Per 2017 American Gastroenterological Association Institute (AGA) guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute liver failure, no dosing recommendations were given for patients presenting with non-acetaminophen-associated acute liver failure, as the panel recommends N-acetyl cysteine (NAC) be used only in the context of clinical trials. The recommendation was based on two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which demonstrated no effect on overall mortality with NAC when compared to placebo in 228 patients with non-acetaminophen-associated acute liver failure; the direct references for those 2 RCTs were not provided within the guidelines. In cases of acute liver failure of indeterminate cause, NAC can be considered given that those indeterminate cases may be related to acetaminophen overdose. [1]
As opposed to the 2017 AGA guidelines, the 2011 American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD) guidelines concluded that NAC may be beneficial for acute liver failure secondary to non-acetaminophen-related-drug-induced liver injury based on Lee et al.’s double-blinded RCT (N= 173; summarized in Table 3) in which intravenous NAC appeared to improve spontaneous survival when administered early during grades I and II coma stages. The study administered IV NAC infusion for 72 hours (initial loading dose of 150 mg/kg over 1 hour, followed by 12.5 mg/kg/h for 4 hours and continuous infusion of 6.25 mg/kg/h for remaining 67 hours). However, no maximum recommended dose was provided within the AASLD guidelines. [2]
A 2021 updated meta-analysis included prospective, retrospective, and RCTs of NAC use in non-acetaminophen-related acute liver failure to analyze the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) suggestion that NAC may be beneficial for non-acetaminophen-related-drug-induced liver injury. Participants ranged from neonates to adults (median age ~22 years), and etiologies of acute liver failure included drug-induced liver failure (n= 102), viral hepatitis (n= 213), autoimmune (n= 32), metabolic (n= 45), and other (e.g., infection, undetermined, pregnancy-related [n= 284]). [3]
NAC was well tolerated, with overall odds of survival in 7 studies (N= 883) being 1.77 times higher in those who received NAC (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3 to 2.41; p<0.001), with favorable results also seen with NAC use for post-transplant and transplant-free survival. The study authors noted that due to the representation of multiple causes for acute liver failure for those awaiting transplants, findings suggest a potential role of NAC for other causes than acetaminophen-induced liver injury. However, this meta-analysis did not provide an agreed-upon/consistent dosage regimen of NAC among included studies, except that the route of administration was intravenous in 6 studies and oral in 1 study. [3]
International consensus statements on acute liver failure report that NAC may be administered intravenously in all patients with non-acetaminophen-induced acute liver failure. The recommended regimen is 150 mg/kg body weight of NAC in 250 mL of 5% dextrose over 1 h, followed by 50 mg/kg over 4 h, then 100 mg/kg over 16 h; the latter dose of 100 mg/kg over 16 h may be repeated until encephalopathy and INR normalize. This recommendation stems from three randomized trials assessing use of NAC in patients with acute liver failure with a non-acetaminophen etiology; however, only one of the trials reported a statistically significant decrease in mortality, while the other two trials found no significant effect on mortality with NAC versus placebo. Still, one post hoc analysis of a subgroup in the largest randomized trial (Lee et al.) reported a significant transplant-free survival in patients with grade I/II encephalopathy versus placebo (52% vs 30%; p= 0.01), and thus NAC may still have some utility in acute liver failure, particularly in virus- and drug-induced cases. [4], [5], [6]
An abstract published in 2024 describes a study that evaluated the use of NAC in acute liver failure from cardiogenic shock (CS) between 2017 and 2022. A total of 69 patients were included in the study, 23 of whom received NAC, and 46 of whom did not receive NAC. Significantly more patients receiving NAC required mechanical ventilation (82.6% vs. 47.8%; p= 0.009), continuous renal replacement therapy or intermittent hemodialysis (69.6% vs. 21.7%); p<0.001), venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-A ECMO; 34.8% vs. 6.5%; p= 0.005), and 2 or more temporary mechanical circulatory support devices (34.8% vs. 8.7%; p= 0.015) compared to patients who did not receive NAC. The NAC group, however, experienced a greater reduction in alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels at 24 hours (13.5% vs. 4.2%: p= 0.03) and 72 hours (80.3% vs. 43.6%; p= 0.03); this persisted at 24 hours after adjusting for V-A ECMO (p= 0.04). Despite the reduction in ALT, the NAC group had a longer intensive care unit stay (16 vs. 5 days; p= 0.009), and there was no mortality benefit with the use of NAC (65.1% vs. 58.7%; p= 0.79). [7]