Causality In Drug-induced Liver Injury Research Articles

Liver biopsy for assessment of suspected drug-induced liver injury in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis clinical trials: Expert consensus from the Liver Forum.

Causality assessment of suspected drug-induced liver injury (DILI) during metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) clinical trials can be challenging, and liver biopsies are not routinely performed as part of this evaluation. While the field is moving away from liver biopsy as a diagnostic and prognostic tool, information not identified by non-invasive testing may be provided on histology. To address the appropriate utilisation of liver biopsy as part of DILI causality assessment in this setting. From 2020 to 2022, the Liver Forum convened a series of webinars on issues pertaining to liver biopsy during MASH trials. The Histology Working Group was formed to generate a series of consensus documents addressing these challenges. This manuscript focuses on liver biopsy as part of DILI causality assessment. Expert opinion, guidance and recommendations on the role of liver biopsy as part of causality assessment of suspected DILI occurring during clinical trials for a drug(s) being developed for MASH are provided. Lessons learned from prior MASH programs are reviewed and gaps identified. Although there are no pathognomonic features, histologic evaluation of suspected DILI during MASH clinical trials may alter patient management, define the pattern and severity of injury, detect findings that favour a diagnosis of DILI versus MASH progression, identify prognostic features, characterise the clinicopathological phenotype of DILI, and/or define lesions that influence decisions about trial discontinuation and further development of the drug.

Epidemiology and Management of Drug-induced Liver Injury: Importance of the Updated RUCAM.

Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is a major cause of acute liver injury, liver failure, and liver transplantation worldwide. In recent years, immune checkpoint inhibitors have become widely used. This has led to an increase in DILI, for which pathophysiology and management methods differ significantly from the past. As the number of cases of acute liver injury and liver transplantation due to DILI is expected to increase, information about a DILI is becoming more valuable. DILI is classified into two types according to its etiology: intrinsic DILI, in which the drug or its metabolites cause liver damage that is dose-dependent and predictable; and idiosyncratic DILI, in which liver damage is also dose-independent but unpredictable. In addition, depending on the course of the disease, chronic DILI or drug-induced autoimmune hepatitis may be present. The number of DILI cases caused by antimicrobial agents is decreasing, whereas that caused by drugs for malignant tumors and health foods is increasing. The Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method is widely used to assess causality in DILI. Liver injury is a type of immune-related adverse event. The pattern of hepatic injury in immune-related adverse events is mostly hepatocellular, but mixed type and bile stasis have also been reported. Sclerosing cholangitis caused by immune checkpoint inhibitors has also been reported as a unique type of injury. Treatment mainly comprises withdrawal of immune checkpoint inhibitors and steroid administration; however, mycophenolate mofetil may be considered if the disease is refractory to steroids.

Characterisation of Drug-Induced Liver Injury in Patients with COVID-19 Detected by a Proactive Pharmacovigilance Program from Laboratory Signals.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations. An elevation of liver damage markers has been observed in numerous cases, which could be related to the empirical use of potentially hepatotoxic drugs. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical and analytical characteristics and perform a causality analysis from laboratory signals available of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) detected by a proactive pharmacovigilance program in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 at La Paz University Hospital in Madrid (Spain) from 1 March 2020 to 31 December 2020. The updated Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) was employed to assess DILI causality. A lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) was performed on 10 patients. Ultimately, 160 patients were included. The incidence of DILI (alanine aminotransferase >5, upper limit of normal) was 4.9%; of these, 60% had previous COVID-19 hepatitis, the stay was 8.1 days longer and 98.1% were being treated with more than 5 drugs. The most frequent mechanism was hepatocellular (57.5%), with mild severity (87.5%) and subsequent recovery (88.1%). The most commonly associated drugs were hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, tocilizumab and ceftriaxone. The highest incidence rate of DILI per 10,000 defined daily doses (DDD) was with remdesivir (992.7/10,000 DDD). Some 80% of the LTTs performed were positive, with a RUCAM score of ≥4. The presence of DILI after COVID-19 was associated with longer hospital stays. An immune mechanism has been demonstrated in a small subset of DILI cases.

Overview of Causality Assessment for Drug-Induced Liver Injury (DILI) in Clinical Trials.

Causality assessment for suspected drug-induced liver injury (DILI) during drug development and following approval is challenging. The IQ DILI Causality Working Group (CWG), in collaboration with academic and regulatory subject matter experts (SMEs), developed this manuscript with the following objectives: (1) understand and describe current practices; (2) evaluate the utility of new tools/methods/practice guidelines; (3) propose a minimal data set needed to assess causality; (4) define best practices; and (5) promote a more structured and universal approach to DILI causality assessment for clinical development. To better understand current practices, the CWG performed a literature review, took a survey of member companies, and collaborated with SMEs. Areas of focus included best practices for causality assessment during clinical development, utility of adjudication committees, and proposals for potential new avenues to improve causality assessment. The survey and literature review provided renewed understanding of the complexity and challenges of DILI causality assessment as well as the use of non-standardized approaches. Potential areas identified for consistency and standardization included role and membership of adjudication committees, standardized minimum dataset, updated assessment tools, and best practices for liver biopsy and rechallenge in the setting of DILI. Adjudication committees comprised of SMEs (i.e., utilizing expert opinion) remain the standard for DILI causality assessment. A variety of working groups continue to make progress in pursuing new tools to assist with DILI causality assessment. The minimum dataset deemed adequate for causality assessment provides a path forward for standardization of data collection in the setting of DILI. Continued progress is necessary to optimize and advance innovative tools necessary for the scientific, pharmaceutical, and regulatory community.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40264-021-01051-5.

Significant Medical Comorbidities Are Associated With Lower Causality Scores in Patients Presenting With Suspected Drug-Induced Liver Injury.

INTRODUCTION:Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is a diagnosis of exclusion, and it can be challenging to adjudicate when there are multiple comorbidities and concomitant medications. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that comorbidity burden impacts the causality adjudication in patients with suspected DILI.METHODS:We studied consecutive patients with suspected DILI enrolled in the Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network Prospective Study at 2 centers between 2003 and 2017. The comorbidity burden at presentation was determined using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). We analyzed the association between significant comorbidity (CCI > 75th percentile) and (i) the adjudication of DILI by expert consensus as definite, highly likely, or probable (high-confidence DILI) and (ii) the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) scores.RESULTS:Our cohort consisted of 551 patients who were classified as “no comorbidity” (54%, CCI = 0), “mild comorbidity” (29%, CCI = 1 or 2), and “significant comorbidity” (17%, CCI > 2). The probability of high-confidence DILI was significantly lower in patients with significant comorbidity compared with those with mild or no comorbidities (67% vs 76% vs 87%, respectively, P < 0.001). The mean RUCAM scores decreased with increasing comorbidity (no comorbidity 6.6 ± 2, mild comorbidity 6 ± 2.4, and significant comorbidity 5.6 ± 2.7, P < 0.001). In the multiple logistic regression, significant comorbidity had an independent inverse relationship with DILI (odds ratio: 0.37, 95% confidence interval: 0.2–0.69, P = 0.001).DISCUSSION:Higher comorbidity burden impacts the causality assessment in patients with suspected DILI. Further studies are needed to investigate the utility of comorbidity burden as a variable in the DILI causality instruments.

Drug-Induced Liver Injury: Highlights of the Recent Literature.

Drug-induced liver injury (DILI), herbal-induced liver injury, and herbal and dietary supplement (HDS)-induced liver injury are an important aspect of drug safety. Knowledge regarding responsible drugs, mechanisms, risk factors, and the diagnostic tools to detect liver injury have continued to grow in the past year. This review highlights what we considered the most significant publications from among more than 1800 articles relating to liver injury from medications, herbal products, and dietary supplements in 2017 and 2018. The US Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN) prospective study highlighted several areas of ongoing study, including the potential utility of human leukocyte antigens and microRNAs as DILI risk factors and new data on racial differences, the role of alcohol consumption, factors associated with prognosis, and updates on the clinical signatures of autoimmune DILI, thiopurines, and HDS agents. Novel data were also generated from the Spanish and Latin American DILI registries as well as from Chinese and Korean case series. A few new agents causing DILI were added to the growing list in the past 2years, including sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors, as were new aspects of chemotherapy-associated liver injury. A number of cases reported previously described hepatotoxins confirmed via the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM; e.g., norethisterone, methylprednisolone, glatiramer acetate) and/or the DILIN method (e.g., celecoxib, dimethyl fumarate). Additionally, much work centered on elucidating the pathophysiology of DILI, including the importance of bile salt export pumps and immune-mediated mechanisms. Finally, it must be noted that, while hundreds of new studies described DILI in 2017-2018, the quality of such reports must always be addressed. Björnsson reminds us to remain very critical of the data when addressing the future utility of a study, which is why it is so important to adhere to a standardized method such as RUCAM when determining DILI causality. While drug-induced hepatotoxicity remains a diagnosis of exclusion, the diverse array of publications that appeared in 2017 and 2018 provided important advances in our understanding of DILI, paving the way for our improved ability to make a more definitive diagnosis and risk assessment.

The influence of drug properties and host factors on delayed onset of symptoms in drug-induced liver injury.

Most patients with drug-induced liver injury (DILI) manifest clinical symptoms while on therapy, while some patients manifest days or weeks after drug cessation (delayed onset). This challenges DILI causality assessment and diagnosis. Factors contributing to the delayed onset phenotype are currently unknown. We explored factors contributing to delayed onset of DILI by analysing culprit drug properties, host factors and their interactions in a large patient population from the Spanish DILI Registry. Clinical information from 388 patients (69 presented delayed onset) and drug properties of 43 causative drugs (45 active ingredients) were analysed. A two-tier regression-based model was used to assess host/drug interactions affecting the probability of delayed onset. Antibacterial and anti-inflammatory drugs accounted for the delayed onset cases. Drug property of <50% hepatic metabolism (odds ratio [OR] 11.06, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 4.4-32.2, P=0.0003), daily dose ≥1000mg (OR: 2.77, 95% CI: 1.3-6.1, P=0.0063) and the absence of pre-existing conditions in a patient (OR: 2.55, 95% CI: 1.3-4.9, P=0.0043) were independently associated with delayed onset. The findings were consistent when externally validated using Latin American DILI Network cases (N=131). Likewise, drug properties of mitochondrial liability and Pauling electronegativity were associated with delayed onset, but dependent on specific host factors such as age, sex and pre-existing cardiac diseases. This study demonstrated that delayed onset, a specific DILI phenotype, is explained by complex interactions among drug properties and host factors and provided mechanistic hypotheses for future studies. These findings can help improve the diagnostic capability and causality assessment.

Preliminary Results of a Novel Algorithmic Method Aiming to Support Initial Causality Assessment of Routine Pharmacovigilance Case Reports for Medication-Induced Liver Injury: The PV-RUCAM.

Data incompleteness in pharmacovigilance (PV) health records limits the use of current causality assessment methods for drug-induced liver injury (DILI). In addition to the inherent complexity of this adverse event, identifying cases of high causal probability is difficult. The aim was to evaluate the performance of an improved, algorithmic and standardised method called the Pharmacovigilance-Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (PV-RUCAM), to support assessment of suspected DILI. Performance was compared in different settingswith regard to applicability and differentiation capacity. A PV-RUCAM score was developed based on the seven sections contained in the original RUCAM. The score provides cut-off values for or against DILI causality, and was applied on two datasets of bona fide individual case safety reports (ICSRs) extracted randomly from clinical trial reports and a third dataset of electronic health records from a global PV database. The performance of PV-RUCAM adjudication was compared against two standards: a validated causality assessment method (original RUCAM) and global introspection. The findings showed moderate agreement against standards. The overall error margin of no false negatives was satisfactory, with 100% sensitivity, 91% specificity, a 25% positive predictive value and a 100% negative predictive value. The Spearman's rank correlation coefficient illustrated a statistically significant monotonic association between expert adjudication and PV-RUCAM outputs (R=0.93). Finally, there was high inter-rater agreement (K w=0.79) between two PV-RUCAM assessors. Within the PV setting of a pharmaceutical company, the PV-RUCAM has the potential to facilitate and improve the assessment done by non-expert PV professionals compared with other methods when incomplete reports must be evaluated for suspected DILI. Prospective validation of the algorithmic toolis necessary prior to implementation for routine use.

Categorization of drugs implicated in causing liver injury: Critical assessment based on published case reports.

An important element in assessing causality in drug-induced liver injury is whether the implicated agent is known to cause hepatotoxicity. We classified drugs into categories based on the number of published reports of convincingly documented, clinically apparent, idiosyncratic liver injury. Drugs described in the website LiverTox (http://livertox.nih.gov) were classified into five categories based on the number of published cases (category A, ≥50; category B, 12-49; category C, 4-11; category D, 1-3; category E, none). Case reports in categories C and D were individually reanalyzed using the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method. Drugs with fatal cases or with rechallenge were noted. Among 671 individual drugs or closely related agents, 353 (53%) were considered convincingly linked to liver injury in published case reports; 48 (13%) were assigned to category A, 76 (22%) were assigned to category B, 96 (27%) were assigned to category C, and 126 (36%) were assigned to category D. Another 7 (2%) were direct hepatotoxins but only in high doses and placed in a separate category (T). The remaining 318 (47%) drugs had no convincing case report of hepatoxicity in the literature (category E). All except one in category A have been available since 1999, 98% had at least one fatal case and 89% a positive rechallenge. In category B, 54% had a fatal case and 41% a rechallenge. Drugs in categories C and D less frequently had instances of fatal (23% and 7%) or rechallenge cases (26% and 11%). Documentation of hepatoxicity in the medical literature is variable, and many published instances do not stand up to critical review. A standardized system for categorizing drugs for hepatotoxicity potential will help develop objective and reliable, computer-based instruments for assessing causality in drug-induced liver injury.

Evidence chain-based causality identification in herb-induced liver injury: exemplification of a well-known liver-restorative herb Polygonum multiflorum.

Herbal medicines have recently been recognized as the second most common cause of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) in the United States. However, reliable methods to identify the DILI causality of some herbs, such as Heshouwu (dried root of Polygonum multiflorum), remain lacking. In this study, a total of 12 307 inpatients with liver dysfunction and 147 literature-reported cases of Heshouwu DILI were screened. A general algorithm indicated that only 22.5% (9/40) and 30.6% (45/147) of all hospitalization and literature case reports, respectively, demonstrate the high probability of DILI causality of Heshouwu. By contrast, 95% (19/20) of all cases prospectively investigated by pharmacognosy, phytochemistry, and metabolomic tests exhibited highly probable causality, including a patient who was previously incorrectly attributed and a case that was excluded from Heshouwu causality by pharmacognostic evidence. Toxin (heavy metals, pesticides, and mycotoxins) contamination was also excluded from Heshouwu DILI causality. The objectivity of these screening methods for Heshouwu DILI diagnosis addresses safety concerns regarding stilbene-containing herbal medicines and dietary supplements.

MetaHeps® – A novel method to assess causality in drug-induced liver injury (DILI)

MetaHeps® – A novel method to assess causality in drug-induced liver injury (DILI)

Drug and herb induced liver injury: Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences scale for causality assessment.

Causality assessment of suspected drug induced liver injury (DILI) and herb induced liver injury (HILI) is hampered by the lack of a standardized approach to be used by attending physicians and at various subsequent evaluating levels. The aim of this review was to analyze the suitability of the liver specific Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) scale as a standard tool for causality assessment in DILI and HILI cases. PubMed database was searched for the following terms: drug induced liver injury; herb induced liver injury; DILI causality assessment; and HILI causality assessment. The strength of the CIOMS lies in its potential as a standardized scale for DILI and HILI causality assessment. Other advantages include its liver specificity and its validation for hepatotoxicity with excellent sensitivity, specificity and predictive validity, based on cases with a positive reexposure test. This scale allows prospective collection of all relevant data required for a valid causality assessment. It does not require expert knowledge in hepatotoxicity and its results may subsequently be refined. Weaknesses of the CIOMS scale include the limited exclusion of alternative causes and qualitatively graded risk factors. In conclusion, CIOMS appears to be suitable as a standard scale for attending physicians, regulatory agencies, expert panels and other scientists to provide a standardized, reproducible causality assessment in suspected DILI and HILI cases, applicable primarily at all assessing levels involved.

Drug- and Herb-Induced Liver Injury in Clinical and Translational Hepatology: Causality Assessment Methods, Quo Vadis?

Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) and herb-induced liver injury (HILI) are typical diseases of clinical and translational hepatology. Their diagnosis is complex and requires an experienced clinician to translate basic science into clinical judgment and identify a valid causality algorithm. To prospectively assess causality starting on the day DILI or HILI is suspected, the best approach for physicians is to use the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) scale in its original or preferably its updated version. The CIOMS scale is validated, liver-specific, structured, and quantitative, providing final causality grades based on scores of specific items for individual patients. These items include latency period, decline in liver values after treatment cessation, risk factors, co-medication, alternative diagnoses, hepatotoxicity track record of the suspected product, and unintentional re-exposure. Provided causality is established as probable or highly probable, data of the CIOMS scale with all individual items, a short clinical report, and complete raw data should be transmitted to the regulatory agencies, manufacturers, expert panels, and possibly to the scientific community for further refinement of the causality evaluation in a setting of retrospective expert opinion. Good-quality case data combined with thorough CIOMS-based assessment as a standardized approach should avert subsequent necessity for other complex causality assessment methods that may have inter-rater problems because of poor-quality data. In the future, the CIOMS scale will continue to be the preferred tool to assess causality of DILI and HILI cases and should be used consistently, both prospectively by physicians, and retrospectively for subsequent expert opinion if needed. For comparability and international harmonization, all parties assessing causality in DILI and HILI cases should attempt this standardized approach using the updated CIOMS scale.

Causality of Drugs Involved in Acute Liver Failure Leading to Transplantation: Results from the Study of Acute Liver Transplant (SALT)

Several methods have been proposed to assess causality in drug-induced liver injury but none have been tested in the specific context of acute liver failure leading to transplantation (ALFT). We took advantage of the Study of Acute Liver Transplant (SALT), a European case-population study of ALFT, to test different causality scales. Causality was assessed by experts in SALT, a 7-country case-population study from 2005 to 2007 of adult otherwise unexplained ALFT, for all drugs found within 30 days prior to the date of initial symptoms of liver disease (index date), using information content, causality scales, and data circuit determined from a pilot study, Salome. The consensus points from Salome were to provide full data on drugs including international non-proprietary name (INN) and doses except for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and to use the World Health Organization (WHO) causality scale. In SALT, among the 9,479 identified patients, 600 (6.3%) were cases of ALFT, of which 187 had been exposed to drugs within 30 days, without overdose. In 130 (69.5%) of these the causality score was possible, probable, or highly probable. In ALFT cases, once other clinical causes have been excluded and drug exposure established within 30 days, the main discriminant characteristic for causality will be previous knowledge of possible hepatotoxicity.

Causality assessment in drug-induced liver injury using a structured expert opinion process: Comparison to the Roussel-Uclaf causality assessment method

Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is largely a diagnosis of exclusion and is therefore challenging. The US Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN) prospective study used two methods to assess DILI causality: a structured expert opinion process and the Roussel-Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM). Causality assessment focused on detailed clinical and laboratory data from patients with suspected DILI. The adjudication process used standardized numerical and descriptive definitions and scored cases as definite, highly likely, probable, possible, or unlikely. Results of the structured expert opinion procedure were compared with those derived by the RUCAM approach. Among 250 patients with suspected DILI, the expert opinion adjudication process scored 78 patients (31%) as definite, 102 (41%) as highly likely, 37 (15%) as probable, 25 (10%) as possible, and 8 (3%) as unlikely. Among 187 enrollees who had received a single implicated drug, initial complete agreement was reached for 50 (27%) with the expert opinion process and for 34 (19%) with a five-category RUCAM scale (P = 0.08), and the two methods demonstrated a modest correlation with each other (Spearman's r = 0.42, P = 0.0001). Importantly, the RUCAM approach substantially shifted the causality likelihood toward lower probabilities in comparison with the DILIN expert opinion process. The structured DILIN expert opinion process produced higher agreement rates and likelihood scores than RUCAM in assessing causality, but there was still considerable interobserver variability in both. Accordingly, a more objective, reliable, and reproducible means of assessing DILI causality is still needed.

Causality Assessment in Drug-Induced Liver Injury

Assigning causality in drug-induced liver injury (DILI) due to a particular medication or herbal and dietary supplement relies on clinical history, exclusion of competing causes, prior reports of DILI, and judgment-no objective laboratory or histological tests exist to confirm a diagnosis of suspected DILI. Current causality assessment instruments are based on algorithmic scoring systems but are not widely used. Expert opinion remains the gold standard, but is cumbersome and has limited reproducibility. The lack of a valid and widely available causality assessment method hinders the identification of genetic and biochemical markers that may help better define DILI. Emerging technologies in pharmacogenomics and toxicogenomics may identify such markers if well-defined DILI cases and controls can provide tissue samples for analysis. In this article, current causality assessment instruments, including expert opinion, are discussed, and the necessary features for an improved instrument are provided.

Reliability of the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method for assessing causality in drug-induced liver injury

The Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) was developed to quantify the strength of association between a liver injury and the medication implicated as causing the injury. However, its reliability in a research setting has never been fully explored. The aim of this study was to determine test-retest and interrater reliabilities of RUCAM in retrospectively-identified cases of drug induced liver injury. The Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network is enrolling well-defined cases of hepatotoxicity caused by isoniazid, phenytoin, clavulanate/amoxicillin, or valproate occurring since 1994. Each case was adjudicated by three reviewers working independently; after an interval of at least 5 months, cases were readjudicated by the same reviewers. A total of 40 drug-induced liver injury cases were enrolled including individuals treated with isoniazid (nine), phenytoin (five), clavulanate/amoxicillin (15), and valproate (11). Mean +/- standard deviation age at protocol-defined onset was 44.8 +/- 19.5 years; patients were 68% female and 78% Caucasian. Cases were classified as hepatocellular (44%), mixed (28%), or cholestatic (28%). Test-retest differences ranged from -7 to +8 with complete agreement in only 26% of cases. On average, the maximum absolute difference among the three reviewers was 3.1 on the first adjudication and 2.7 on the second, although much of this variability could be attributed to differences between the enrolling investigator and the external reviewers. The test-retest reliability by the same assessors was 0.54 (upper 95% confidence limit = 0.77); the interrater reliability was 0.45 (upper 95% confidence limit = 0.58). Categorizing the RUCAM to a five-category scale improved these reliabilities but only marginally. The mediocre reliability of the RUCAM is problematic for future studies of drug-induced liver injury. Alternative methods, including modifying the RUCAM, developing drug-specific instruments, or causality assessment based on expert opinion, may be more appropriate.

Assessment of drug‐induced liver injury in clinical practice

Currently, pharmaceutical preparations are serious contributors to liver disease, with hepatotoxicity ranking as the most frequent cause for acute liver failure and post-marketing regulatory decisions. The diagnostic approach of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is still rudimentary and inaccurate because of the lack of reliable markers for use in general clinical practice. To incriminate any given drug in an episode of liver dysfunction is a step-by-step process that requires a high degree of suspicion, compatible chronology, awareness of the drug's hepatotoxic potential, the exclusion of alternative causes of liver damage, and the ability to detect the presence of subtle data that favour a toxic aetiology. Clinical and laboratory data may also be assessed with algorithms or clinical scales, which may add consistency to the clinical judgment by translating the suspicion into a quantitative score. The CIOMS/RUCAM instrument is considered at present the best method for assessing causality in DILI, although it could be improved through the use of large database of bona fide DILI cases for validation criteria.

Reliability of the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method for assessing causality in drug-induced liver injury

Reliability of the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method for assessing causality in drug-induced liver injury

Prolonged cholestasis after raloxifene and fenofibrate interaction: A case report.

Assigning causality in drug-induced liver injury is challenging particularly when more than one drug could be responsible. We report a woman on long-term therapy with raloxifen who developed acute cholestasis shortly after starting fenofibrate. The picture evolved into chronic cholestasis. We hypothesized that an interaction at the metabolic level could have triggered the presentation of hepatotoxicity after a very short time of exposure to fenofibrate in this patient. The findings of an overexpression of vascular endothelial growth factor in the liver biopsy suggest that angiogenesis might play a role in the persistence of toxic cholestasis.