Nomenclature, diagnosis and management of drug-induced autoimmune-like hepatitis (DI-ALH): An expert opinion meeting report.

Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) can mimic almost all other liver disorders. A phenotype increasingly ascribed to drugs is autoimmune-like hepatitis (ALH). This article summarises the major topics discussed at a joint International Conference held between the Drug-Induced Liver Injury consortium and the International Autoimmune Hepatitis Group. DI-ALH is a liver injury with laboratory and/or histological features that may be indistinguishable from those of autoimmune hepatitis (AIH). Previous studies have revealed that patients with DI-ALH and those with idiopathic AIH have very similar clinical, biochemical, immunological and histological features. Differentiating DI-ALH from AIH is important as patients with DI-ALH rarely require long-term immunosuppression and the condition often resolves spontaneously after withdrawal of the implicated drug, whereas patients with AIH mostly require long-term immunosuppression. Therefore, revision of the diagnosis on long-term follow-up may be necessary in some cases. More than 40 different drugs including nitrofurantoin, methyldopa, hydralazine, minocycline, infliximab, herbal and dietary supplements (such as Khat and Tinospora cordifolia) have been implicated in DI-ALH. Understanding of DI-ALH is limited by the lack of specific markers of the disease that could allow for a precise diagnosis, while there is similarly no single feature which is diagnostic of AIH. We propose a management algorithm for patients with liver injury and an autoimmune phenotype. There is an urgent need to prospectively evaluate patients with DI-ALH systematically to enable definitive characterisation of this condition.

Ashwagandha-induced liver injury: A case series from Iceland and the US Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Ashwagandha (Withania somnifera) is widely used in Indian Ayurvedic medicine. Several dietary supplements containing ashwagandha are marketed in the US and Europe, but only one case of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) due to ashwagandha has been published. The aim of this case series was to describe the clinical phenotype of suspected ashwagandha-induced liver injury. METHODS: Five cases of liver injury attributed to ashwagandha-containing supplements were identified; three were collected in Iceland during 2017-2018 and two from the Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN) in 2016. Other causes for liver injury were excluded. Causality was assessed using the DILIN structured expert opinion causality approach. RESULTS: Among the five patients, three were males; mean age was 43 years (range 21-62). All patients developed jaundice and symptoms such as nausea, lethargy, pruritus and abdominal discomfort after a latency of 2-12 weeks. Liver injury was cholestatic or mixed (R ratios 1.4-3.3). Pruritus and hyperbilirubinaemia were prolonged (5-20 weeks). No patient developed hepatic failure. Liver tests normalized within 1-5 months in four patients. One patient was lost to follow-up. One biopsy was performed, showing acute cholestatic hepatitis. Chemical analysis confirmed ashwagandha in available supplements; no other toxic compounds were identified. No patient was taking potentially hepatotoxic prescription medications, although four were consuming additional supplements, and in one case, rhodiola was a possible causative agent along with ashwagandha. CONCLUSIONS: These cases illustrate the hepatotoxic potential of ashwagandha. Liver injury is typically cholestatic or mixed with severe jaundice and pruritus, but self-limited with liver tests normalizing in 1-5 months.

Severe and protracted cholestasis in 44 young men taking bodybuilding supplements: assessment of genetic, clinical and chemical risk factors.

BACKGROUND: Bodybuilding supplements can cause a profound cholestatic syndrome. AIM: To describe the drug-Induced liver injury network's experience with liver injury due to bodybuilding supplements. METHODS: Liver injury pattern, severity and outcomes, potential genetic associations, and exposure to anabolic steroids by product analysis were analysed in prospectively enrolled subjects with bodybuilding supplement-induced liver injury with causality scores of probable or higher. RESULTS: Forty-four males (mean age 33 years) developed liver injury with a median latency of 73 days. Forty-one per cent presented with hepatocellular pattern of liver injury as defined by the R > 5 ([Fold elevation of ALT] ÷ [Fold elevation of Alk Phos] (mean, range = 6.4, 0.5-31.4, n = 42) despite all presenting with clinical features of cholestatic liver injury (100% with jaundice and 84% with pruritus). Liver biopsy (59% of subjects) demonstrated a mild hepatitis and profound cholestasis in most without bile duct injury, loss or fibrosis. Seventy-one per cent were hospitalised, and none died or required liver transplantation. In some, chemical analysis revealed anabolic steroid controlled substances not listed on the label. No enrichment of genetic variants associated with cholestatic syndromes was found, although mutations in ABCB11 (present in up to 20%) were significantly different than in ethnically matched controls. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with bodybuilding supplements liver injury uniformly presented with cholestatic injury, which slowly resolved. The ingested products often contained anabolic steroids not identified on the label, and no enrichment in genetic variants was found, indicating a need for additional studies.

Severe Acute Hepatocellular Injury Attributed to OxyELITE Pro: A Case Series.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Herbal and dietary supplement (HDS) hepatotoxicity is increasingly being reported in the USA. This case series describes the presenting clinical features and outcomes of seven patients with liver injury attributed to OxyELITE Pro enrolled in the Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN) study. METHODS: The 6-month outcomes of patients with hepatotoxicity attributed to OxyELITE Pro enrolled in the DILIN prospective registry between 2004 and 2015 are presented. RESULTS: Six of the seven patients (86 %) presented in 2013 with symptoms of hepatitis and acute hepatocellular injury. The median duration of OxyELITE Pro use was 18 weeks (range 5-102 weeks). Median age was 36 years (range 28-62), 86 % were female, and 43 % were Asian. One patient had rash, none had eosinophilia, and three had antinuclear antibody reactivity. The median peak ALT was 2242 U/L, alkaline phosphatase 284 U/L and bilirubin 15.0 mg/dL. Six patients (86 %) were hospitalized, three developed acute liver failure and two underwent liver transplantation. DILIN causality scores for OxyELITE Pro were definite in 1, highly likely in 3, probable in 2, and possible in 1. Four of the five patients without liver transplant recovered completely within 6 months, while one patient had mild residual ALT elevations. CONCLUSIONS: Seven cases of severe acute hepatocellular injury attributed to OxyELITE Pro are reported. These results reinforce the need to assess for HDS supplement use in patients presenting with unexplained acute hepatitis and point to the need for additional regulatory oversight of HDS products.

Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network Causality Assessment: Criteria and Experience in the United States.

Hepatotoxicity due to drugs, herbal or dietary supplements remains largely a clinical diagnosis based on meticulous history taking and exclusion of other causes of liver injury. In 2004, the U.S. Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN) was created under the auspices of the U.S. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases with the aims of establishing a large registry of cases for clinical, epidemiological and mechanistic study. From inception, the DILIN has used an expert opinion process that incorporates consensus amongst three different DILIN hepatologists assigned to each case. It is the most well-established, well-described and vigorous expert opinion process for DILI to date, and yet it is an imperfect standard. This review will discuss the DILIN expert opinion process, its strengths and weaknesses, psychometric performance and future.

Drug-Induced Liver Injury: Pattern Recognition and Future Directions.

Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) remains a significant clinical challenge and is the leading cause of acute liver failure in most countries. An aging population that uses more medications, a constant influx of newly developed drugs and a growing risk from unfamiliar herbal and dietary supplements will make DILI an increasing part of clinical practice. Currently, the most effective strategy for disease management is rapid identification, withholding the inciting agents, supportive care and having a firm understanding of the expected natural history. There are resources available to aid the clinician, including a new online "textbook" as well as causality assessment tools, but a heightened awareness of risk and the disease's varying phenotypes and good history-taking remain cornerstones to diagnosis. Looking ahead, growing registries of cases, pharmacoepidemiology studies and translational research into the mechanisms of injury may produce better diagnostic tools, markers for risk and disease, and prevention and therapeutics.

Reliability of causality assessment for drug, herbal and dietary supplement hepatotoxicity in the Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Because of the lack of objective tests to diagnose drug-induced liver injury (DILI), causality assessment is a matter of debate. Expert opinion is often used in research and industry, but its test-retest reliability is unknown. To determine the test-retest reliability of the expert opinion process used by the Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN). METHODS: Three DILIN hepatologists adjudicate suspected hepatotoxicity cases to one of five categories representing levels of likelihood of DILI. Adjudication is based on retrospective assessment of gathered case data that include prospective follow-up information. One hundred randomly selected DILIN cases were re-assessed using the same processes for initial assessment but by three different reviewers in 92% of cases. RESULTS: The median time between assessments was 938 days (range 140-2352). Thirty-one cases involved >1 agent. Weighted kappa statistics for overall case and individual agent category agreement were 0.60 (95% CI: 0.50-0.71) and 0.60 (0.52-0.68) respectively. Overall case adjudications were within one category of each other 93% of the time, while 5% differed by two categories and 2% differed by three categories. Fourteen per cent crossed the 50% threshold of likelihood owing to competing diagnoses or atypical timing between drug exposure and injury. CONCLUSIONS: The DILIN expert opinion causality assessment method has moderate interobserver reliability but very good agreement within one category. A small but important proportion of cases could not be reliably diagnosed as ≥50% likely to be DILI.

ACG Clinical Guideline: the diagnosis and management of idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury.

Idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is a rare adverse drug reaction and it can lead to jaundice, liver failure, or even death. Antimicrobials and herbal and dietary supplements are among the most common therapeutic classes to cause DILI in the Western world. DILI is a diagnosis of exclusion and thus careful history taking and thorough work-up for competing etiologies are essential for its timely diagnosis. In this ACG Clinical Guideline, the authors present an evidence-based approach to diagnosis and management of DILI with special emphasis on DILI due to herbal and dietary supplements and DILI occurring in individuals with underlying liver disease.

Causality assessment in drug-induced liver injury.

Assigning causality in drug-induced liver injury (DILI) due to a particular medication or herbal and dietary supplement relies on clinical history, exclusion of competing causes, prior reports of DILI, and judgment-no objective laboratory or histological tests exist to confirm a diagnosis of suspected DILI. Current causality assessment instruments are based on algorithmic scoring systems but are not widely used. Expert opinion remains the gold standard, but is cumbersome and has limited reproducibility. The lack of a valid and widely available causality assessment method hinders the identification of genetic and biochemical markers that may help better define DILI. Emerging technologies in pharmacogenomics and toxicogenomics may identify such markers if well-defined DILI cases and controls can provide tissue samples for analysis. In this article, current causality assessment instruments, including expert opinion, are discussed, and the necessary features for an improved instrument are provided.