BACKGROUND & AIMS: Because of the lack of objective tests to diagnose drug-induced liver injury (DILI), causality assessment is a matter of debate. Expert opinion is often used in research and industry, but its test-retest reliability is unknown. To determine the test-retest reliability of the expert opinion process used by the Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN). METHODS: Three DILIN hepatologists adjudicate suspected hepatotoxicity cases to one of five categories representing levels of likelihood of DILI. Adjudication is based on retrospective assessment of gathered case data that include prospective follow-up information. One hundred randomly selected DILIN cases were re-assessed using the same processes for initial assessment but by three different reviewers in 92% of cases. RESULTS: The median time between assessments was 938 days (range 140-2352). Thirty-one cases involved >1 agent. Weighted kappa statistics for overall case and individual agent category agreement were 0.60 (95% CI: 0.50-0.71) and 0.60 (0.52-0.68) respectively. Overall case adjudications were within one category of each other 93% of the time, while 5% differed by two categories and 2% differed by three categories. Fourteen per cent crossed the 50% threshold of likelihood owing to competing diagnoses or atypical timing between drug exposure and injury. CONCLUSIONS: The DILIN expert opinion causality assessment method has moderate interobserver reliability but very good agreement within one category. A small but important proportion of cases could not be reliably diagnosed as ≥50% likely to be DILI.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Because of the lack of objective tests to diagnose drug-induced liver injury (DILI), causality assessment is a matter of debate. Expert opinion is often used in research and industry, but its test-retest reliability is unknown. To determine the test-retest reliability of the expert opinion process used by the Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN). METHODS: Three DILIN hepatologists adjudicate suspected hepatotoxicity cases to one of five categories representing levels of likelihood of DILI. Adjudication is based on retrospective assessment of gathered case data that include prospective follow-up information. One hundred randomly selected DILIN cases were re-assessed using the same processes for initial assessment but by three different reviewers in 92% of cases. RESULTS: The median time between assessments was 938 days (range 140-2352). Thirty-one cases involved >1 agent. Weighted kappa statistics for overall case and individual agent category agreement were 0.60 (95% CI: 0.50-0.71) and 0.60 (0.52-0.68) respectively. Overall case adjudications were within one category of each other 93% of the time, while 5% differed by two categories and 2% differed by three categories. Fourteen per cent crossed the 50% threshold of likelihood owing to competing diagnoses or atypical timing between drug exposure and injury. CONCLUSIONS: The DILIN expert opinion causality assessment method has moderate interobserver reliability but very good agreement within one category. A small but important proportion of cases could not be reliably diagnosed as ≥50% likely to be DILI.
Authors: Timothy J Davern; Naga Chalasani; Robert J Fontana; Paul H Hayashi; Petr Protiva; David E Kleiner; Ronald E Engle; Hanh Nguyen; Suzanne U Emerson; Robert H Purcell; Hans L Tillmann; Jiezhun Gu; Jose Serrano; Jay H Hoofnagle Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2011-08-16 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: M Isabel Lucena; Raúl J Andrade; M Carmen Fernández; Ketevan Pachkoria; Gloria Pelaez; José A Durán; Macarena Villar; Luis Rodrigo; Manuel Romero-Gomez; Ramón Planas; Anabel Barriocanal; Joan Costa; Carlos Guarner; Sonia Blanco; José M Navarro; Fernando Pons; Agustin Castiella; Susana Avila Journal: Hepatology Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: David E Kleiner; Elizabeth M Brunt; Mark Van Natta; Cynthia Behling; Melissa J Contos; Oscar W Cummings; Linda D Ferrell; Yao-Chang Liu; Michael S Torbenson; Aynur Unalp-Arida; Matthew Yeh; Arthur J McCullough; Arun J Sanyal Journal: Hepatology Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Naga Chalasani; Robert J Fontana; Herbert L Bonkovsky; Paul B Watkins; Timothy Davern; Jose Serrano; Hongqiu Yang; James Rochon Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2008-09-17 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Robert J Fontana; Paul B Watkins; Herbert L Bonkovsky; Naga Chalasani; Timothy Davern; Jose Serrano; James Rochon Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2009 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Andrew Stolz; Victor Navarro; Paul H Hayashi; Robert J Fontana; Huiman X Barnhart; Jiezhun Gu; Naga P Chalasani; Maricruz M Vega; Herbert L Bonkovsky; Leonard B Seeff; Jose Serrano; Bharathi Avula; Ikhlas A Khan; Elizabeth T Cirulli; David E Kleiner; Jay H Hoofnagle Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Ynto S de Boer; Andrzej S Kosinski; Thomas J Urban; Zhen Zhao; Nanye Long; Naga Chalasani; David E Kleiner; Jay H Hoofnagle Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2016-06-14 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: 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; David L Bourdet; Raul J Andrade; Paul H Hayashi; Lara Dimick-Santos; Don C Rockey; Alvin Estilo Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 5.606