Value of liver biopsy in the diagnosis of drug-induced liver injury.
Histology
accuracy
assessment
causality
Journal
Journal of hepatology
ISSN: 1600-0641
Titre abrégé: J Hepatol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8503886
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2022
05 2022
Historique:
received:
18
06
2021
revised:
02
12
2021
accepted:
28
12
2021
pubmed:
26
1
2022
medline:
21
4
2022
entrez:
25
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The utility of liver biopsy in diagnosing or staging idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is unclear. The aim of this study was to determine whether liver histology impacted causality assessment in suspected DILI using a novel simulation model. Fifty patients enrolled in the DILI Network (DILIN) who had liver biopsies performed within 60 days of DILI onset were randomly selected. All had standard DILIN consensus causality scoring using a 5-point scale (1=definite, 2=highly likely, 3=probable, 4=possible, 5=unlikely) based on 6-month post-injury data. Three experienced hepatologists independently performed a causality assessment using redacted case records, with the biopsy and selected post-biopsy laboratory data removed. The 3 hepatologists also reviewed the liver histology with a hepatopathologist and then repeated causality assessment for each case. Of the 50 cases, there were 42 high causality DILI cases (1, 2 or 3) and 8 low causality cases (4 and 5). The hepatologists judged that liver biopsy was indicated in 62% of patients; after histology review, biopsy was judged to have been helpful in 70% of patients. Histology review changed the causality score in 68% of patients, with an increase in DILI likelihood in 48% and a decrease in 20%. Biopsy results changed diagnostic certainty from less certain (3 or 4) to highly certain (1, 2 or 5) in 38% of patients. Liver histologic findings may help clarify the diagnosis of DILI. Histology appears to be particularly helpful in cholestatic or equivocal cases of DILI (possible or probable), shifting assessment toward a greater or lower certainty of a DILI diagnosis. The utility of liver biopsy in diagnosing or staging idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is unclear. Herein, we show that, in patients with suspected DILI, a liver biopsy can help physicians diagnose DILI or other causes of liver injury with more certainty.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND & AIMS
The utility of liver biopsy in diagnosing or staging idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is unclear. The aim of this study was to determine whether liver histology impacted causality assessment in suspected DILI using a novel simulation model.
METHODS
Fifty patients enrolled in the DILI Network (DILIN) who had liver biopsies performed within 60 days of DILI onset were randomly selected. All had standard DILIN consensus causality scoring using a 5-point scale (1=definite, 2=highly likely, 3=probable, 4=possible, 5=unlikely) based on 6-month post-injury data. Three experienced hepatologists independently performed a causality assessment using redacted case records, with the biopsy and selected post-biopsy laboratory data removed. The 3 hepatologists also reviewed the liver histology with a hepatopathologist and then repeated causality assessment for each case.
RESULTS
Of the 50 cases, there were 42 high causality DILI cases (1, 2 or 3) and 8 low causality cases (4 and 5). The hepatologists judged that liver biopsy was indicated in 62% of patients; after histology review, biopsy was judged to have been helpful in 70% of patients. Histology review changed the causality score in 68% of patients, with an increase in DILI likelihood in 48% and a decrease in 20%. Biopsy results changed diagnostic certainty from less certain (3 or 4) to highly certain (1, 2 or 5) in 38% of patients.
CONCLUSIONS
Liver histologic findings may help clarify the diagnosis of DILI. Histology appears to be particularly helpful in cholestatic or equivocal cases of DILI (possible or probable), shifting assessment toward a greater or lower certainty of a DILI diagnosis.
LAY SUMMARY
The utility of liver biopsy in diagnosing or staging idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is unclear. Herein, we show that, in patients with suspected DILI, a liver biopsy can help physicians diagnose DILI or other causes of liver injury with more certainty.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35074471
pii: S0168-8278(22)00014-9
doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.12.043
pmc: PMC9018618
mid: NIHMS1790115
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Dyphylline
263T0E9RR9
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Intramural
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1070-1078Subventions
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : U01 DK065211
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : U24 DK065176
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : U01 DK083020
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : U01 DK065184
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : U01 DK065201
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : U01 DK100928
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest JA, HXB, MG, PHH, JAO, DR, SR, JS, DEK: No conflict of interest to disclose. MB: Speaker: Abbvie, Gilead, Intercept. Research support: Viking, Intercept, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Assembly Biosciences, Allergan, Genfit. HLT: Spouse is an Abbvie employee and holds stocks in Abbott, Abbvie, Gilead and HLT consulted for Trevena Inc. and Novo Nordisk. Please refer to the accompanying ICMJE disclosure forms for further details.
Références
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Jul;13(7):1328-1336.e2
pubmed: 25528012
Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Oct;110(10):1450-9
pubmed: 26346867
Drug Saf. 2009;32(1):55-68
pubmed: 19132805
Hepatology. 2014 Feb;59(2):661-70
pubmed: 24037963
J Clin Epidemiol. 1993 Nov;46(11):1331-6
pubmed: 8229111
Hepatology. 2017 Apr;65(4):1267-1277
pubmed: 27981596
Hepatology. 2010 Jun;51(6):2117-26
pubmed: 20512999
Hepatology. 2011 Sep 2;54(3):931-9
pubmed: 21674554
Gastroenterology. 2015 Jun;148(7):1340-52.e7
pubmed: 25754159