IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/drugsa/v44y2021i6d10.1007_s40264-021-01051-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Overview of Causality Assessment for Drug-Induced Liver Injury (DILI) in Clinical Trials

Author

Listed:
  • Juliana Hey-Hadavi

    (Pfizer)

  • Daniel Seekins

    (Bristol-Myers Squibb)

  • Melissa Palmer

    (Takeda
    Liver Consulting LLC)

  • Denise Coffey

    (Bristol-Myers Squibb)

  • John Caminis

    (Sanofi)

  • Sandzhar Abdullaev

    (Bristol-Myers Squibb)

  • Meenal Patwardhan

    (AbbVie)

  • Haifa Tyler

    (Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development and Commercialization, Inc.)

  • Ritu Raheja

    (AbbVie)

  • Ann Marie Stanley

    (IQ DILI Consortium)

  • Liliam Pineda-Salgado

    (Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development and Commercialization, Inc.)

  • David L. Bourdet

    (Theravance Biopharma)

  • Raul J. Andrade

    (Universidad de Málaga, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas CIBERehd)

  • Paul H. Hayashi

    (University of North Carolina)

  • Lara Dimick-Santos

    (US Food and Drug Administration)

  • Don C. Rockey

    (Medical University of South Carolina)

  • Alvin Estilo

    (Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development and Commercialization, Inc.)

Abstract

Causality assessment for suspected drug-induced liver injury (DILI) during drug development and following approval is challenging. The IQ DILI Causality Working Group (CWG), in collaboration with academic and regulatory subject matter experts (SMEs), developed this manuscript with the following objectives: (1) understand and describe current practices; (2) evaluate the utility of new tools/methods/practice guidelines; (3) propose a minimal data set needed to assess causality; (4) define best practices; and (5) promote a more structured and universal approach to DILI causality assessment for clinical development. To better understand current practices, the CWG performed a literature review, took a survey of member companies, and collaborated with SMEs. Areas of focus included best practices for causality assessment during clinical development, utility of adjudication committees, and proposals for potential new avenues to improve causality assessment. The survey and literature review provided renewed understanding of the complexity and challenges of DILI causality assessment as well as the use of non-standardized approaches. Potential areas identified for consistency and standardization included role and membership of adjudication committees, standardized minimum dataset, updated assessment tools, and best practices for liver biopsy and rechallenge in the setting of DILI. Adjudication committees comprised of SMEs (i.e., utilizing expert opinion) remain the standard for DILI causality assessment. A variety of working groups continue to make progress in pursuing new tools to assist with DILI causality assessment. The minimum dataset deemed adequate for causality assessment provides a path forward for standardization of data collection in the setting of DILI. Continued progress is necessary to optimize and advance innovative tools necessary for the scientific, pharmaceutical, and regulatory community.

Suggested Citation

  • Juliana Hey-Hadavi & Daniel Seekins & Melissa Palmer & Denise Coffey & John Caminis & Sandzhar Abdullaev & Meenal Patwardhan & Haifa Tyler & Ritu Raheja & Ann Marie Stanley & Liliam Pineda-Salgado & D, 2021. "Overview of Causality Assessment for Drug-Induced Liver Injury (DILI) in Clinical Trials," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 619-634, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:44:y:2021:i:6:d:10.1007_s40264-021-01051-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s40264-021-01051-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40264-021-01051-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40264-021-01051-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:44:y:2021:i:6:d:10.1007_s40264-021-01051-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40264 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.