Reliability of the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method for assessing causality in drug-induced liver injury This is publication #1 from the Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN). Potential conflict of interest: Nothing to report.
Rochon, James; Protiva, Petr; Seeff, Leonard B.; Fontana, Robert John; Liangpunsakul, Suthat; Watkins, Paul B.; Davern, Timothy J.; McHutchison, John G.
2008-10
Citation
Rochon, James; Protiva, Petr; Seeff, Leonard B.; Fontana, Robert J.; Liangpunsakul, Suthat; Watkins, Paul B.; Davern, Timothy; McHutchison, John G. (2008). "Reliability of the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method for assessing causality in drug-induced liver injury This is publication #1 from the Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN). Potential conflict of interest: Nothing to report. ." Hepatology 48(4): 1175-1183. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/61223>
Abstract
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. Conclusion: 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. (H EPATOLOGY 2008.)Publisher
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0270-9139 1527-3350
Other DOIs
PMID
18798340
Types
Article
URI
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=18798340&dopt=citationMetadata
Show full item recordRemediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.