; Stephens et al. 2021) and, in this context, DILI can manifest with severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs).
Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms (DRESS) is a challenging immune-mediated reaction caused by a variety of drugs that presents with dermatological manifestations, often as urticated maculopapular eruption (MPE), and systemic features, being the liver the most frequent internal organ involved. DRESS can progress from mild damage to fatal cases, with estimated mortality that ranges from 1.7 to 8% (Kardaun et al. 2013; Lee et al. 2022). Previous studies have identified limited drugs and drug classes as responsible agents for DRESS, such as antiepileptics, allopurinol, sulphonamides, antibiotics, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (Chen et al. 2010; Bluestein et al. 2021; Skowron et al. 2015; Fang et al. 2018).
The coexistence of different criteria is one of the reasons that hinders the diagnosis and assessment of DRESS (Kim and Koh 2014). Furthermore, the characterization of DILI associated with DRESS is controversial since there is no agreement about the criteria used to define liver injury in the context of immunoalergic reactions (Sanabria-Cabrera et al. 2019). Liver injury is usually defined as a mild elevation of transaminases (> 2 times the upper limit of normal [ULN]) (Kardaun et al. 2013), which is less stringent criteria than the thresholds proposed by an international DILI working group to exclude transaminase elevations of uncertain significance and an adaptative phenomena (Aithal et al. 2011). DILI associated with DRESS has gained interest in recent years, and several studies of Asian patients with this particular phenotype of DILI have been published recently (Huang et al. 2021; Devarbhavi et al. 2022).
In the setting of two prospective DILI cohorts with long-term follow-up, the Spanish DILI Registry and the Latin American DILI (LATINDILI) Network, we aimed to comprehensively characterize the causative drugs, clinical characteristics, laboratory features and outcomes of patients with DILI associated with DRESS (henceforth, DILI-DRESS).
Methods
Study population
Information from well-vetted idiosyncratic DILI cases included in the Spanish DILI Registry and the LATINDILI Network since their establishment until 2022 was collected. Details of these registries have been described elsewhere (Bessone et al. 2016; Stephens et al. 2021). A structured case report form was used to record pharmacological and clinical data, the description of skin lesions, blood test results, imaging findings to rule out other causes of liver damage, and the outcome of liver injury. The study protocols were approved by local ethics committees. All subjects gave informed written consent.
The biochemical criteria for DILI were those proposed by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) (Danan and Benichou 1993), later adapted to those set in 2011 (Aithal et al. 2011), i.e., serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevation ≥ 5 × ULN, serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) ≥ 2 × ULN, or the combination of ALT ≥ 3 × ULN with a simultaneous elevation of total bilirubin (TBL) > 2 × ULN. The pattern of liver injury was defined by the nR value, i.e., (ALT/ULN or aspartate aminotransferase [AST]/ULN, whichever highest ÷ ALP/ULN) (Robles-Diaz et al. 2014). Cases were classified as hepatocellular (nR ≥ 5), cholestatic (nR ≤ 2), or mixed (nR > 2 and < 5). Severity was graded into mild (TBL < 2 × ULN), moderate (TBL ≥ 2 × ULN), severe (TBL ≥ 2 × ULN, and either International Normalized Ratio [INR] ≥ 1.5, ascites and/or encephalopathy, or another organ failure due to DILI), and fatal or transplantation (liver-related death or liver transplantation) (Aithal et al. 2011). Time to DILI recognition (latency) was defined as the time from the start of drug intake to the onset of DILI. The number of patients meeting the nR-based Hy’s law criteria was calculated (Robles-Diaz et al. 2014). DILI cases were followed-up until liver injury resolution, i.e., all liver parameters below the upper limit of normal.
In all cases, other non-related drug causes of liver injury, such as viral hepatitis, biliary obstruction, alcoholism, autoimmune hepatitis, and according to the clinical context, metabolic disorders, ischemic hepatitis, septic shock, Epstein Barr, or cytomegalovirus infection, were excluded. A panel of experts evaluated the causal relationship between the suspected drug and liver damage. Case likelihood categorization was based on the categories of the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) (Bessone et al. 2016; Stephens et al. 2021). Only cases that scored at least “possible” (≥ 3 points) were included.
DILI-DRESS cases were defined as those who had DILI and fulfilled at least three of the following criteria: acute skin rash, fever above 38 ºC, enlarged lymph nodes, internal organ involvement, or haematological abnormalities (lymphocytosis, lymphocytopenia, eosinophilia or thrombocytopenia) (Peyrière et al. 2006). Eosinophilia was defined, based on blood work at DILI recognition as serum eosinophils exceeding 4–6% of total leukocyte count depending on the normal range of individual hospitals, and lymphopenia as serum lymphocytes < 10%. The case ascertainment of DILI-DRESS was done based on the scoring system proposed by the RegiSCAR group (Peyrière et al. 2006). Only patients that scored at least “possible” were included. Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP) cases were excluded.
For comparison purposes with the DILI-DRESS group, we defined a group of patients with DILI without DRESS (from now on, DILI). Cases with missing or incomplete information on any hypersensitivity features (fever, rash, eosinophilia, lymphopenia, and arthralgia) were excluded.
Statistical analysis
Categorical data were expressed using frequency distributions, and differences were tested with the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate. For quantitative data, mean and standard deviation (SD), or median and interquartile range (IQR), were computed, and the Student's t-test or Mann–Whitney U test, as appropriate, were used to test differences between groups. A backward stepwise logit model was fitted to identify prognostic factors in DILI-DRESS cases. At each step, variables were chosen based on a p-value lower than a specified threshold of 0.05. All analyses were performed using STATA 17 (College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC), and a p-value lower than 0.05 was deemed statistically significant.
Results
Demographics, clinical characteristics, and outcome of DILI-DRESS and DILI cases
Out of 1,437 patients, we identified 53 DILI-DRESS cases (29 in the Spanish DILI Registry and 24 in the LATINDILI Network). Thus, the prevalence of DRESS (with confirmed DILI) in these registries was 3.7%. Two SJS/TEN/AGEP cases were excluded from this study. In addition, 881 DILI cases were included. No differences in demographic and clinical characteristics were found between DILI-DRESS cases from the Spanish DILI Registry and LATINDILI Network, except that Latin American patients were younger (mean age 54 years in the Spanish cases vs. 39 years in the Latin American cases; p = 0.006).
Demographics, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of DILI-DRESS and DILI cases were compared in Table 1. DILI-DRESS patients were younger than DILI (mean age 47 vs. 53 years, respectively; p = 0.042). However, when only Spanish cases were analysed, no differences in age were found (mean age 54 years in both groups; p = 0.927). Furthermore, there were significant differences in the pattern of liver damage (p = 0.018). Hepatocellular injury was predominant in DILI (63%), while 56% of DILI-DRESS patients presented with cholestatic/mixed damage. Indeed, the median elevation of ALP was significantly higher in DILI-DRESS cases (median 2.1 × ULN) than in DILI cases (median 1.6 × ULN; p = 0.003). Likewise, gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) levels were increased in DILI-DRESS cases compared to DILI (median 7.2 vs. 5.5 times ULN; p = 0.039).
All DILI-DRESS cases had rash, and 85% presented with eosinophilia. Moreover, 55% of these patients had fever, 34% had lymphopenia, and only 14% suffered from arthralgia. When compared to DILI, DILI-DRESS cases had a lower prevalence of positive autoantibody titres (21% and 5.1%, respectively; p = 0.013), and the hospitalization rate was higher (50% vs. 79%, respectively; p < 0.001).
Eleven DILI-DRESS patients underwent liver biopsy. Histological findings showed cholestasis with hepatitis (n = 4), zonal necrosis (n = 3), chronic hepatitis (n = 2, active in one of them), steatohepatitis (n = 1), and unspecific changes in the liver (n = 1).
Even though the damage was moderate in most patients in both groups (55%), those in the DILI-DRESS group developed a severe liver injury more frequently than DILI cases (13% vs. 5.9%, respectively), albeit these differences did not reach statistical significance. Of note, 13 out of 53 DILI-DRESS cases (25%) were treated with corticosteroids. Furthermore, there were no differences in liver-related death. Only one DILI-DRESS patient, due to anti-tuberculosis (TB) drugs died (after liver transplantation). Conversely, death due to non-liver-related causes was higher among the DILI-DRESS patients (5.7%; n = 3), compared to DILI (1.0%; n = 9) (p = 0.026). Information of the 53 DILI-DRESS patients is further detailed in Table 2.
Prognostic factors in DILI-DRESS cases
DILI-DRESS patients who developed a severe-fatal injury had predominantly a hepatocellular injury (88%) and marked elevations of serum transaminases and TBL levels at DILI recognition compared to those with mild-to-moderate liver damage. In addition, 63% of cases with a more severe injury presented with eosinophilia, compared to 89% of patients with milder damage.
An exploratory backward stepwise regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with the development of a worse outcome in DILI-DRESS cases out of the following variables (p-value < 0.1 in univariate analysis): type of liver injury (hepatocellular vs. cholestatic/mixed), eosinophilia, ALT, AST, ALP, TBL, and nR-based Hy's law. Of these, higher TBL levels at DILI recognition (odds ratio [OR] 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04–1.45) and absence of eosinophilia (OR 8.77; 95% CI 1.11–69.20) were found as prognostic factors of worse outcome in DILI-DRESS patients.
Causative agents
The most common agents implicated in DILI-DRESS were carbamazepine (13%), anti- TB medications (isoniazid, rifampicin, and pyrazinamide, either alone or in combination, 13%), amoxicillin-clavulanate (11%), and allopurinol and lamotrigine (7.6% each). On the other hand, amoxicillin-clavulanate (15%), anti-TB (6.6%), ibuprofen (3.5%), and diclofenac (3.1%) were the most frequent causative drugs in DILI cases. Notably, among all cases of carbamazepine-induced liver injury in the two registries (n = 15), 47% of them were DILI-DRESS, as well as four out of six cases due to lamotrigine (67%). However, in cases due to other antiepileptics such as valproic acid or phenytoin (n = 9 each), few of them developed DILI-DRESS (11% and 22%, respectively). Conversely, among the six cases of DILI due to allopurinol, 67% presented with a DILI-DRESS phenotype.
According to the Anatomic Therapeutic Classification groups, anti-infectives for systemic use were the most common drugs in both groups (40% in DILI-DRESS and 34% in DILI). Furthermore, drugs for the nervous system were overrepresented in DILI-DRESS compared to DILI (32% vs. 8.6%, respectively). In contrast, drugs for the cardiovascular system and antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents were more common among DILI patients (Online Resource 1).
An ancillary analysis was performed to compare the clinical characteristics of DILI-DRESS patients according to the most frequent culprit drugs and drug classes, i.e., antiepileptic drugs (carbamazepine, lamotrigine, phenytoin, valproic acid and levetiracetam), anti-TB drugs, amoxicillin-clavulanate, and allopurinol (Table 3). Young women were more prone to present DILI-DRESS caused by antiepileptic or anti-TB medications. DILI-DRESS was induced by amoxicillin-clavulanate after a shorter duration of therapy. Hepatocellular injury was distinctive in DILI-DRESS caused by anti-TB drugs, while the cholestatic/mixed pattern of liver injury was the predominant damage caused by the other drugs. Moreover, it is worth noting that eosinophilia was less prevalent in those DILI-DRESS patients who had taken anti-TB medications and had a poorer outcome.
Discussion
In the present study, including cases of two prospective DILI registries from Western countries, we have comprehensively characterized a cohort of DILI-DRESS cases. Compared to DILI, DILI-DRESS presented more frequently with a cholestatic or mixed injury. Furthermore, these cases were more frequently hospitalized and tended to course with a more severe injury, albeit their prognosis was comparable to DILI cases. Causative agents responsible for DILI-DRESS showed a distinctive pattern, with antiepileptics as the leading drug class.
A summary of the clinical characteristics and outcomes of DILI-DRESS patients in prospective and retrospective studies published from Asian countries is shown in Table 4. The prevalence of DILI-DRESS in this study (3.7%) is similar to other long-term population-based studies (5.3%) (Huang et al. 2021), but significantly lower compared to a recent single-centre Indian study (19%) (Devarbhavi et al. 2022). Geographic, ethnic, and demographic differences and divergences in drug prescription patterns could explain these discrepancies in DILI-DRESS incidence. For instance, sulphonamides, mainly dapsone, rarely used in Western countries, was the 2nd drug class involved in DILI-DRESS in one of these studies (Devarbhavi et al. 2022). Furthermore, the increased mortality rates observed in these studies could be due to several factors, such a higher prevalence of pre-existing hepatic diseases, comorbidities, or a more frequent involvement of extrahepatic organs, which might have determined the poorer outcome (Chalasani et al. 2015; Ghabril et al. 2019).
In the present study cholestatic-mixed injury was reported as the most common liver injury pattern in patients with DILI-DRESS. This finding is consistent with other studies that reported a significantly higher frequency of cholestatic injury in DILI-DRESS cases (Lin et al. 2015; Huang et al. 2021; Devarbhavi et al. 2022).
Antiepileptics were the most common drug class in our study. These drugs are metabolized by the cytochrome P450 to arene oxide metabolites, which are usually detoxified by the epoxide hydrolase or glutathione transferase to inactive metabolites (Spielberg et al. 1981). However, some investigations have reported that patients with DRESS caused by antiepileptics had a reduced detoxification capability due to defects in the epoxide hydrolase enzyme, resulting in the accumulation of reactive metabolites that may act as haptens that trigger an immune response (Shear and Spielberg 1988; Chung et al. 2014). This circumstance might explain the overrepresented incidence due to antiepileptic drugs despite DILI-DRESS and DILI share common pathogenic pathways (Cueto-Sanchez et al. 2021; Stirton et al. 2022).
One-third of DILI-DRESS caused by antiepileptics or anti-TB medications fulfilled the nR-based Hy's law. However, none of those cases caused by antiepileptics evolved into fatal outcomes. Conversely, one of the two cases treated with anti-TB died of acute liver failure. These findings underscore that Hy’s Law prognostic performance may vary with individual drugs (Stephens et al. 2021). Interestingly, DILI-DRESS cases due to anti-TB, who exhibited the highest mortality rate, had a lower prevalence of eosinophilia. Indeed, in our exploratory analysis, higher TBL levels and lack of eosinophilia were associated with a worse outcome in DILI-DRESS patients, underlining the role of eosinophilia in the prognosis of DILI-DRESS. Consistently, prior investigations have described an association between eosinophilia and a more favourable outcome of liver injury in DILI (Björnsson et al. 2007; Pachkoria et al. 2008). These findings indicate that liver-related mortality in DILI-DRESS depends on the culprit agent.
The main strength of this study is the large sample of patients recruited in these two prospective DILI registries with a standardized methodology. In addition, only DILI-DRESS cases that met international criteria were included, ensuring the internal validity of our findings. However, some limitations should be acknowledged. Information about skin lesions was reported in the standardized case report form, but no skin biopsies were available. Nonetheless, only cases that fulfilled the RegiSCAR criteria and were considered in the case ascertainment as possible or probable (Peyrière et al. 2006) were included as DILI-DRESS. Moreover, data from some biochemical parameters to further characterize these DILI-DRESS patients were not available, such as metabolomic profiles. Therefore, future studies should be planned to investigate if severity in DILI-DRESS patients is associated with a distinctive bile acid profile as occurs in DILI cases (Ma et al. 2019; Xie et al. 2021).
In conclusion, in this well-characterized cohort from two long-term prospective DILI registries, DILI-DRESS cases presented more frequently with a cholestatic/mixed injury pattern. They exhibited greater severity but similar rates of liver-related death and liver transplantation than DILI. Antiepileptic drug class was found as a distinctive causative drug group in DILI-DRESS. Lamotrigine and allopurinol have a greater chance of presenting with this phenotype. Exploratory analyses identified higher TBL levels and lack of eosinophilia as prognostic factors of poor outcomes. These findings represent a step forward to deepen the understanding of the distinctive clinical features and prognosis of DILI associated with DRESS.
Availability of data and material (data transparency)
The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Aithal GP, Watkins PB, Andrade RJ et al (2011) Case definition and phenotype standardization in drug-induced liver injury. Clin Pharmacol Ther 89(6):806–815. https://doi.org/10.1038/clpt.2011.58
Andrade RJ, Chalasani N, Bjornsson ES et al (2019) Drug-induced liver injury. Nat Rev Dis Primers 5(1):58. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-019-0105-0
Bessone F, Hernandez N, Lucena MI, Andrade RJ (2016) The Latin American DILI Registry experience: a successful ongoing collaborative strategic initiative. Int J Mol Sci 17(3):313. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17030313
Bjornsson E, Kalaitzakis E, Olsson R (2007) The impact of eosinophilia and hepatic necrosis on prognosis in patients with drug-induced liver injury. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 25(12):1411–1421. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2007.03330.x
Bluestein SB, Yu R, Stone C Jr, Phillips EJ (2021) Reporting of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms from 2002 to 2019 in the US food and drug administration adverse event reporting system. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 9(8):3208-3211 e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2021.05.008
Chalasani N, Bonkovsky HL, Fontana R et al (2015) Features and outcomes of 899 patients with drug-induced liver injury: the DILIN prospective study. Gastroenterology 148(7):1340-1352 e7. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2015.03.006
Chen YC, Chiu HC, Chu CY (2010) Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms: a retrospective study of 60 cases. Arch Dermatol 146(12):1373–1379. https://doi.org/10.1001/archdermatol.2010.198
Chung WH, Chang WC, Lee YS et al (2014) Genetic variants associated with phenytoin-related severe cutaneous adverse reactions. JAMA 312(5):525–534. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.7859
Cueto-Sanchez A, Niu H, Del Campo-Herrera E et al (2021) Lymphocyte profile and immune checkpoint expression in drug-induced liver injury: an immunophenotyping study. Clin Pharmacol Ther 110(6):1604–1612. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.2423
Danan G, Benichou C (1993) Causality assessment of adverse reactions to drugs–I. A novel method based on the conclusions of international consensus meetings: application to drug-induced liver injuries. J Clin Epidemiol 46(11):1323–1330. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90101-6
Devarbhavi H, Kurien SS, Raj S et al (2022) Idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury associated with and without drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms. Am J Gastroenterol 117(10):1709–1713. https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000001913
Fang WC, Adler NR, Graudins LV et al (2018) Drug-induced liver injury is frequently associated with severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions: experience from two Australian tertiary hospitals. Intern Med J 48(5):549–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.13734
Ghabril M, Gu J, Yoder L et al (2019) Development and validation of a model consisting of comorbidity burden to calculate risk of death within 6 months for patients with suspected drug-induced liver injury. Gastroenterology 157(5):1245-1252 e3. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2019.07.006
Huang YS, Wu CY, Chang TT et al (2021) Drug-induced liver injury associated with severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions: a nationwide study in Taiwan. Liver Int 41(11):2671–2680. https://doi.org/10.1111/liv.14990
Kardaun SH, Sekula P, Valeyrie-Allanore L et al (2013) Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS): an original multisystem adverse drug reaction. Results from the prospective RegiSCAR study. Br J Dermatol 169(5):1071–1080. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.12501
Kim DH, Koh YI (2014) Comparison of diagnostic criteria and determination of prognostic factors for drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res 6(3):216–221. https://doi.org/10.4168/aair.2014.6.3.216
Lee T, Lee YS, Yoon SY et al (2013) Characteristics of liver injury in drug-induced systemic hypersensitivity reactions. J Am Acad Dermatol 69(3):407–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2013.03.024
Lee JW, Lee SR, Kim MJ et al (2022) Skin manifestations and clinical features of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms: a retrospective multicentre study of 125 patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 36(9):1584–1592. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.18100
Lin IC, Yang HC, Strong C et al (2015) Liver injury in patients with DRESS: a clinical study of 72 cases. J Am Acad Dermatol 72(6):984–991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2015.02.1130
Ma Z, Wang X, Yin P et al (2019) Serum metabolome and targeted bile acid profiling reveals potential novel biomarkers for drug-induced liver injury. Medicine (baltimore) 98(31):e16717. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000016717
Pachkoria K, Lucena MI, Crespo E et al (2008) Analysis of IL-10, IL-4 and TNF-alpha polymorphisms in drug-induced liver injury (DILI) and its outcome. J Hepatol 49(1):107–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2008.03.017
Peyrière H, Dereure O, Breton H et al (2006) Variability in the clinical pattern of cutaneous side-effects of drugs with systemic symptoms: does a DRESS syndrome really exist? Br J Dermatol 155(2):422–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2006.07284.x
Robles-Diaz M, Lucena MI, Kaplowitz N et al (2014) Use of Hy’s law and a new composite algorithm to predict acute liver failure in patients with drug-induced liver injury. Gastroenterology 147(1):109-118 e5. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2014.03.050
Sanabria-Cabrera J, Medina-Caliz I, Stankeviciute S et al (2019) Drug-induced liver injury associated with severe cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions: a complex entity in need of a multidisciplinary approach. Curr Pharm Des 25(36):3855–3871. https://doi.org/10.2174/1381612825666191107161912
Shear NH, Spielberg SP (1988) Anticonvulsant hypersensitivity syndrome. In vitro assessment of risk. J Clin Invest 82(6):1826–1832. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI113798
Skowron F, Bensaid B, Balme B et al (2015) Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS): clinicopathological study of 45 cases. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 29(11):2199–2205. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.13212
Spielberg SP, Gordon GB, Blake DA, Mellits ED, Bross DS (1981) Anticonvulsant toxicity in vitro: possible role of arene oxides. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 217(2):386–389
Stephens C, Robles-Diaz M, Medina-Caliz I et al (2021) Comprehensive analysis and insights gained from long-term experience of the Spanish DILI Registry. J Hepatol 75(1):86–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2021.01.029
Stirton H, Shear NH, Dodiuk-Gad RP (2022) Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DReSS)/drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DiHS)-readdressing the DReSS. Biomedicines 10(5):999. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10050999
Xie Z, Zhang L, Chen E et al (2021) Targeted metabolomics analysis of bile acids in patients with idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury. Metabolites 11(12):852. https://doi.org/10.3390/metabo11120852
Funding
Funding for open access publishing: Universidad Málaga/CBUA. This work was supported by grants from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, cofounded by Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) (contract numbers: PI21/01248, PI19-00883, PT20/00127, UMA18-FEDERJA-194, PY18-3364), and grants from Consejería de Salud de Andalucía cofounded by FEDER (contract numbers: PEMP-0127-2020, PI-0310-2018) and Agencia Española del Medicamento y Productos Sanitarios. M Villanueva-Paz and I Alvarez-Alvarez hold Sara Borrell research contracts from ISCIII (CD21/00198 and CD20/00083, respectively). J Sanabria-Cabrera holds a Juan Rodés research contract from the National System of Health, ISCIII (JR21/00066). JM Pinazo-Bandera holds a Río Hortega research contract from the National System of Health, ISCIII (CM21/00074). H Niu holds a postdoctoral research contract funded by Junta de Andalucía (POSTDOC_21_00780). SCReN and CIBERehd are funded by ISCIII. This publication is based on work from COST Action CA17112—Prospective European Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network, supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology); www.cost.eu. The funding sources have no involvement in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature. Funding for open access charge: Universidad de Málaga / CBUA.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: IM-C, JS-C, MIL; Data Curation: IM-C, JS-C, MV-P, HN, IA-A; Formal Analysis: HN, IAA; Funding Acquisition: MIL, CS, MR-D, MG-C, RJA; Investigation: IM-C, JS-C, MV-P, HN, IA-A, LA, CS, MR-D, JMP-B, MG-C, IC, GS, FB, NH, VN, RP; Methodology: IM-C, JS-C, MV-P, HN, IA-A; Project Administration: IM-C, JS-C, MV-P; Supervision: MIL, RJA.; Validation: HN, IA-A, MIL, RJA; Visualization: HN, IA-A, Writing – Original Draft: IM-C, JS-C, MV-P, HN, IA-A; Writing – Review & Editing: IM-C, JS-C, MV-P, HN, IA-A, MIL, RJA.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This study has been approved by the appropriate local ethics committees and has therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.
Consent to participate
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Medina-Cáliz, I., Sanabria-Cabrera, J., Villanueva-Paz, M. et al. Characterization of drug-induced liver injury associated with drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms in two prospective DILI registries. Arch Toxicol 98, 303–325 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-023-03630-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-023-03630-0