Liver Injury in COVID-19 Patients with Drugs as Causatives: A Systematic Review of 996 DILI Cases Published 2020/2021 Based on RUCAM as Causality Assessment Method.

Patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) commonly show abnormalities of liver tests (LTs) of undetermined cause. Considering drugs as tentative culprits, the current systematic review searched for published COVID-19 cases with suspected drug-induced liver injury (DILI) and established diagnosis using the diagnostic algorithm of RUCAM (Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method). Data worldwide on DILI cases assessed by RUCAM in COVID-19 patients were sparse. A total of 6/200 reports with initially suspected 996 DILI cases in COVID-19 patients and using all RUCAM-based DILI cases allowed for a clear description of clinical features of RUCAM-based DILI cases among COVID-19 patients: (1) The updated RUCAM published in 2016 was equally often used as the original RUCAM of 1993, with both identifying DILI and other liver diseases as confounders; (2) RUCAM also worked well in patients treated with up to 18 drugs and provided for most DILI cases a probable or highly probable causality level for drugs; (3) DILI was preferentially caused by antiviral drugs given empirically due to their known therapeutic efficacy in other virus infections; (4) hepatocellular injury was more often reported than cholestatic or mixed injury; (5) maximum LT values were found for alanine aminotransferase (ALT) 1.541 U/L and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) 1.076 U/L; (6) the ALT/AST ratio was variable and ranged from 0.4 to 1.4; (7) the mean or median age of the COVID-19 patients with DILI ranged from 54.3 to 56 years; (8) the ratio of males to females was 1.8-3.4:1; (9) outcome was favorable for most patients, likely due to careful selection of the drugs and quick cessation of drug treatment with emerging DILI, but it was fatal in 19 patients; (10) countries reporting RUCAM-based DILI cases in COVID-19 patients included China, India, Japan, Montenegro, and Spain; (11) robust estimation of the percentage contribution of RUCAM-based DILI for the increased LTs in COVID-19 patients is outside of the current scope. In conclusion, RUCAM-based DILI with its clinical characteristics in COVID-19 patients and its classification as a confounding variable is now well defined, requiring a new correct description of COVID-19 features by removing DILI characteristics as confounders.

Herb-induced liver injury (HILI) with 12,068 worldwide cases published with causality assessments by Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM): an overview.

Herbal products including herbal medicines are worldwide used in large amounts for treating minor ailments and for disease prevention. However, efficacy of most herbal products has rarely been well documented through randomized controlled trials in line with evidence-based medicine concepts, which could be used to estimate the benefit/risk ratio. Instead, much better documented are adverse reactions such as liver injury associated with the consumption of some herbal products, so called herb-induced liver injury (HILI), which represents a clinical challenge. In order to establish HILI as valid diagnosis, the use of a diagnostic algorithms such as Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) is widely recommended, although physicians in some countries are reluctant to use RUCAM for their HILI cases. This review on worldwide HILI and RUCAM, developed as part of the artificial intelligence ideas, reveals that China is the leading country with 24 publications on HILI cases that were all assessed for causality using RUCAM, followed by Korea with 15 reports, Germany with 9 reports, the US with 7 reports, and Spain with 6 reports, whereas the remaining countries provided less than 4 reports. The total number of assessed HILI cases is 12,068 worldwide derived from 80 publications but in each report HILI case numbers were variable in a range from 1 up to 6,971. This figure compares with 46,266 cases of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) published worldwide from 2014 to early 2019 also assessed for causality by RUCAM. The original version of RUCAM was validated and established in 1993 and updated in 2016 that should be used in future HILI cases. RUCAM is an objective, structured, and validated method, specifically designed for liver injury. It is a scoring system including case data elements to be assessed and scored individually to provide a final score in five causality gradings. Among the 11,404/12,068 HILI (94.5%) cases assessable for evaluation, causality gradings were highly probable in 4.2%, probable in 15.5%, possible in 70.3%, and unlikely or excluded in 10.0%. To improve the future reporting of RUCAM based HILI cases, recommendations include the strict adherence to instructions outlined in the updated RUCAM and, in particular, to follow prospective data collection on the cases to ensure completeness of case data. In conclusion, RUCAM can well be used to assess causality in suspected HILI cases, and additional efforts are now required to increase the quality of the reported cases.

Drug Induced Liver Injury: Can Biomarkers Assist RUCAM in Causality Assessment?

Drug induced liver injury (DILI) is a potentially serious adverse reaction in a few susceptible individuals under therapy by various drugs. Health care professionals facing DILI are confronted with a wealth of drug-unrelated liver diseases with high incidence and prevalence rates, which can confound the DILI diagnosis. Searching for alternative causes is a key element of RUCAM (Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method) to assess rigorously causality in suspected DILI cases. Diagnostic biomarkers as blood tests would be a great help to clinicians, regulators, and pharmaceutical industry would be more comfortable if, in addition to RUCAM, causality of DILI can be confirmed. High specificity and sensitivity are required for any diagnostic biomarker. Although some risk factors are available to evaluate liver safety of drugs in patients, no valid diagnostic or prognostic biomarker exists currently for idiosyncratic DILI when a liver injury occurred. Identifying a biomarker in idiosyncratic DILI requires detailed knowledge of cellular and biochemical disturbances leading to apoptosis or cell necrosis and causing leakage of specific products in blood. As idiosyncratic DILI is typically a human disease and hardly reproducible in animals, pathogenetic events and resulting possible biomarkers remain largely undisclosed. Potential new diagnostic biomarkers should be evaluated in patients with DILI and RUCAM-based established causality. In conclusion, causality assessment in cases of suspected idiosyncratic DILI is still best achieved using RUCAM since specific biomarkers as diagnostic blood tests that could enhance RUCAM results are not yet available.

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.

Herbal hepatotoxicity: challenges and pitfalls of causality assessment methods.

The diagnosis of herbal hepatotoxicity or herb induced liver injury (HILI) represents a particular clinical and regulatory challenge with major pitfalls for the causality evaluation. At the day HILI is suspected in a patient, physicians should start assessing the quality of the used herbal product, optimizing the clinical data for completeness, and applying the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) scale for initial causality assessment. This scale is structured, quantitative, liver specific, and validated for hepatotoxicity cases. Its items provide individual scores, which together yield causality levels of highly probable, probable, possible, unlikely, and excluded. After completion by additional information including raw data, this scale with all items should be reported to regulatory agencies and manufacturers for further evaluation. The CIOMS scale is preferred as tool for assessing causality in hepatotoxicity cases, compared to numerous other causality assessment methods, which are inferior on various grounds. Among these disputed methods are the Maria and Victorino scale, an insufficiently qualified, shortened version of the CIOMS scale, as well as various liver unspecific methods such as the ad hoc causality approach, the Naranjo scale, the World Health Organization (WHO) method, and the Karch and Lasagna method. An expert panel is required for the Drug Induced Liver Injury Network method, the WHO method, and other approaches based on expert opinion, which provide retrospective analyses with a long delay and thereby prevent a timely assessment of the illness in question by the physician. In conclusion, HILI causality assessment is challenging and is best achieved by the liver specific CIOMS scale, avoiding pitfalls commonly observed with other approaches.

Clinical and causality assessment in herbal hepatotoxicity.

INTRODUCTION: Herbal hepatotoxicity represents a poorly understood, neglected and multifaceted disease with numerous confounding variables and missing established causality in the majority of cases. This review discusses overt shortcomings in its clinical and causality assessment and suggests improvements. AREAS COVERED: A selective literature search of PubMed using the terms herbal hepatotoxicity, herb-induced liver injury, drug hepatotoxicity and drug-induced liver injury was performed to identify published case reports, spontaneous case reports, case series and review articles regarding hepatotoxicity due to herbs, herbal drugs and herbal dietary supplements. Covered areas focused on confounding variables related to the documentation of the herbal product and the clinical course, hepatotoxicity and reexposure criteria, temporal association, comedication and alternative causes with special attention to preexisting diseases of the liver, bile ducts and the pancreas. Of particular interest were recent discussions of approaches designed and validated for hepatotoxicity causality, such as the scale of CIOMS (Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences). EXPERT OPINION: The authors call for substantial improvements in data quality of herbal products and case characteristics and strongly recommend using the CIOMS scale to assess causality in suspected herbal hepatotoxicity.

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.

Pancreatic cancer screening: state of the art.

Pancreatic cancer is a devastating disease with a median survival of approximately 6 months after diagnosis. Many factors are associated with a worse outcome; examples include late diagnosis, low resection rate, aggressive tumor behavior and a lack of an effective chemotherapy regimen. Owing to the low prevalence of pancreatic cancer relative to the diagnostic accuracy of present detection methods and the absence of promising treatment modalities, even in early stages, it is currently neither advisable nor cost effective to screen the general population. Efforts are focused on early screening of selected high-risk-cohorts, who account for approximately 10% of patients with pancreatic cancer. These include patients with chronic pancreatitis, individuals with a family history of pancreatic cancer, patients with hereditary pancreatitis, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, cystic fibrosis or familial atypical multiple mole melanoma. At present, a multimodal-screening approach of endoscopic ultrasound, computed tomography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography appears to be the most effective method to screen for pancreatic cancer in high-risk patients. Continued efforts are needed to elucidate effective testing to identify patients with nonhereditary risk factors who will benefit from screening protocols. A combined approach of serum markers, genetic markers and specific imaging studies may prove to be the future of pancreatic screening.

Self-expanding metal stents versus plastic prostheses in the palliation of malignant dysphagia: long-term outcome of 153 consecutive patients.

BACKGROUND: Malignant dysphagia due to esophagogastric cancer is associated with poor overall prognosis. Placements of self-expandable metal stents or plastic tubes are established methods as palliative treatment options. As an alternative and/or complementary therapy, radiologic techniques (external beam radiation/brachytherapy) and locally endoscopic techniques (laser, APC-beamer, PDT) are often used. STUDY AND GOALS: Retrospective trial of 153 patients treated in our department between 1993 and 2001. Forty-five patients received a plastic tube (Group A) and 108 patients were treated with metal stents (Group B). Both groups were compared for improvement of dysphagia score, survival, recurrent dysphagia and complications. RESULTS: Stent placement was successful in 41 of 45 (93%) patients of Group A and 107 of 108 (99%) of Group B. The median dysphagia score improved significantly in Group A (from 3.03 to 1.55, P = 0.010) and Group B (from 2.77 to 1.44, P = 0.009). Recurrent dysphagia was noted in 12 of 45 (27%) patients of Group A and 27 of 108 (25%) patients of Group B. Median survival time after stent insertion was 78 days (Group A) and 113 days (Group B). Overall complications occurred in 15 of 45 (33%) patients of Group A and 28 of 108 (26%) patients of Group B. However, significantly (P = 0.05) more major complications were seen in Group A than in Group B (22% vs. 9%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate a marginal clinical benefit for metal stents versus plastic tubes in malignant dysphagia in the long run. However, metal stents seem to be safer and associated with a prolonged improvement of dysphagia score.