Efficacy of magnesium isoglycyrrhizinate in anti-tuberculosis drug-induced liver injury

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-583X.2021.11.002

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective To explore the efficacy of magnesium isoglycyrrhizinate(MgIG) in the treatment of anti-tuberculosis drug-induced liver injury (AT-DILI) and influence on cytokines (IFN-γ, IL-10, TNF-α).Methods The study enrolled 50 patients with mild hepatocellular injury who admitted to Infection Department, the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University from February 2016 to December 2019, and the patients met the criteria of AT-DILI. Patients were randomly grouped, 25 patients in observation group treated with MgIG, 25 patients in control group with polyene phosphatidylcholine(PPC). The key observation was liver function (ALT, AST, TBIL) and cytokine levels (IFN-γ, IL-10, TNF-α).Results The total effective rates were significantly higher in observation group than in control group (100% vs 76.0%, P<0.01). Compared with before treatment, IFN-γ, IL-10, and TNF-α in both groups were lower after treatment (all P<0.05), and the indexes were significantly decreased in observation group (all P<0.05). Pearson correlation analysis showed the cytokine levels were positively correlated with ALT in both groups at different time points.Conclusion MgIG can quickly improve liver function in mild AT-DILI, which may relate to the reduction of inflammatory cytokines.

Key words: chemical and drug induced liver injury, antituberculosis drugs, magnesium isoglycyrrhizinate, polyene phosphatidylcholine, cytokines

CLC Number:

R575.1

Yang Zhibin, Shao Yanfang, Pan Li, Yang Yanxia, Yang Yuxi, Zhao Lihui, Zeng Rongkun, Li Yang, Wang Qiaofeng, Wang Cong, Ma Shiwu. Efficacy of magnesium isoglycyrrhizinate in anti-tuberculosis drug-induced liver injury[J]. Clinical Focus, 2021, 36(11): 972-975.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://huicui.hebmu.edu.cn/EN/10.3969/j.issn.1004-583X.2021.11.002

https://huicui.hebmu.edu.cn/EN/Y2021/V36/I11/972

Figures/Tables 4

References 28

[1]	World health organization. WHO Report 2018.[EB/OL]. http://www.who.int/tb/publications/global_report/en/.
[2]	Bissel DM, Gores GJ, Laskin DL, et al. Drug-induced liver injury: Mechanisms and test systems[J]. Hepatology, 2001, 33(4):1009-1013. doi: 10.1053/jhep.2001.23505 URL
[3]	Garcia-Cortes M, Robles-Diaz M, Stephens C, et al. Drug induced liver injury: An update[J]. Arch Toxicol, 2020, 94(10):3381-3407. doi: 10.1007/s00204-020-02885-1 pmid: 32852569
[4]	Ramappa V, Aithal GP. Hepatotoxicity related to anti-tuberculosis drugs: Mechanisms and management[J]. J Clin Exp Hepatol, 2013, 3(1):37-49. doi: 10.1016/j.jceh.2012.12.001 URL
[5]	Devarbhavi H, Aithal G, Treeprasertsuk S, et al. Drug-induced liver injury: Asia Pacific Association of Study of Liver consensus guidelines[J]. Hepatol Int, 2021, 15(2):258-282. doi: 10.1007/s12072-021-10144-3 URL
[6]	Yu YC, Mao YM, Chen CW, et al. CSH guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of drug-induced liver injury[J]. Hepatol Int, 2017, 11(3):221-241. doi: 10.1007/s12072-017-9793-2 URL
[7]	中华医学会肝病学分会药物性肝病学组. 药物性肝损伤诊治指南[J]. 中华肝脏病杂志, 2015, 11(23):810-820.
[8]	薄湘晖. 异甘草酸镁治疗抗结核药引起的药物性肝炎临床疗效[J]. 中国现代药物应用, 2017, 11(18):97-98.
[9]	Shang PH, Xia YY, Liu FY, et al. Incidence, clinical features and impact on anti-tuberculosis treatment of anti-tuberculosis drug induced liver injury (ATLI) in China[J]. PLoS One, 2011, 6(7):e21836.
[10]	中华医学会结核病学分会. 抗结核药物性肝损伤诊治指南(2019年版)[J]. 中华结核和呼吸杂志, 2019, 42(5):343-356.
[11]	钟洪兰. 抗结核药物致肝损伤的预防与治疗药物选择[J]. 实用医学杂志, 2020, 36(24):3307-3311.
[12]	Metushi IG, Zhu X, Chen X, et al. Mild isoniazid-induced liver injury in humans is associated with an increase in Th17 cells and T cells producing IL-10[J]. Chem Res Toxicol, 2014, 27(4):683-689. doi: 10.1021/tx500013z pmid: 24564876
[13]	Joseph Martin S, Evan Prince S. Comparative modulation of levels of oxidative stress in the liver of anti-tuberculosis drug treated wistar rats by vitamin B12, beta-carotene, and spirulina fusiformis: Role of NF-κB, iNOS, IL-6, and IL-10[J]. J Cell Biochem, 2017, 118(11):3825-3833. doi: 10.1002/jcb.v118.11 URL
[14]	Sukhanov DS, Okovityǐ SV, Demidik SN, et al. Relationship between the endogenous interferon IFN-gamma level and risk of hepatotoxic liver damage in tuberculosis patients[J]. Eksp Klin Farmakol, 2012, 75(6):40-43.
[15]	Guler R, Olleros ML, Vesin D, et al. Inhibition of inducible nitric oxide synthase protects against liver injury induced by mycobacterial infection and endotoxins[J]. J Hepatol, 2004, 41(5):773-781. pmid: 15519650
[16]	刘向, 杨丽, 郑甜, 等. 新疆维吾尔族、汉族抗结核药物性肝损伤患者血清IL-10 分泌水平的研究[J]. 中国感染控制杂志, 2019, 18(1):37-41.
[17]	麻斌喜, 陈伟岚, 郑甜, 等. 汉族、维吾尔族抗结核药物性肝损害患者血清TNF-α表达水平的研究[J]. 中国医院药学杂志, 2017, 37(24):2456-2459.
[18]	孟慧杰, 杨雪迎, 覃红娟, 等. 炎症细胞因子对抗结核性药物肝损伤的预测作用[J]. 实用医学杂志, 2019, 35(2):238-241.
[19]	Usui T, Meng X, Saide K, et al. From the cover: characterization of isoniazid-specific T-cell clones in patients with anti-tuberculosis drug-related liver and skin injury[J]. Toxicol Sci, 2017, 155(2):420-431. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfw218 URL
[20]	郭春平, 何平, 刘小斌. 异甘草酸镁对抗结核药物性肝损害的疗效[J]. 深圳中西医结合杂志, 2020, 30(24):191-192.
[21]	阮军, 尹恒, 寇国先, 等. 异甘草酸镁治疗抗结核药物所致肝损伤疗效的 Meta分析[J]. 药学实践杂志, 2019, 37(4):375-379.
[22]	茅益民, 曾民德, 陈勇, 等. 异甘草酸镁治疗ALT升高的慢性肝病的多中心、随机、双盲、多剂量、阳性药物平行对照临床研究[J]. 中华肝脏病杂志, 2009, 17(11) : 847-851.
[23]	Wang W, Li XG, Xu J. Magnesium isoglycyrrhizinate attenuates D-galactosamine/ lipopolysaccharides induced acute liver injury of rat via regulation of the p38-MAPK and NF-κB signaling pathways[J]. Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol, 2018, 40(3):262-267. doi: 10.1080/08923973.2018.1441300 URL
[24]	Liu MM, Zheng B, Liu PP, et al. Exploration of the hepatoprotective effect and mechanism of magnesium isoglycyrrhizinate in mice with arsenic trioxide-induced acute liver injury[J]. Mol Med Rep, 2021, 23(6):438. doi: 10.3892/mmr URL
[25]	詹爱琴, 陈春丽, 朱庆峰, 等. 异甘草酸镁治疗慢性乙型肝炎重度患者外周血Treg Th17 细胞及其相关细胞因子水平变化[J]. 实用肝脏病杂志, 2020, 23(6):793-796.
[26]	赖雪莹, 刘斌, 胡学琴, 等. 异甘草酸镁对紫杉醇致大鼠肝损伤的防治作用及其对血清IL-6、IL-10、TNF-α的影响[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2020, 14(11):922-925.
[27]	Xie CF, Li XT, Zhu JY, et al. Magnesium isoglycyrrhizinate suppresses LPS-induced inflammation and oxidative stress through inhibiting NF-κB and MAPK pathways in RAW264.7 cells[J]. Bioorg Med Chem, 2019, 27(3):516-524. doi: 10.1016/j.bmc.2018.12.033 URL
[28]	Feng TT, Yang XY, Hao SS, et al. TLR-2-mediated metabolic reprogramming participates in polyene phosphatidylcholine-mediated inhibition of M1 macrophage polarization[J]. Immunol Res, 2020, 68(1):28-38. doi: 10.1007/s12026-020-09125-9 URL

组别	例数	ALT(U/L)
组别	例数	治疗前	治疗1周	治疗2周	治疗3周
观察组	25	162.48±26.29	99.48±14.52^*	65.96±13.08^*	36.76±7.29^*
对照组	25	159.76±25.49	131.01±24.78^*	90.32±11.61^*	63.56±12.86^*
组间		F=5.341 P=0.030
时点间		F=47.418 P=0.000
组间·时点间		F=8.586 P=0.001
组别	例数	AST(U/L)
组别	例数	治疗前	治疗1周	治疗2周	治疗3周
观察组	25	124.80±21.62	68.96±12.16^*	55.60±10.11^*	33.80±6.11^*
对照组	25	111.40±22.10	96.83±18.73^*	75.00±14.79^*	67.68±12.14^*
组间		F=50.391 P=0.000
时点间		F=14.705 P=0.000
组间·时点间		F=3.408 P=0.035
组别	例数	TBIL(μmol/L)
组别	例数	治疗前	治疗1周	治疗2周	治疗3周
观察组	25	14.12±2.71	9.04±1.86^*	8.27±1.62^*	8.01±1.60^*
对照组	25	12.58±2.41	9.70±1.66^*	8.72±1.82^*	8.74±1.68^*
组间		F=0.012 P=0.914
时点间		F=7.953 P=0.001
组间·时点间		F=0.564 P=0.645

组别	例数	ALT(U/L)
组别	例数	治疗前	治疗1周	治疗2周	治疗3周
观察组	25	162.48±26.29	99.48±14.52^*	65.96±13.08^*	36.76±7.29^*
对照组	25	159.76±25.49	131.01±24.78^*	90.32±11.61^*	63.56±12.86^*
组间		F=5.341 P=0.030
时点间		F=47.418 P=0.000
组间·时点间		F=8.586 P=0.001
组别	例数	AST(U/L)
组别	例数	治疗前	治疗1周	治疗2周	治疗3周
观察组	25	124.80±21.62	68.96±12.16^*	55.60±10.11^*	33.80±6.11^*
对照组	25	111.40±22.10	96.83±18.73^*	75.00±14.79^*	67.68±12.14^*
组间		F=50.391 P=0.000
时点间		F=14.705 P=0.000
组间·时点间		F=3.408 P=0.035
组别	例数	TBIL(μmol/L)
组别	例数	治疗前	治疗1周	治疗2周	治疗3周
观察组	25	14.12±2.71	9.04±1.86^*	8.27±1.62^*	8.01±1.60^*
对照组	25	12.58±2.41	9.70±1.66^*	8.72±1.82^*	8.74±1.68^*
组间		F=0.012 P=0.914
时点间		F=7.953 P=0.001
组间·时点间		F=0.564 P=0.645

组别	例数	INF-γ
组别	例数	治疗前	治疗1周	治疗2周	治疗3周
观察组	25	136.57±28.08	68.28±14.82^*	31.70±6.31^*	10.97±1.53^*
对照组	25	137.01±27.21	108.96±20.86^*	62.57±11.40^*	41.79±6.92^*
组间		F=4.632 P=0.042
时点间		F=33.258 P=0.000
组间·时点间		F=8.791 P=0.001
组别	例数	IL-10
组别	例数	治疗前	治疗1周	治疗2周	治疗3周
观察组	25	6.84±1.04	3.42±0.33^*	1.59±0.38^*	1.28±0.21^*
对照组	25	6.68±1.02	4.60±0.83^*	3.53±0.65^*	3.24±0.21^*
组间		F=24.265 P=0.000
时点间		F=128.602 P=0.000
组间·时点间		F=17.295 P=0.000
组别	例数	TNF-α
组别	例数	治疗前	治疗1周	治疗2周	治疗3周
观察组	25	15.04±2.64	7.34±1.53^*	3.22±0.61^*	1.24±0.23^*
对照组	25	11.86±2.40	10.35±2.19^*	9.10±1.44^*	6.27±1.16^*
组间		F=29.298 P=0.000
时点间		F=35.070 P=0.000
组间·时点间		F=13.425 P=0.000

组别	例数	INF-γ
组别	例数	治疗前	治疗1周	治疗2周	治疗3周
观察组	25	136.57±28.08	68.28±14.82^*	31.70±6.31^*	10.97±1.53^*
对照组	25	137.01±27.21	108.96±20.86^*	62.57±11.40^*	41.79±6.92^*
组间		F=4.632 P=0.042
时点间		F=33.258 P=0.000
组间·时点间		F=8.791 P=0.001
组别	例数	IL-10
组别	例数	治疗前	治疗1周	治疗2周	治疗3周
观察组	25	6.84±1.04	3.42±0.33^*	1.59±0.38^*	1.28±0.21^*
对照组	25	6.68±1.02	4.60±0.83^*	3.53±0.65^*	3.24±0.21^*
组间		F=24.265 P=0.000
时点间		F=128.602 P=0.000
组间·时点间		F=17.295 P=0.000
组别	例数	TNF-α
组别	例数	治疗前	治疗1周	治疗2周	治疗3周
观察组	25	15.04±2.64	7.34±1.53^*	3.22±0.61^*	1.24±0.23^*
对照组	25	11.86±2.40	10.35±2.19^*	9.10±1.44^*	6.27±1.16^*
组间		F=29.298 P=0.000
时点间		F=35.070 P=0.000
组间·时点间		F=13.425 P=0.000

组别	例数	显效	有效	无效	总有效
观察组	25	22(88.0)	3(12.0)	0(0.0)	25(100.0)
对照组	25	14(56.0)	5(20.0)	6(24.0)	19(76.0)