Etiology-Based Comparative Evaluation of Toxic Hepatitis in a Tertiary Referral Cohort: Drug-Induced, Herb-Induced, Mushroom Poisoning, and Other Toxic Exposures

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background and Objectives: Toxic hepatitis may result from drugs, herbal products, mushroom exposure, or other suspected toxic agents. This study aimed to compare the clinical, laboratory, severity-related, and outcome characteristics of toxic hepatitis according to suspected etiology. Materials and Methods: This retrospective observational study included 175 patients diagnosed with toxic hepatitis between January 2012 and March 2026 at a tertiary referral center with an active liver transplantation program. Patients were categorized into five groups: drug-induced liver injury (DILI) (n = 97), herb-induced liver injury (HILI) (n = 17), mushroom poisoning (n = 24), suspected causative agent exposure (n = 15), and unavailable etiological data (n = 22). Clinical outcomes, laboratory parameters, injury patterns, severity grades, and MELD-Na scores were analyzed. Results: Etiological groups differed significantly in demographic, hematological, biochemical, coagulation, bilirubin, ammonia, MELD-Na, and R-ratio parameters. Mushroom poisoning showed the most pronounced hepatocellular injury profile, with higher median values for AST, ALT, INR, ammonia, MELD-Na, and R ratio: 4856 U/L, 4996 U/L, 5.0, 585 µg/dL, 30, and 78.3, respectively. Recovery was most frequent in the HILI group (94.1%). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, older age (OR = 1.066, 95% CI: 1.03–1.11), lower INR (OR = 0.205, 95% CI: 0.08–0.51), and higher albumin level (OR = 4.255, 95% CI: 1.55–11.63) were independently associated with recovery. Conclusions: Toxic hepatitis showed distinct clinical and biochemical patterns according to etiology. In this selected tertiary referral-center cohort, mushroom poisoning was associated with pronounced hepatocellular injury and frequent liver transplantation, whereas HILI showed a more favorable short-term course. These findings should be interpreted in light of referral bias and the overrepresentation of severe cases.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.