Show simple item record

A revised electronic version of RUCAM for the diagnosis of DILI

dc.contributor.authorHayashi, Paul H.
dc.contributor.authorLucena, M. Isabel
dc.contributor.authorFontana, Robert J.
dc.contributor.authorBjornsson, Einar S.
dc.contributor.authorAithal, Guruprasad P.
dc.contributor.authorBarnhart, Huiman
dc.contributor.authorGonzalez-Jimenez, Andres
dc.contributor.authorYang, Qinghong
dc.contributor.authorGu, Jiezhun
dc.contributor.authorAndrade, Raul J.
dc.contributor.authorHoofnagle, Jay H.
dc.date.accessioned2022-07-05T21:00:28Z
dc.date.available2023-08-05 17:00:26en
dc.date.available2022-07-05T21:00:28Z
dc.date.issued2022-07
dc.identifier.citationHayashi, Paul H.; Lucena, M. Isabel; Fontana, Robert J.; Bjornsson, Einar S.; Aithal, Guruprasad P.; Barnhart, Huiman; Gonzalez-Jimenez, Andres ; Yang, Qinghong; Gu, Jiezhun; Andrade, Raul J.; Hoofnagle, Jay H. (2022). "A revised electronic version of RUCAM for the diagnosis of DILI." Hepatology (1): 18-31.
dc.identifier.issn0270-9139
dc.identifier.issn1527-3350
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/172950
dc.description.abstractBackground and AimsRoussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) for DILI has been hindered by subjectivity and poor reliability. We sought to improve the RUCAM using data from the Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN) and the Spanish DILI Registry, published literature, and iterative computer modeling.Approach and ResultsRUCAM criteria were updated, clarified, and computerized. We removed criteria 3 (risk factors) for lack of added value and criteria 4 because we felt it more useful to assess each drug separately. Criteria 6 (drug-specific risk) was anchored to LiverTox likelihood scores. Iterative testing in subsets of 50–100 single-agent, nonherbal cases from both registries was done to optimize performance. We used classification tree analysis to establish diagnostic cutoffs for this revised electronic causality assessment method (RECAM) and compared RECAM with RUCAM for correlation with expert opinion diagnostic categories in 194 DILI cases (98 DILIN, 96 Spanish DILI). Area under receiver operator curves for identifying at least probable DILI were the same at 0.89 for RECAM and RUCAM. However, RECAM diagnostic categories have better observed overall agreement with expert opinion (0.62 vs. 0.56 weighted kappa, p = 0.14), and had better sensitivity to detect extreme diagnostic categories (73 vs. 54 for highly likely or high probable, p = 0.02; 65 vs. 48 for unlikely/excluded, p = 0.08) than RUCAM diagnostic categories.ConclusionsRECAM is an evidence-based update that is at least as capable as RUCAM in diagnosing DILI compared with expert opinion but is better than RUCAM at the diagnostic extremes. RECAM’s increased objectivity and clarity will improve precision, reliability, and standardization of DILI diagnosis, but further refinement and validation in other cohorts are needed.
dc.publisherWadsworth
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.titleA revised electronic version of RUCAM for the diagnosis of DILI
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelInternal Medicine and Specialties
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/172950/1/hep32327.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/172950/2/hep32327-sup-0001-Supinfo.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/172950/3/hep32327_am.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/hep.32327
dc.identifier.sourceHepatology
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAndrade R, Lucena M, Fernandez M, Pelaez G, Pachkoria K, Garciaruiz E, et al. Drug-induced liver injury: an analysis of 461 incidences submitted to the Spanish registry over a 10-year period. Gastroenterology. 2005; 129: 512 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gastro.2005.05.006
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShen T, Liu Y, Shang J, Xie Q, Li J, Yan M, et al. Incidence and etiology of drug-induced liver injury in mainland China. Gastroenterology. 2019; 156: 2230 – 41.e11.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBreiman LF, Olshen JH, Stone RA, Friedman CJ. Classification and Regression Trees. Belmont, California: Wadsworth; 1984.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStephens C, Robles-Diaz M, Medina-Caliz I, Garcia-Cortes M, Ortega-Alonso A, Sanabria-Cabrera J, et al. Comprehensive analysis and insights gained from long-term experience of the Spanish DILI registry. J Hepatol. 2021; 75: 86 – 97.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDanan G, Benichou C. Causality assessment of adverse reactions to drugs. 1: A novel method based on the conclusions of international consensus meetings: application to drug-induced liver injuries. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993; 46: 1323 – 30.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChalasani NP, Maddur H, Russo MW, Wong RJ, Reddy KR, et al. ACG clinical guideline: diagnosis and management of idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury. Am J Gastroenterol. 2021; 116: 878 – 98.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAndrade RJ, Aithal GP, Björnsson ES, Kaplowitz N, Kullak-Ublick GA, Larrey D, et al. EASL clinical practice guidelines: drug-induced liver injury. J Hepatol. 2019; 70: 1222 – 61.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKaplowitz N. Causality assessment versus guilt-by-association in drug hepatotoxicity. Hepatology. 2001; 33: 308 – 10.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHayashi PH. Causality assessment in drug-induced liver injury. Semin Liver Dis. 2009; 29: 348 – 56.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGarcía-Cortés M, Stephens C, Lucena MI, Fernández-Castañer A, Andrade RJ, et al. Causality assessment methods in drug induced liver injury: strengths and weaknesses. J Hepatol. 2011; 55: 683 – 91.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDanan G, Teschke R. RUCAM in drug and herb induced liver injury: the update. Int J Mol Sci. 2015; 17: 14.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFontana RJ, Watkins PB, Bonkovsky HL, Chalasani N, Davern T, Serrano J, et al. Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN) prospective study: rationale, design and conduct. Drug Saf. 2009; 32: 55 – 68.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMedina-Caliz I, Garcia-Cortes M, Gonzalez-Jimenez A, Cabello MR, Robles-Diaz M, Sanabria-Cabrera J, et al. Herbal and dietary supplement-induced liver injuries in the Spanish DILI Registry. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018; 16: 1495 – 502.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNavarro VJ, Barnhart H, Bonkovsky HL, Davern T, Fontana RJ, Grant L, et al. Liver injury from herbals and dietary supplements in the U.S. Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network. Hepatology. 2014; 60: 1399 – 408.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAhmad J, Barnhart HX, Bonacini M, Ghabril MS, Hayashi PH, Odin J, et al. Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network Investigators. Value of liver biopsy in the diagnosis of drug-induced liver injury. J Hepatol. 2022 Jan 21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2021.12.043. [Epub ahead of print].
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAgarwal VK, McHutchison JG, Hoofnagle JH. Important elements for the diagnosis of drug-induced liver injury. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010; 8: 463 – 70.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBjornsson ES, Hoofnagle JH. Categorization of drugs implicated in causing liver injury: critical assessment based on published case reports. Hepatology. 2016; 63: 590 – 603.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLiverTox. Clinical and Research Information on Drug-Induced Liver Injury [Internet]. Categorization Of The Likelihood Of Drug Induced Liver Injury. Bethesda, Maryland: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. 2012. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK547852. [Accessed October 30, 2020]
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHennes EM, Zeniya M, Czaja AJ, Parés A, Dalekos GN, Krawitt EL, et al. Simplified criteria for the diagnosis of autoimmune hepatitis. Hepatology. 2008; 48: 169 – 76.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAithal GP, Watkins PB, Andrade RJ, Larrey D, Molokhia M, Takikawa H, et al. Case definition and phenotype standardization in drug-induced liver injury. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011; 89: 806 – 15.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDakhoul L, Ghabril M, Gu J, Navarro V, Chalasani N, Serrano J, et al. Heavy consumption of alcohol is not associated with worse outcomes in patients with idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury compared to non-drinkers. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018; 16: 722 – 9.e2.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLucena MI, Andrade RJ, Kaplowitz N, García-Cortes M, Fernández MC, Romero-Gomez M, et al. Phenotypic characterization of idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury: the influence of age and sex. Hepatology. 2009; 49: 2001 – 9. Dr. Hayashi is employed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but conclusions in this paper do not reflect any opinions of the FDA. The FDA has not evaluated the findings, assessments or conclusions in this paper.
dc.working.doiNOen
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation 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.