Liver Injury in People With HIV on Antituberculosis and/or Antiretroviral Therapy-Assessing Causality Using the Updated Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method.
H M Gunter, G Tatz, G Maartens, C W Spearman, U Mehta, K Cohen
{"title":"Liver Injury in People With HIV on Antituberculosis and/or Antiretroviral Therapy-Assessing Causality Using the Updated Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method.","authors":"H M Gunter, G Tatz, G Maartens, C W Spearman, U Mehta, K Cohen","doi":"10.1002/pds.5883","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We compared performance of the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) with multidisciplinary expert panel review in identifying a drug-induced liver injury (DILI) due to antituberculosis therapy (ATT) and/or antiretroviral therapy (ART).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cases were drawn from a prospective registry of hospitalised adults with suspected DILI due to ATT and/or ART in Cape Town, South Africa. Participants had to fulfil American Thoracic Society criteria for ATT interruption (alanine transaminase [ALT] ≥5 times upper limit of normal [ULN]/ALT ≥3 times [ULN] and symptomatic). Causality assessment by expert panel review served as reference standard. The panel ranked potentially implicated drugs as certain, probable, possible or unlikely causes guided by World Health Organization Uppsala Monitoring Centre criteria. The RUCAM was performed for each potentially implicated drug. We calculated sensitivity and specificity of the RUCAM in identifying a probable/certain drug cause for liver injury.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 48 participants. All were people with HIV (PWH). Twenty-seven were on concomitant ART and ATT, with a median of six potentially hepatotoxic drugs per case. Sensitivity and specificity of the RUCAM in identifying a probable/certain drug cause of liver injury compared with expert panel review was 7% and 100% respectively. Implicated drugs (times ranked probable/certain by panel) were isoniazid (18/0), pyrazinamide (17/0), rifampicin (15/1), efavirenz (6/4) and lopinavir/ritonavir (1/0).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PWH with liver injury received multiple potentially implicated drugs, which may increase liver injury risk and complicate causality assessment. Compared with expert panel review, the RUCAM had low sensitivity in detecting probable or certain drug causes of liver injury.</p>","PeriodicalId":19782,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","volume":"33 10","pages":"e5883"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.5883","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: We compared performance of the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) with multidisciplinary expert panel review in identifying a drug-induced liver injury (DILI) due to antituberculosis therapy (ATT) and/or antiretroviral therapy (ART).
Methods: Cases were drawn from a prospective registry of hospitalised adults with suspected DILI due to ATT and/or ART in Cape Town, South Africa. Participants had to fulfil American Thoracic Society criteria for ATT interruption (alanine transaminase [ALT] ≥5 times upper limit of normal [ULN]/ALT ≥3 times [ULN] and symptomatic). Causality assessment by expert panel review served as reference standard. The panel ranked potentially implicated drugs as certain, probable, possible or unlikely causes guided by World Health Organization Uppsala Monitoring Centre criteria. The RUCAM was performed for each potentially implicated drug. We calculated sensitivity and specificity of the RUCAM in identifying a probable/certain drug cause for liver injury.
Results: We included 48 participants. All were people with HIV (PWH). Twenty-seven were on concomitant ART and ATT, with a median of six potentially hepatotoxic drugs per case. Sensitivity and specificity of the RUCAM in identifying a probable/certain drug cause of liver injury compared with expert panel review was 7% and 100% respectively. Implicated drugs (times ranked probable/certain by panel) were isoniazid (18/0), pyrazinamide (17/0), rifampicin (15/1), efavirenz (6/4) and lopinavir/ritonavir (1/0).
Conclusions: PWH with liver injury received multiple potentially implicated drugs, which may increase liver injury risk and complicate causality assessment. Compared with expert panel review, the RUCAM had low sensitivity in detecting probable or certain drug causes of liver injury.
期刊介绍：
The aim of Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety is to provide an international forum for the communication and evaluation of data, methods and opinion in the discipline of pharmacoepidemiology. The Journal publishes peer-reviewed reports of original research, invited reviews and a variety of guest editorials and commentaries embracing scientific, medical, statistical, legal and economic aspects of pharmacoepidemiology and post-marketing surveillance of drug safety. Appropriate material in these categories may also be considered for publication as a Brief Report.
Particular areas of interest include:
design, analysis, results, and interpretation of studies looking at the benefit or safety of specific pharmaceuticals, biologics, or medical devices, including studies in pharmacovigilance, postmarketing surveillance, pharmacoeconomics, patient safety, molecular pharmacoepidemiology, or any other study within the broad field of pharmacoepidemiology;
comparative effectiveness research relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics, and medical devices. Comparative effectiveness research is the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition, as these methods are truly used in the real world;
methodologic contributions of relevance to pharmacoepidemiology, whether original contributions, reviews of existing methods, or tutorials for how to apply the methods of pharmacoepidemiology;
assessments of harm versus benefit in drug therapy;
patterns of drug utilization;
relationships between pharmacoepidemiology and the formulation and interpretation of regulatory guidelines;
evaluations of risk management plans and programmes relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics and medical devices.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
