Causality Assessment Methods in Drug-Induced Liver Injury

The LiverTox Paradox-Gaps between Promised Data and Reality Check

The LiverTox database compiles cases of idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (iDILI) with the promised aims to help identify hepatotoxicants and provide evidence-based information on iDILI. Weaknesses of this approach include case selection merely based on published case number and not on a strong causality assessment method such as the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM). The aim of this analysis was to find out whether the promised aims have been achieved by comparison of current iDILI case data with those promised in 2012 in LiverTox. First, the LiverTox criteria of likelihood categories applied to iDILI cases were analyzed regarding robustness. Second, the quality was analyzed in LiverTox cases caused by 46 selected drugs implicated in iDILI. LiverTox included iDILI cases of insufficient quality because most promised details were not fulfilled: (1) Standard liver injury definition; (2) incomplete narratives or inaccurate for alternative causes; and (3) not a single case was assessed for causality with RUCAM, as promised. Instead, causality was arbitrarily judged on the iDILI case number presented in published reports with the same drug. All of these issues characterize the paradox of LiverTox, requiring changes in the method to improve data quality and database reliability. In conclusion, establishing LiverTox is recognized as a valuable effort, but the paradox due to weaknesses between promised data quality and actual data must be settled by substantial improvements, including, for instance, clear definition and identification of iDILI cases after evaluation with RUCAM to establish a robust causality grading.

Idiosyncratic Drug Induced Liver Injury, Cytochrome P450, Metabolic Risk Factors and Lipophilicity: Highlights and Controversies

Progress in understanding the mechanisms of the idiosyncratic drug induced liver injury (iDILI) was highlighted in a scientometric investigation on the knowledge mapping of iDILI throughout the world, but uncertainty remained on metabolic risk factors of iDILI, the focus of the present review article. For the first time, a quantitative analysis of 3312 cases of iDILI assessed for causality with RUCAM (Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method) showed that most drugs (61.1%) were metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoforms: 49.6% by CYP 3A4/5, 24.6% by CYP 2C9, 13.2% by CYP 2E1, 7.3% by CYP 2C19, 3.5% by CYP 1A2 and 1.8% by CYP 2D6. Other studies showed high OR (odds ratio) for drugs metabolized by unspecified CYPs but the iDILI cases were not assessed for causality with RUCAM, a major shortcoming. In addition to critical comments on methodological flaws, several risk factors of iDILI were identified such as high but yet recommended daily drug doses, actual daily drug doses taken by the patients, hepatic drug metabolism and drug lipophilicity. These risk factors are subject to controversies by many experts seen critically also by others who outlined that none of these medication characteristics is able to predict iDILI with high confidence, leading to the statement of an outstanding caveat. It was also argued that all previous studies lacked comprehensive data because the number of examined drugs was relatively small as compared to the number of approved new molecular entities or currently used oral prescription drugs. In conclusion, trends are evident that some metabolic parameters are likely risk factors of iDILI but strong evidence can only be achieved when methodological issues will be successfully met.

Worldwide Use of RUCAM for Causality Assessment in 81,856 Idiosyncratic DILI and 14,029 HILI Cases Published 1993-Mid 2020: A Comprehensive Analysis

Background: A large number of idiosyncratic drug induced liver injury (iDILI) and herb induced liver injury(HILI) cases of variable quality has been published but some are a matter of concern if the cases were not evaluated for causality using a robust causality assessment method (CAM) such as RUCAM (Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method) as diagnostiinjuryc algorithm. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the worldwide use of RUCAM in iDILI and HILI cases. Methods: The PubMed database (1993-30 June 2020) was searched for articles by using the following key terms: Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method; RUCAM; Idiosyncratic drug induced liver injury; iDILI; Herb induced liver injury; HILI. Results: Considering reports published worldwide since 1993, our analysis showed the use of RUCAM for causality assessment in 95,885 cases of liver injury including 81,856 cases of idiosyncratic DILI and 14,029 cases of HILI. Among the top countries providing RUCAM based DILI cases were, in decreasing order, China, the US, Germany, Korea, and Italy, with China, Korea, Germany, India, and the US as the top countries for HILI. Conclusion: Since 1993 RUCAM is certainly the most widely used method to assess causality in IDILI and HILI. This should encourage practitioner, experts, and regulatory agencies to use it in order to reinforce their diagnosis and to take sound decisions.

Herb-induced Liver Injury in Asia and Current Role of RUCAM for Causality Assessment in 11,160 Published Cases

Herb-induced liver injuries (HILI) by traditional herbal medicines are particular challenges in Asian countries, with issues over the best approach to establish causality. The aim of the current analysis was to provide an overview on how causality was assessed in HILI cases from Asian countries and whether the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) was the preferred diagnostic algorithm, as shown before in worldwide evaluated cases of drug-induced liver injury (DILI). Using the PubMed database, publications in English language were preferred to allow for reevaluation by peers. Overall 11,160 HILI cases have assessed causality using RUCAM and were published by first authors working in Asian countries. With 21 evaluable reports, most publications came from mainland China, with Hong Kong and Taiwan, followed by Korea (n=15), Singapore (n=2), and Japan (n=1), while other Asian countries were not contributory. Most publications provided case and RUCAM data of good quality. For better presentation of future cases, however, the following recommendations are given: (1) preference of prospective study design with use of the updated RUCAM version; (2) clear separation of HILI cohorts from those of other herbal products or DILI; (3) case series for epidemiology studies should contain many essential data, possibly also as supplementary material; (4) otherwise, preference of single case reports providing individual case data and RUCAM-based causality gradings, and applying liver test threshold values; and (5) publication in English language journals. In conclusion, China and Korea are top in presenting RUCAM-based HILI cases, other Asian countries are encouraged to follow.

Diagnostic Biomarkers in Liver Injury by Drugs, Herbs, and Alcohol: Tricky Dilemma after EMA Correctly and Officially Retracted Letter of Support

Liver injuries caused by the use of exogenous compounds such as drugs, herbs, and alcohol are commonly well diagnosed using laboratory tests, toxin analyses, or eventually reactive intermediates generated during metabolic degradation of the respective chemical in the liver and subject to covalent binding by target proteins. Conditions are somewhat different for idiosyncratic drug induced liver injury (DILI), for which metabolic intermediates as diagnostic aids are rarely available. Although the diagnosis of idiosyncratic DILI can well be established using the validated, liver specific, structured, and quantitative RUCAM (Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method), there is an ongoing search for new diagnostic biomarkers that could assist in and also confirm RUCAM-based DILI diagnoses. With respect to idiosyncratic DILI and following previous regulatory letters of recommendations, selected biomarkers reached the clinical focus, including microRNA-122, microRNA-192, cytokeratin analogues, glutamate dehydrogenase, total HMGB-1 (High Mobility Group Box), and hyperacetylated HMGB-1 proteins. However, the new parameters total HMGB-1, and even more so the acetylated HMGB-1, came under critical scientific fire after misconduct at one of the collaborating partner centers, leading the EMA to recommend no longer the exploratory hyperacetylated HMGB1 isoform biomarkers in clinical studies. The overall promising nature of the recommended biomarkers was considered by EMA as highly dependent on the outstanding results of the now incriminated biomarker hyperacetylated HMGB-1. The EMA therefore correctly decided to officially retract its Letter of Support affecting all biomarkers listed above. New biomarkers are now under heavy scrutiny that will require re-evaluations prior to newly adapted recommendations. With Integrin beta 3 (ITGB3), however, a new diagnostic biomarker may emerge, possibly being drug specific but tested in only 16 patients; due to substantial remaining uncertainties, final recommendations would be premature. In conclusion, most of the currently recommended new biomarkers have lost regulatory support due to scientific misconduct, requiring now innovative approaches and re-evaluation before they can be assimilated into clinical practice.

Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method for Drug-Induced Liver Injury: Present and Future

Among the causality assessment methods used for the diagnosis of drug-induced liver injury (DILI), Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) remains the most widely used not only for individual cases but also for prospective and retrospective studies worldwide. This first place is justified by the characteristics of the method such as precise definition and classification of the liver injury, which determines the right scale in the scoring system, precise definition of the seven criteria, and the validation approach based on cases with positive rechallenge. RUCAM is used not only for any types of drugs but also for herbal medicines causing herb-induced liver injury, (HILI) and dietary supplements. In 2016, the updated RUCAM provided further specifications of criteria and instructions to improve interobserver variability. Although this method was criticized for criteria such as the age and alcohol consumption, recent consensus meeting of experts has recognized their value and recommended their incorporation into any method. While early studies searching for DILI in large databases especially in electronic medical records were based on codes of diseases or natural language without causality assessment, the recommendation is now to include RUCAM in the search for DILI/HILI. There are still studies on DILI detection or the identification of biomarkers that take into consideration the cases assessed as “possible,” although it is well known that these cases reduce the strength of the association between the cases and the offending compound or the new biomarker to be validated. Attempts to build electronic RUCAM or automatized application of this method were successful despite some weaknesses to be corrected. In the future, more reflections are needed on an expert system to standardize the exclusion of alternative causes according to the clinical context. Education and training on RUCAM should be encouraged to improve the results of the studies and the day-to-day work in pharmacovigilance departments in companies or in regulatory agencies. It is also expected to improve RUCAM with biomarkers or other criteria provided that the validation process replaces expert opinion by robust standards such as those used for the original method.

Idiosyncratic DILI: Analysis of 46,266 Cases Assessed for Causality by RUCAM and Published From 2014 to Early 2019

One of the most difficult challenges in clinical hepatology is the diagnosis of a drug-induced liver injury (DILI). The timing of the events, exclusion of alternative causes, and taking into account the clinical context should be systematically assessed and scored in a transparent manner. RUCAM (Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method) is a well-established diagnostic algorithm and scale to assess causality in patients with suspected DILI. First published in 1993 and updated in 2016, RUCAM is now the worldwide most commonly used causality assessment method (CAM) for DILI. The following manuscript highlights the recent implementation of RUCAM around the world, by reviewing the literature for publications that utilized RUCAM, and provides a review of "best practices" for the use of RUCAM in cases of suspected DILI. The worldwide appreciation of RUCAM is substantiated by the current analysis of 46,266 DILI cases, all tested for causality using RUCAM. These cases derived from 31 reports published from 2014 to early 2019. Their first authors came from 10 countries, with China on top, followed by the US, and Germany on the third rank. Importantly, all RUCAM-based DILI reports were published in high profile journals. Many other reports were published earlier from 1993 up to 2013 in support of RUCAM. Although most of the studies were of high quality, the current case analysis revealed shortcomings in few studies, not at the level of RUCAM itself but rather associated with the work of the users. To ensure in future DILI cases a better performance by the users, a list of essential elements is proposed. As an example, all suspected DILI cases should be evaluated 1) by the updated RUCAM to facilitate result comparisons, 2) according to a prospective study protocol to ensure complete data sets, 3) after exclusion of cases with herb induced liver injury (HILI) from a DILI cohort to prevent confounding variables, and 4) according to inclusion of DILI cases with RUCAM-based causality gradings of highly probable or probable, in order to increase the specificity of the results. In conclusion, RUCAM benefits from its high appreciation and performs well provided the users adhere to published recommendations to prevent confounding variability.

Drug-Induced Liver Injury: Why is the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) Still Used 25 Years After Its Launch?

Launched in 1993 and partially based on the results of an international consensus meeting organized under the auspices of the Council of International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS), the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) is the most used causality assessment tool worldwide for the diagnosis of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) and herb-induced liver injury (HILI) in a large number of epidemiological studies, case reports, and case series. The 25-year experience of RUCAM use confirmed that the success was due to its objective, standardized, and liver-injury-specific approach structured with defined key elements derived from a series of DILI cases with positive rechallenge. Using this series, the validation procedure avoided arbitrary definitions and confirmed scores to key items. The algorithm provides a quantitative causality grading of highly probable, probable, possible, unlikely, or excluded relationship between the liver injury and the suspected product(s). Despite challenges, prospective use of RUCAM fosters case data completeness and transparent causality adjudication in real time, as opposed to subjective opinion resulting from several rounds by experts lacking defined key elements and scores. In 2016, RUCAM was updated with specification of alcohol use and Hepatitis E Virus (HEV) biomarkers and simplified item handling to further reduce inter-observer variability. RUCAM-based probable and highly probable DILI and HILI cases are essential for the detection of new hepatotoxins, confirmation of new biomarkers, description of clinical features and risk factors, and determination of incidence in pharmacoepidemiological studies. This article is intended to encourage systematic use of sophisticated causality assessment methods such as RUCAM to improve DILI and HILI case evaluation and to increase confidence in published cases.

Top-ranking drugs out of 3312 drug-induced liver injury cases evaluated by the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method

INTRODUCTION

A list presenting a valid ranking of drugs most commonly implicated is hardly to be found. Areas covered: Published cases of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) with verified causality using RUCAM (Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method) were used for a ranking of drugs most commonly implicated in causing DILI. Expert opinion: RUCAM-based DILI cases were retrieved from 15 reports published by six international databases of DILI registries and three large medical centers, which provided 3312 cases. Overall 48 drugs with the highest number of DILI cases were listed. Among the top 10 ranking drugs implicated in causing DILI were, in decreasing order: amoxicillin-clavulanate, flucloxacilllin, atorvastatin, disulfiram, diclofenac, simvastatin, carbamazepine, ibuprofen, erythromycin, and anabolic steroids as bodybuilding agents. For these 10 drugs, respective DILI case numbers were highest for Amoxicillin-clavulanate (n=333) and lowest for anabolic steroids (n=26). The author classifies the databases of national DILI registries and large medical centers as best sources of drugs implicated in DILI. Presently discouraged is the use of the LiverTox website because many cases were derived from published cases of poor quality and could previously not be classified as DILI, calling for the inclusion of DILI cases with established causality by the updated RUCAM.

Drug induced liver injury with analysis of alternative causes as confounding variables

AIMS

Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is rare compared to the worldwide frequent acute or chronic liver diseases. Therefore, patients included in series of suspected DILI are at high risk of not having DILI, whereby alternative causes may confound the DILI diagnosis. The aim of this review is to evaluate published case series of DILI for alternative causes.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified using a computerized search of the Medline database for publications from 1993 through 30 October 2017. We used the following terms: drug hepatotoxicity, drug induced liver injury, hepatotoxic drugs combined with diagnosis, causality assessment and alternative causes.

RESULTS

Alternative causes as variables confounding the DILI diagnosis emerged in 22 published DILI case series, ranging from 4 to 47%. Among 13 335 cases of suspected DILI, alternative causes were found to be more likely in 4555 patients (34.2%), suggesting that the suspected DILI was probably not DILI. Biliary diseases such as biliary obstruction, cholangitis, choledocholithiasis, primary biliary cholangitis and primary sclerosing cholangitis were among the most missed diagnoses. Alternative causes included hepatitis B, C and E, cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus, ischemic hepatitis, cardiac hepatopathy, autoimmune hepatitis, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, and alcoholic liver disease.

CONCLUSIONS

In more than one-third of published global DILI case series, alternative causes as published in these reports confounded the DILI diagnosis. In the future, published DILI case series should include only patients with secured DILI diagnosis, preferentially established by prospective use of scored items provided by robust diagnostic algorithms such as the updated Roussel Uclaf causality assessment method.