Citation

He TT, Gong M, Bai YF, Zhu Y, Wang JB, Niu M, Liu B, Li YG, Xiao XH. Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi 2016; 41(16): 3096-3099.

Affiliation

Institute of Chinese Medicine, 302 Military Hospital, Beijing 100039, China.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2016, Zhongguo Zhong yi yan jiu yuan Zhong yao yan jiu suo)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

28920355

Abstract

To compare the consistency and difference of herb-induced liver injury between two methods in guidelines for clinical diagnosis and treatment of liver injury related to Chinese herbal medicine in China (2016) and guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of drug-induced liver injury in China(2015). This retrospective analysis included 390 patients with herb-induced liver injury who had a history of suspicious Chinese herbal medicines or patent medicines; the patients with integrative Chinese and western medicines were excluded from this study. The results indicated that there were 14(4%) extremely probable patients (>8 points), 185(47%) highly probable patients (6-8 points) and 191(49%) probable patients(3-5 points) in 390 cases with guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of drug-induced liver injury of China (2015). While when guidelines for clinical diagnosis and treatment of liver injury related to Chinese herbal medicine in China (2016) was used for 390 patients, the results indicated that there were 5 (1%) cases with proven diagnosis, 163(42%) cases with clinical diagnosis, and 222(57%) cases with suspected diagnosis. Statistics showed that two methods had a consistency of 43% and difference of 14%. The research results showed that Guidelines for clinical diagnosis and treatment of liver injury related to Chinese herbal medicine in China(2016) was more suitable for the diagnosis of herb-induced liver injury. Due to the limitations of retrospective case study, further more prospective studies would be needed.

Copyright© by the Chinese Pharmaceutical Association.

Language: zh

Keywords

Chinese herbal; RUCAM; diagnosis; drug-induced liver injury(DILI)