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

Don C. Rockey, Leonard B. Seeff, James Rochon, James Freston, Naga Chalasani, Maurizio Bonacini, Robert J. Fontana, Paul H. Hayashi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

200 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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. Conclusion: 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2117-2126
Number of pages10
JournalHepatology
Volume51
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2010

Fingerprint

Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury
Expert Testimony
Causality
Observer Variation
Prospective Studies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hepatology

Cite this

Causality assessment in drug-induced liver injury using a structured expert opinion process : Comparison to the Roussel-Uclaf causality assessment method. / Rockey, Don C.; Seeff, Leonard B.; Rochon, James; Freston, James; Chalasani, Naga; Bonacini, Maurizio; Fontana, Robert J.; Hayashi, Paul H.

In: Hepatology, Vol. 51, No. 6, 01.06.2010, p. 2117-2126.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Rockey, Don C. ; Seeff, Leonard B. ; Rochon, James ; Freston, James ; Chalasani, Naga ; Bonacini, Maurizio ; Fontana, Robert J. ; Hayashi, Paul H. / Causality assessment in drug-induced liver injury using a structured expert opinion process : Comparison to the Roussel-Uclaf causality assessment method. In: Hepatology. 2010 ; Vol. 51, No. 6. pp. 2117-2126.
@article{b071c308873e4751b8e8200269d6efa0,
title = "Causality assessment in drug-induced liver injury using a structured expert opinion process: Comparison to the Roussel-Uclaf causality assessment method",
abstract = "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. Conclusion: 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.",
author = "Rockey, {Don C.} and Seeff, {Leonard B.} and James Rochon and James Freston and Naga Chalasani and Maurizio Bonacini and Fontana, {Robert J.} and Hayashi, {Paul H.}",
year = "2010",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/hep.23577",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "51",
pages = "2117--2126",
journal = "Hepatology",
issn = "0270-9139",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Causality assessment in drug-induced liver injury using a structured expert opinion process

T2 - Comparison to the Roussel-Uclaf causality assessment method

AU - Rockey, Don C.

AU - Seeff, Leonard B.

AU - Rochon, James

AU - Freston, James

AU - Chalasani, Naga

AU - Bonacini, Maurizio

AU - Fontana, Robert J.

AU - Hayashi, Paul H.

PY - 2010/6/1

Y1 - 2010/6/1

N2 - 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. Conclusion: 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.

AB - 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. Conclusion: 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77952702755&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77952702755&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/hep.23577

DO - 10.1002/hep.23577

M3 - Article

C2 - 20512999

AN - SCOPUS:77952702755

VL - 51

SP - 2117

EP - 2126

JO - Hepatology

JF - Hepatology

SN - 0270-9139

IS - 6

ER -