IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/drugsa/v48y2025i8d10.1007_s40264-025-01540-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

IQ DILI Consensus Opinion: Best Practices for Rechallenge Following Suspected Drug-Induced Liver Injury in Clinical Trials

Author

Listed:
  • Klaudia Steplewski

    (GSK
    BridgeBio Inc.)

  • Lucy Walker

    (GSK HQ)

  • Nefeteria Coffee

    (Sanofi)

  • Maura Fallon

    (Daiichi Sankyo UK Ltd.)

  • Rie Yonemochi

    (Daiichi Sankyo (China) Holdings Co., LTD)

  • David Alpers

    (Washington University School of Medicine)

  • Don Rockey

    (Digestive Disease Research Center)

  • James Lewis

    (Georgetown University)

  • Eric Cohen

    (AbbVie Inc.)

  • John Caminis

    (Gilead Oncology, Patient Safety, US Parsippany)

  • Judith Hey-Hadavi

    (Pfizer)

  • Raul Jesus Andrade

    (University Hospital-IBIMA, CIBERehd)

  • Melissa Palmer

    (Liver Consulting LLC New York)

Abstract

Rechallenge with study drug after suspected drug-induced liver injury (DILI) during drug development requires a comprehensive assessment of risks and benefits. Lack of universal consensus or societal guidelines makes this decision-making process more challenging and difficult to manage in clinical development. The sparse published literature is biased towards reporting cases of positive rechallenge (recurrent DILI), often with adverse outcomes. The heterogeneity of available data and inconsistent approaches to drug rechallenge likely lead to bias in our perception of the risks of rechallenge, ultimately leaving this topic controversial. The IQ DILI Causality Assessment Working Group, in collaboration with academic and regulatory experts, developed this manuscript with the following objectives: (1) understand and describe current practices via literature review and survey of practices and opinions among drug developers, academic experts, and regulators; (2) propose a consistent and structured approach to decision-making and managing the rechallenge process; (3) facilitate better understanding of the risks and benefits of rechallenge via a standardized approach to collecting rechallenge data, including outcomes and the importance of publishing rechallenge data; and (4) the role of obtaining a liver biopsy, guidance on when a biopsy might be considered, and what histologic findings can assist in making the rechallenge decision. Lastly, knowledge gaps in the drug rechallenge paradigm are highlighted alongside the proposal to standardize the collection and publication of rechallenge data to help address these gaps. This consensus expert opinion does not encourage rechallenge but provides guidance for drug developers to apply a consistent approach to rechallenge.

Suggested Citation

  • Klaudia Steplewski & Lucy Walker & Nefeteria Coffee & Maura Fallon & Rie Yonemochi & David Alpers & Don Rockey & James Lewis & Eric Cohen & John Caminis & Judith Hey-Hadavi & Raul Jesus Andrade & Meli, 2025. "IQ DILI Consensus Opinion: Best Practices for Rechallenge Following Suspected Drug-Induced Liver Injury in Clinical Trials," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 48(8), pages 855-874, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:48:y:2025:i:8:d:10.1007_s40264-025-01540-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s40264-025-01540-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40264-025-01540-x
    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/s40264-025-01540-x?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

    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:48:y:2025:i:8:d:10.1007_s40264-025-01540-x. 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.