Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: Obstet Gynecol. 2024 Apr 16;143(6):819–823. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005585

Drug-Induced Liver Injury in Pregnancy: The U.S. Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network Experience

Umair Masood 1, Nicholas Venturini 1, Paola Nicoletti 2, Andrew Dellinger 3, David Kleiner 4, Herbert L Bonkovsky 5, Huiman Barnhart 6, Raj Vuppalanchi 7, Simona Rossi 8, Joseph A Odin 1, Tatyana Kushner 1
PMCID: PMC11098677  NIHMSID: NIHMS1984870  PMID: 38626448

Abstract

There are limited data on the etiologic agents and characteristics of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) in pregnant individuals. DILI cases enrolled in the ongoing multicenter DILI Network (DILIN) between 2004–2022 and occurring during pregnancy, or 6 months postpartum, were reviewed and compared to DILI in non-pregnant women of childbearing age. Among 325 individuals of childbearing age in the DILIN, 16 (5%) occurred during pregnancy or postpartum. Compared to non-pregnant female DILI controls, pregnancy-related DILI was more severe (p<0.05). One elective termination and three miscarriages were documented; there were no maternal deaths. We recommend that isoniazid for latent tuberculosis be deferred to the postpartum period whenever feasible and that beta-blockers/calcium channel blockers be used for hypertension management rather than methyldopa during pregnancy.

Précis:

Drug-induced liver injury should be suspected during pregnancy, particularly when methyldopa is used, as severe liver injury requiring liver transplantation can occur.

INTRODUCTION

Data on the etiology, clinical presentation, and outcomes of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) in the context of pregnancy are limited 1. We evaluated all cases from the U.S. DILI Network (DILIN) that occurred during pregnancy or within 6-months postpartum 1 and compared them with non-pregnant women of childbearing age with DILI.

METHODS

The DILIN is a NIH-funded multicenter study that enrolls patients with suspected DILI (https://dilin.org/) and collects demographic features (including age, race, ethnicity that may be associated with DILI outcomes and clinical features of individuals with DILI 2. We identified all cases enrolled from September 2004 to March 2022 that occurred during pregnancy or the immediate 6-month postpartum period using pregnancy-related keywords (see Appendix 1, available online at http://links.lww.com/xxx). All cases were reviewed and adjudicated by the DILIN Causality Committee using consensus expert opinion, 3 as the structured DILIN expert opinion process produces higher agreement rates and likelihood scores than RUCAM in assessing causality.4 Available biopsies were centrally reviewed by an expert pathologist (DEK) 5. Selected patient vignettes were highlighted to provide more in-depth details of clinical courses (see Appendix 2, available online at http://links.lww.com/xxx). The study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at each clinical site and data coordinating center.

Demographic and clinical characteristics were compared between pregnant DILI cases and non-pregnant DILI cases in women of childbearing age (i.e, ages 18-45 y). All analyses were carried out with SAS version 9.4.

RESULTS

Of the 2626 cases enrolled in the DILIN database, 393 were in women of childbearing ages. Of these, 21 cases were in women who were pregnant or less than 6 months postpartum at DILI onset (see Appendix 3, available online at http://links.lww.com/xxx, and Table 1). Sixteen of the 21 were high confidence DILI cases based on a causality score of 1, 2, or 3 (Table 1) for an approximate 5% prevalence in the DILIN database. The remaining 5 adjudicated cases were deemed due to non-DILI etiologies (Appendix 4, available online at http://links.lww.com/xxx). Table 2 shows baseline features of the study population.

Table 1.

Selected Characteristics of High Causality Pregnancy-associated DILI Cases

Case # Age (y) Race/Ethnicity Implicated Drug DILI Onset Weeks Gestation at onset Pattern of Injury Causality Score Severity Score Maternal Outcome Fetal Outcome Peak ALT U/L Peak TB mg/dL
1 43 W Methyldopa Pregnancy 10 HC Definite Moderate Hospitalized Resolution Unknown 2459 11
2 29 B Methyldopa Pregnancy 20 HC Highly Likely Mild Resolution Miscarriage 800 0.8
3 30 B Methyldopa Pregnancy 8 HC Highly Likely Moderate Hospitalized Resolution Unknown 1315 17.8
4 24 B Infliximab Pregnancy 22 HC Highly Likely Severe Resolution Delivered 1155 25.41
5 20 W Quetiapine Pregnancy 29 HC Highly Likely Mild Resolution Delivered 1078 0.4
6 34 H Isoniazid Pregnancy 1st trimester HC Probable Severe/Fatal Transplant Miscarriage 2095 13.8
7 28 W Letrozole Pregnancy NA HC Probable Moderate Resolution Miscarriage 827 7
8 28 B Methyldopa Postpartum - HC Highly Likely Severe Resolution Delivered 579 21.7
9 20 W OCP Postpartum - HC Highly Likely Moderate Hospitalized Resolution Delivered 445 14.9
10 32 H Methyldopa Postpartum - HC Definite Severe Resolution Delivered 1415 29.9
11 28 W Cefazolin Postpartum - C Highly Likely Moderate Hospitalized Resolution Terminated 201 7.3
12 25 B Methyldopa Postpartum - HC Highly Likely Moderate Hospitalized Resolution Delivered 1292 24.9
13 39 B Methyldopa Postpartum - HC Highly Likely Moderate Hospitalized Resolution Delivered 1414 19.5
14 26 W Methyldopa Postpartum - HC Highly Likely Moderate Hospitalized Resolution Delivered 1577 15.3
15 31 H PTU Pregnancy 36 M Probable Severe Resolution Delivered 549 8.4
16 31 B Methyldopa Pregnancy 11 HC Probable Moderate Hospitalized Unknown Unknown 1481 3.2

Definite causality score corresponds to >95% likelihood, high likely= 70-95%, probable= 50-<70%. Abbreviations: W=White, B=Black, H= Hispanic, HC=Hepatocellular, C=Cholestatic, PTU=propylthiouracil; OCP, oral contraceptive pills.

Table 2.

Comparison of baseline demographic and clinical characteristics between high causality DILI cases in pregnancy and non-pregnant DILI case controls.

CHARACTERISTICS PREGNANT (n=16) NON-PREGNANT (n=309) P-VALUE
DEMOGRAPHICS

Age, median (IQR) 28.8 (26.1, 31.9) 35.9 (27.4, 41.8) 0.02
Race, n (%) 0.05
 White or Caucasian 7 (43.8%) 220 (71%)
 Black or AA 6 (37.5%) 54 (17.5%)
 Asian 0 (0.0) 9 (2.9%)
 Other/Multiracial 3 (18.8%) 25 (8.1%)
Ethnicity, Latino, n (%) 3 (18.8%) 49 (15.9%) 0.75
BMI, median (IQR) 32.5 (23.6, 39.0) 26.1 (22.7,31.6) 0.05

CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Pre-existing Liver Disease, n (%) 0 6 (1.9%) >0.99
 Hepatitis C 0 6 (1.9%) >0.99
 NAFLD 0 6 (1.9%) >0.99
 Other

CLINICAL EVALUATION AT PRESENTATION

ADJUDICATED DRUGS, n (%)
Antimicrobial 2 (12.5%) 142 (46.0%) 0.009
Cardiovascular 9 (56.3%) 13 (4.2%) <0.001
Methyldopa 9 (56.3%) 3 (0.8%) <0.001
Endocrine 2 (4.5%) 14 (4.5%) 0.18
CNS 1 (6.3%) 47 (15.2%) 0.48
Antineoplastic 1 (6.3%) 21 (6.8%) >0.99
Other 1 (6.3%) 72 (23.3%) 0.01
Laboratory Test Results, median (IQR) or n (%)
 ALT (U/L) 1174 (670, 1364) 519 (245,1132) 0.01
 AST (U/L) 1511 (461, 1890) 400 (155, 1035) 0.01
 TB (mg/dL) 6.6 (2.3, 15.6) 3.4 (0.8, 7.7) 0.12
 AP (U/L) 161.5 (125, 191) 177.0 (117, 262) 0.41
 ANA positive 6 (46.2%) 93 (32.4%) 0.36
 ASMA positive 4 (30.8%) 58 (21.6%) 0.49
 Eosinophilia (>500/uL) 1 (6.7%) 44 (15.2%) 0.71
 MELD score (IQR) 17 (12, 20) 15 (9, 20) 0.62
 INR 1.2 (1.1,1.5) 1.2 (1.0,1.7) 0.92
 Serum IgG (mg/dL) 1300 (1015-1987) 1221 (944-1645) 0.53
Liver Injury Pattern, n (%)
 Hepatocellular 14 (87.5%) 190 (64%) 0.22
 Mixed 1 (6.3%) 52 (17.5%)
 Cholestatic 1 (6.3%) 55 (18.5%)
R-value, median (IQR) 17.6 (11.5, 26.4) 8.7 (2.8, 19.6) 0.02

Abbreviations: AA, African American; NAFLD, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; AP, alkaline phosphatase; ANA, antinuclear antibody; ASMA, anti-smooth muscle antibody; MELD, model for endstage liver disease; TB; total bilirubin; IgG, immunoglobulin G

For all 16 DILI cases, a single agent was implicated. Of note, nine (56%) cases were attributed to methyldopa (Table 1). All other implicated drugs were known potential hepatotoxins per the LiverTox database with a likelihood score of A or B, with the exception of letrozole 1.

Among the 9 cases arising during pregnancy, 4 (44%) had DILI onset in first trimester, 2 (22%) in 2nd trimester, and 2 (22%) in third trimester; one case did not have data on trimester of onset. Among the 7 postpartum cases, onset was within the first 60 days postpartum in 5 (71%). In fourteen cases (88%), liver enzyme abnormalities were consistent with a hepatocellular pattern of injury; median R-value was significantly higher in the pregnancy group (p=0.016) (Table 2, Appendix 5 [Appendix 5 is available online at http://links.lww.com/xxx]). Autoimmune features of DILI cases are described in Appendix 6, available online at http://links.lww.com/xxx. Representative histologic findings are shown in Figure 1. Twelve of the 16 cases (80 %) were hospitalized with 3 of these cases considered severe; one case of DILI secondary to Isoniazid required liver transplantation (see Case #6 vignette).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Histology of drug-induced liver injury associated with pregnancy is variable even due to the same agent. A. Case 12, liver biopsy obtained 5 months postpartum showing methyldopa-associated submassive necrosis, showing near-complete loss of hepatocytes from this field (hematoxylin and eosin stain, 200x). B. Case 1, liver biopsy obtained during pregnancy showing acute hepatitis associated with methyldopa, showing multiple foci of lobular inflammation, but no areas of necrosis (hematoxylin and eosin stain, 200x). C. Case 7, liver biopsy obtained letrozole-associated bland intrahepatic cholestasis with canalicular cholestasis (arrow) but no inflammation (hematoxylin and eosin stain, 400x).

Pregnancy-related DILI was associated with significantly higher initial serum AST/ALT and higher peak AST values (p<0.05) and a higher prevalence that developed jaundice (81% vs 59%, p= 0.07) compared to non-pregnant controls (Table 2, Table S3).

Of the 16 DILI cases, 9 (56%) reported delivery of healthy infants, 3 (19%) ended in pregnancy losses, and 1 (6%) reported an infant with developmental delays. All pregnancy losses were reported in individuals who had not been hospitalized during the DILI event. None of the losses were directly attributed to DILI.

DISCUSSION

This large case series collected over an 18-year period provides insights into the types and features of DILI occurring in pregnant women in the United States. Although the traditional limited use of medications during pregnancy might be anticipated to lead to a lower incidence of DILI in pregnancy, our 5% prevalence, though low, was comparable to the expected percent of fertility (5.6%) for this age group 6. Although the RUCAM causality assessment traditionally allocates an extra point to pregnancy, our findings suggest that pregnancy in itself should not necessarily increase DILI causality/frequency7.

DILI appeared to be more severe in pregnancy, which might be due to delayed recognition of DILI among pregnant individuals or underutilization of liver biopsy during pregnancy. A liver biopsy may prove helpful in excluding other etiologies such as AIH that may mandate corticosteroids 5 but biopsies are generally avoided in pregnant individuals 8. Methyldopa cases predominated in our cohort. Unfortunately methyldopa is still recommended as a first line antihypertensive agent in some practices, but per our findings we would recommend to avoid Methyldopa use in pregnancy if alternate agents are available. 9, 10 11 Be aware that pregnancy related abnormal liver tests may be due to medications started within the prior 3 months and can initially occur postpartum such as seen in AIH, consult a liver specialist, exclude other common causes of pregnancy related abnormal liver tests, use the NIH “Livertox” website to identify the most likely causative medications (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK547852/), and discontinue likely causative medications promptly. 12.

Supplementary Material

TPR
Appendixes

Financial Support:

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) of the National Institutes of Health under award numbers U01DK065211 (Indiana University), U01DK065184 (University of Michigan), U01DK065201 (University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill), U01DK083020 (University of Southern California), U01DK083027 (Thomas Jefferson University/Albert Einstein Medical Center), U01DK100928 (Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai), and U24DK065176 (Duke University). Additional support is provided by the intramural programs of the NIDDK and National Cancer Institute. TK is supported by the 1K23 HL163486 award (NHLBI).

The content and opinions expressed are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Financial Disclosure:

Paola Nicoletti has ongoing paid consulting activities with Astella and Chiesi Farmaceutici. Herbert Bonkovsky receives support for clinical research studies from Alnylam Pharma, Cymabay Pharma, Disc Medicine, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, North America; funds are awarded to The Wake Forest University School of Medicine. In the past 3 years, Dr. Bonkovsky has served as a consultant to Alnylam Pharma, Bridge Bio, Disc Medicine, and Recordati Rare Chemicals. He serves on an hepatic adjudication committee for Eiger Pharma. Simona Rossi reports receiving payment from Gilead. Tatyana Kushner has participated in advisory boards for Gilead, Abbvie, Bausch, GSK, and Eiger and has research support from Gilead Sciences. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations:

AA

African-American

AIH

Autoimmune hepatitis

ALT

Serum alanine aminotransferase

AMA

Anti-mitochondrial antibodies

ANA

Anti-nuclear antibodies

AP

Serum alkaline phosphatase

ASMA

Anti-smooth muscle antibodies

AST

Serum aspartate aminotransferase

C

Cholestatic-type liver injury [R ≤2]

DILI

Drug-induced liver injury

DILIN

U.S. Drug Induced Liver Injury Network

DRESS

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms

HC

Hepatocellular-type liver injury [R ≥ 5]

HDS

Herbal and dietary supplements

INH

Isoniazid

INR

International normalized ratio

IQR

inter quartile range

M

Mixed-type liver injury [2<R <5]

MD

Alpha methyldopa

NA

Not available

NIH

National Institutes of Health

R

Ratio of serum ALT/AP both expressed as multiples of ULN

RUCAM

Roussel-Uclaf causality assessment method for DILI

SJS

Stevens - Johnson syndrome

SLE

Systemic lupus erythematosus

TEN

Toxic epidermal necrolysis

ULN

Upper limit of normal

U.S.

United States of America

VDRL

Venereal diseases research laboratory

Footnotes

Each author has confirmed compliance with the journal’s requirements for authorship.

References

  • 1.Hoofnagle JH, Serrano J, Knoben JE, et al. LiverTox: a website on drug-induced liver injury. Hepatology 2013;57:873–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ahmad J, Odin JA, Hayashi PH, et al. Identification and Characterization of Fenofibrate-Induced Liver Injury. Dig Dis Sci 2017;62:3596–3604. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hayashi PH, Barnhart HX, Fontana RJ, et al. Reliability of causality assessment for drug, herbal and dietary supplement hepatotoxicity in the Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN). Liver Int 2015;35:1623–32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Rockey DC, Seeff LB, Rochon J, et al. Causality assessment in drug-induced liver injury using a structured expert opinion process: comparison to the Roussel-Uclaf causality assessment method. Hepatology 2010;51:2117–26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ahmad J, Barnhart HX, Bonacini M, et al. Value of liver biopsy in the diagnosis of drug-induced liver injury. J Hepatol 2022;76:1070–1078. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Osterman MJK, Hamilton BE, Martin JA, et al. Births: Final Data for 2021. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2023;72:1–53. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hutchinson TA, Lane DA. Assessing methods for causality assessment of suspected adverse drug reactions. J Clin Epidemiol 1989;42:5–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ludvigsson JF, Marschall HU, Hagstrom H, et al. Pregnancy outcome in women undergoing liver biopsy during pregnancy: A nationwide population-based cohort study. Hepatology 2018;68:625–633. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Tita AT, Szychowski JM, Boggess K, et al. Treatment for Mild Chronic Hypertension during Pregnancy. N Engl J Med 2022;386:1781–1792. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.European Association for the Study of the Liver. Electronic address eee, European Association for the Study of the L. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of liver diseases in pregnancy. J Hepatol 2023;79:768–828. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ajayi AAL, Ajayi OE. Pathophysiologically based antihypertensive pharmacotherapeutics rationality, efficacy and safety in Sub Saharan African Nations - A review. Int J Cardiol Cardiovasc Risk Prev 2021;11:200111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Adams Waldorf KM, Nelson JL. Autoimmune disease during pregnancy and the microchimerism legacy of pregnancy. Immunol Invest 2008;37:631–44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

TPR
Appendixes

RESOURCES