Publication:
A revised electronic version of RUCAM for the diagnosis of DILI.

dc.contributor.authorHayashi, Paul H
dc.contributor.authorLucena, M Isabel
dc.contributor.authorFontana, Robert J
dc.contributor.authorBjornsson, Einar S
dc.contributor.authorAithal, Guruprasad P
dc.contributor.authorBarnhart, Huiman
dc.contributor.authorGonzalez-Jimenez, Andres
dc.contributor.authorYang, Qinghong
dc.contributor.authorGu, Jiezhun
dc.contributor.authorAndrade, Raul J
dc.contributor.authorHoofnagle, Jay H
dc.date.accessioned2023-05-03T14:44:51Z
dc.date.available2023-05-03T14:44:51Z
dc.date.issued2022-03-22
dc.description.abstractRoussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) for DILI has been hindered by subjectivity and poor reliability. We sought to improve the RUCAM using data from the Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN) and the Spanish DILI Registry, published literature, and iterative computer modeling. RUCAM criteria were updated, clarified, and computerized. We removed criteria 3 (risk factors) for lack of added value and criteria 4 because we felt it more useful to assess each drug separately. Criteria 6 (drug-specific risk) was anchored to LiverTox likelihood scores. Iterative testing in subsets of 50-100 single-agent, nonherbal cases from both registries was done to optimize performance. We used classification tree analysis to establish diagnostic cutoffs for this revised electronic causality assessment method (RECAM) and compared RECAM with RUCAM for correlation with expert opinion diagnostic categories in 194 DILI cases (98 DILIN, 96 Spanish DILI). Area under receiver operator curves for identifying at least probable DILI were the same at 0.89 for RECAM and RUCAM. However, RECAM diagnostic categories have better observed overall agreement with expert opinion (0.62 vs. 0.56 weighted kappa, p = 0.14), and had better sensitivity to detect extreme diagnostic categories (73 vs. 54 for highly likely or high probable, p = 0.02; 65 vs. 48 for unlikely/excluded, p = 0.08) than RUCAM diagnostic categories. RECAM is an evidence-based update that is at least as capable as RUCAM in diagnosing DILI compared with expert opinion but is better than RUCAM at the diagnostic extremes. RECAM's increased objectivity and clarity will improve precision, reliability, and standardization of DILI diagnosis, but further refinement and validation in other cohorts are needed.
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/hep.32327
dc.identifier.essn1527-3350
dc.identifier.pmcPMC9233102
dc.identifier.pmid35014066
dc.identifier.pubmedURLhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9233102/pdf
dc.identifier.unpaywallURLhttps://opinvisindi.is/bitstream/20.500.11815/4089/1/A_revised_electronic_version_of_RUCAM_for_the.7.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10668/21995
dc.issue.number1
dc.journal.titleHepatology (Baltimore, Md.)
dc.journal.titleabbreviationHepatology
dc.language.isoen
dc.organizationHospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria
dc.organizationInstituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga-IBIMA
dc.page.number18-31
dc.pubmedtypeJournal Article
dc.pubmedtypeResearch Support, N.I.H., Extramural
dc.pubmedtypeResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
dc.rights.accessRightsopen access
dc.subject.meshCausality
dc.subject.meshChemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury
dc.subject.meshDyphylline
dc.subject.meshElectronics
dc.subject.meshHumans
dc.subject.meshReproducibility of Results
dc.titleA revised electronic version of RUCAM for the diagnosis of DILI.
dc.typeresearch article
dc.type.hasVersionVoR
dc.volume.number76
dspace.entity.typePublication

Files