The LiverTox Paradox-Gaps between Promised Data and Reality Check

The LiverTox database compiles cases of idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (iDILI) with the promised aims to help identify hepatotoxicants and provide evidence-based information on iDILI. Weaknesses of this approach include case selection merely based on published case number and not on a stron...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Rolf Teschke, Gaby Danan
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2021-09-01
Series:Diagnostics
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/11/10/1754
_version_ 1797514875284488192
author Rolf Teschke
Gaby Danan
author_facet Rolf Teschke
Gaby Danan
author_sort Rolf Teschke
collection DOAJ
description The LiverTox database compiles cases of idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (iDILI) with the promised aims to help identify hepatotoxicants and provide evidence-based information on iDILI. Weaknesses of this approach include case selection merely based on published case number and not on a strong causality assessment method such as the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM). The aim of this analysis was to find out whether the promised aims have been achieved by comparison of current iDILI case data with those promised in 2012 in LiverTox. First, the LiverTox criteria of likelihood categories applied to iDILI cases were analyzed regarding robustness. Second, the quality was analyzed in LiverTox cases caused by 46 selected drugs implicated in iDILI. LiverTox included iDILI cases of insufficient quality because most promised details were not fulfilled: (1) Standard liver injury definition; (2) incomplete narratives or inaccurate for alternative causes; and (3) not a single case was assessed for causality with RUCAM, as promised. Instead, causality was arbitrarily judged on the iDILI case number presented in published reports with the same drug. All of these issues characterize the paradox of LiverTox, requiring changes in the method to improve data quality and database reliability. In conclusion, establishing LiverTox is recognized as a valuable effort, but the paradox due to weaknesses between promised data quality and actual data must be settled by substantial improvements, including, for instance, clear definition and identification of iDILI cases after evaluation with RUCAM to establish a robust causality grading.
first_indexed 2024-03-10T06:37:44Z
format Article
id doaj.art-989f671485f44a6bb5e34ce570ad8e88
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2075-4418
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-10T06:37:44Z
publishDate 2021-09-01
publisher MDPI AG
record_format Article
series Diagnostics
spelling doaj.art-989f671485f44a6bb5e34ce570ad8e882023-11-22T17:56:14ZengMDPI AGDiagnostics2075-44182021-09-011110175410.3390/diagnostics11101754The LiverTox Paradox-Gaps between Promised Data and Reality CheckRolf Teschke0Gaby Danan1Department of Internal Medicine II, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Klinikum Hanau, D-63450 Hanau, GermanyPharmacovigilance Consultancy, F-75020 Paris, FranceThe LiverTox database compiles cases of idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (iDILI) with the promised aims to help identify hepatotoxicants and provide evidence-based information on iDILI. Weaknesses of this approach include case selection merely based on published case number and not on a strong causality assessment method such as the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM). The aim of this analysis was to find out whether the promised aims have been achieved by comparison of current iDILI case data with those promised in 2012 in LiverTox. First, the LiverTox criteria of likelihood categories applied to iDILI cases were analyzed regarding robustness. Second, the quality was analyzed in LiverTox cases caused by 46 selected drugs implicated in iDILI. LiverTox included iDILI cases of insufficient quality because most promised details were not fulfilled: (1) Standard liver injury definition; (2) incomplete narratives or inaccurate for alternative causes; and (3) not a single case was assessed for causality with RUCAM, as promised. Instead, causality was arbitrarily judged on the iDILI case number presented in published reports with the same drug. All of these issues characterize the paradox of LiverTox, requiring changes in the method to improve data quality and database reliability. In conclusion, establishing LiverTox is recognized as a valuable effort, but the paradox due to weaknesses between promised data quality and actual data must be settled by substantial improvements, including, for instance, clear definition and identification of iDILI cases after evaluation with RUCAM to establish a robust causality grading.https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/11/10/1754iDILIidiosyncratic drug-induced liver injuryRoussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM)DILI database case qualityLiverTox
spellingShingle Rolf Teschke
Gaby Danan
The LiverTox Paradox-Gaps between Promised Data and Reality Check
Diagnostics
iDILI
idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury
Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM)
DILI database case quality
LiverTox
title The LiverTox Paradox-Gaps between Promised Data and Reality Check
title_full The LiverTox Paradox-Gaps between Promised Data and Reality Check
title_fullStr The LiverTox Paradox-Gaps between Promised Data and Reality Check
title_full_unstemmed The LiverTox Paradox-Gaps between Promised Data and Reality Check
title_short The LiverTox Paradox-Gaps between Promised Data and Reality Check
title_sort livertox paradox gaps between promised data and reality check
topic iDILI
idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury
Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM)
DILI database case quality
LiverTox
url https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/11/10/1754
work_keys_str_mv AT rolfteschke thelivertoxparadoxgapsbetweenpromiseddataandrealitycheck
AT gabydanan thelivertoxparadoxgapsbetweenpromiseddataandrealitycheck
AT rolfteschke livertoxparadoxgapsbetweenpromiseddataandrealitycheck
AT gabydanan livertoxparadoxgapsbetweenpromiseddataandrealitycheck