Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Drug-Induced Liver Injury: Why is the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) Still Used 25 Years After Its Launch?

  • Current Opinion
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Launched in 1993 and partially based on the results of an international consensus meeting organized under the auspices of the Council of International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS), the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) is the most used causality assessment tool worldwide for the diagnosis of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) and herb-induced liver injury (HILI) in a large number of epidemiological studies, case reports, and case series. The 25-year experience of RUCAM use confirmed that the success was due to its objective, standardized, and liver-injury-specific approach structured with defined key elements derived from a series of DILI cases with positive rechallenge. Using this series, the validation procedure avoided arbitrary definitions and confirmed scores to key items. The algorithm provides a quantitative causality grading of highly probable, probable, possible, unlikely, or excluded relationship between the liver injury and the suspected product(s). Despite challenges, prospective use of RUCAM fosters case data completeness and transparent causality adjudication in real time, as opposed to subjective opinion resulting from several rounds by experts lacking defined key elements and scores. In 2016, RUCAM was updated with specification of alcohol use and Hepatitis E Virus (HEV) biomarkers and simplified item handling to further reduce inter-observer variability. RUCAM-based probable and highly probable DILI and HILI cases are essential for the detection of new hepatotoxins, confirmation of new biomarkers, description of clinical features and risk factors, and determination of incidence in pharmacoepidemiological studies. This article is intended to encourage systematic use of sophisticated causality assessment methods such as RUCAM to improve DILI and HILI case evaluation and to increase confidence in published cases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shahbaz O, Mahajan S, Lewis JH. Highlights of drug- and herb- induced liver injury in the literature from 2016: how best to translate new Information into clinical practice? Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2017;13(9):935–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425255.2017.136239.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Sarges P, Steinberg JM, Lewis JH. Drug-induced liver injury: highlights from a review of the 2015 literature. Drug Saf. 2016;39:561–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s4026401604278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Yu YC, Mao YM, Chen CW, Chen JJ, Chen J, Cong WM, Ding Y, Duan ZP, Fu QC, Guo XY, Hu P, Hu XQ, Jia JD, Lai RT, Li DL, Liu JX, Lu LG, Ma SW, Ma X, Nan YM, Ren H, Shen T, Wang H, Wang JY, Wang TL, Wang XJ, Wei L, Xi Q, Xi W, Yang CQ, Yang DL, Yu YY, Zeng MD, Zhang L, Zhao XY, Zhuang H. CSH guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of drug-induced liver injury. Hepatol Int. 2017;11:221–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12072-017-9793-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Rathi C, Pipaliya N, Patel R, Ingle M, Phadke A, Sawant P. Drug induced liver injury at a tertiary hospital in India: etiology, clinical features and predictors of mortality. Ann Hepatol. 2017;16(3):442–50. https://doi.org/10.5604/16652681.1235488.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhu Y, Niu M, Chen J, Zou ZS, Ma ZJ, Liu SH, Wang RL, He TT, Song HB, Wang ZX, Pu SB, Ma X, Wang L, Bai ZF, Zhao YL, Li YG, Wang JB, Xiao XH. Comparison between Chinese herbal medicine and Western medicine-induced liver injury of 1985 patients. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;31(8):1476–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Danan G, Teschke R. RUCAM in drug and herb induced liver injury: the update. Int. J Mol Sci 2016;17(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17010014. (Article 14).

  7. Teschke R, Schulze J, Eickhoff A, Danan G. Drug induced liver injury: can biomarkers assist RUCAM in causality assessment? Int J Mol Sci 2017; 18(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms18040803. (Article 803).

  8. Hayashi PH. Drug-induced Liver Injury Network causality assessment: Criteria and experience in the United States. Int J Mol Sci 2016; 17(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17020201. (Article 201).

  9. Chen M, Borlak J, Tong W. High lipophilicity and high daily dose of oral medications are associated with significant risk for drug-induced liver injury. Hepatology. 2013;58(1):388–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.26208.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. McEuen K, Borlak J, Tong W, Chen M. Associations of drug lipophilicity and extent of metabolism with drug-induced liver injury. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18(7):1335. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms18071335.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Grove JI, Aithal GP. Human leukocyte antigen genetic risk factors of drug-induced liver toxicology. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2015;11(3):395–409. https://doi.org/10.1517/17425255.2015.992414.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Russmann S, Jetter A, Kullak-Ublick GA. Pharmacogenetics of drug-induced liver injury. Hepatology. 2010;52(2):748–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.23720.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Danan G, Bénichou C. Causality assessment of adverse reactions to drugs—I. A novel method based on the conclusions of international consensus meetings: application to drug-induced liver injuries. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46:1323–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90101-6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bénichou C, Danan G, Flahault A. Causality assessment of adverse reactions to drugs—II. An original model for validation of drug causality assessment methods: case reports with positive rechallenge. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46:1331–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90102-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Teschke R, Danan G. Causality assessment methods in drug-induced liver injury. In: Chen M, Will Y (Eds) Drug-induced liver toxicity, series: methods in pharmacology and toxicology/Y. James Kang & David C. Casey. Springer Protocols), 2018. (In press).

  16. Hutchinson TA, Lane DA. Assessing methods for causality assessment of suspected adverse drug reactions. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:5–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Aithal PG, Rawlins MD, Day CP. Accuracy of hepatic adverse drug reaction reporting in one English health region. Br Med J. 1999;319:1541. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7224.1541.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Teschke R, Frenzel C, Wolff A, Eickhoff A, Schulze J. Drug induced liver injury: accuracy of diagnosis in published reports. Ann Hepatol. 2014;13(2):248–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Teschke R, Genthner A, Wolff A, Frenzel C, Schulze J, Eickhoff A. Herbal hepatotoxicity: analysis of cases with initially reported positive reexposure tests. Dig Liv Dis. 2014;46(3):264–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2013.10.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Teschke R, Schulze J, Schwarzenboeck A, Eickhoff A, Frenzel C. Herbal hepatotoxicity: suspected cases assessed for alternative causes. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;25(9):1093–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/MEG.0b013e3283603e89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zambrone FAD, Corrêa CL, Sampaio do Amaral LM. A critical analysis of the hepatotoxicity cases described in the literature related to Herbalife products. Braz J Pharm Sci. 2015;51(4):785–96. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-82502015000400004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhou Y, Yang L, Liao Z, He X, Zhou Y, Guo H. Epidemiology of drug-induced liver injury in China: a systematic analysis of the Chinese literature including 21789 patients. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;25(7):825–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/MEG.0b013e32835f6889.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hillman L, Gottfried M, Whitsett M, Rakela J, Schilsky M, Lee WM, Ganger D. Clinical features and outcomes of complementary and alternative medicine induced acute liver failure and injury. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111:958–65. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2016.114 (Corrigendum in Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111:1504).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Danan G. Consensus meetings on: causality assessment of drug-induced liver injury. J Hepatol. 1988;7:132–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Bénichou C. Criteria of drug-induced liver disorders. Report of an international consensus meeting. J Hepatol. 1990;11:272–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rockey DC, Seeff LB, Rochon J, Freston J, Chalasani N, Bonachini M, Fontana RJ, Hayashi PH. US drug-induced liver injury network. Causality assessment in drug-induced liver injury using a structured expert opinion process: comparison to the Roussel-Uclaf causality assessment method. Hepatology. 2010;51:2117–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.23577.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Chalasani N, Bonkovsky HL, Fontana R, Lee W, Stolz A, Talwalkar J, Reddy KR, Watkins PB, Navarro V, Barnhart H, Gu J, Serrano J. Features and outcomes of 899 patients with drug-induced liver injury: the DILIN Prospective Study. Gastroenterology. 2015;148(7):1340–52. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2015.03.006.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Kramer MS, Leventhal JM, Hutchinson TA, Feinstein AR. An algorithm for the operational assessment of adverse drug reactions; I. Background, description and instructions for use. JAMA. 1979;242:623–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Hutchinson TA, Leventhal JM, Kramer MS, Karch FE, Lipman AG, Feinstein AR. An algorithm for the operational assessment of adverse drug reactions; II. Demonstration of reproducibility and validity. JAMA. 1979;242:633–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Ortega-Alonso A, Stephens C, Lucena MI, Andrade RJ. Case characterization, clinical features and risk factors in drug-induced liver injury. Int J Mol Sci 2016, 17 (5). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17050714. (Article 714).

  31. Teschke R, Eickhoff A. Herbal hepatotoxicity in traditional and modern medicine: actual key issues and new encouraging steps. Front Pharmacol 2015; 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2015.00072. (Article 72).

  32. Teschke R, Bahre R. Severe hepatotoxicity by Indian Ayurvedic herbal products: a structured causality assessment. Ann Hepatol. 2009;8(3):258–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Teschke R, Schulze J, Eickhoff A, Wolff A, Frenzel C. Review article: Mysterious Hawaii liver disease case—naproxen overdose as cause rather than OxyELITE Pro? J Liver Clin Res. 2015;2(2):1013.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Teschke R, Schwarzenboeck A, Frenzel C, Schulze J, Eickhoff A, Wolff A. The mystery of the Hawaii liver disease cluster in summer 2013: a pragmatic and clinical approach to solve the problem. Ann Hepatol. 2016;15(1):91–118. https://doi.org/10.5604/16652681.1184237.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Teschke R, Danan G. Diagnosis and management of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) in patients with pre-existing liver disease. Drug Saf. 2016;39:729–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-016-0423-z.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Teschke R, Danan G. Drug-induced liver injury: is chronic liver disease a risk factor and a clinical issue? Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2017;13:425–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425255.2017.1252749.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Agarwal VK, McHutchison JG, Hoofnagle JH. Drug-induced liver injury network (DILIN). Important elements for the diagnosis of drug-induced liver injury. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:463–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2010.02.008.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Teschke R, Frenzel C, Schulze J, Schwarzenboeck A, Eickhoff A. Herbalife hepatotoxicity: evaluation of cases with positive reexposure tests. World J Hepatol. 2013;5(7):353–63. https://doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v5.i7.353.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Björnsson ES. Hepatotoxicity by drugs: the most common implicated agents. Int J Mol Sci 2016; 17(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17020224. (Article 224).

  40. Andrade RJ, Roblès M, Lucena MI. Rechallenge in drug-induced liver injury: the attractive hazard. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2009;8(6):709–14. https://doi.org/10.1517/14740330903397378.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Björnsson E, Olsson R. Outcome and prognostic markers in severe drug-induced liver disease. Hepatology. 2005;42:481–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.20800.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Teschke R, Danan G. Prospective Indian study of DILI with confirmed causality using the Roussel Uclaf Causality assessment Method (RUCAM): a report of excellence. Ann Hepatol. 2017;16:324–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Zhang P, Ye Y, Yang X, Jiao Y. Systematic review on Chinese herbal medicine induced liver injury. Evid-Based Complement Alternat Med 2016. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/3560812. (Article ID 3560812).

  44. Andrade RJ, Lucena MI, Fernández MC, Pelaez G, Pachkoria K, García-Ruiz E, García-Muñoz B, Gonzalez-Grande R, Pizarro A, Durán JA, Jiménez M, Rodrigo L, Romero-Gomez M, Navarro JM, Planas R, Costa J, Borras A, Soler A, Salmerón J, Martin-Vivaldi R, Spanish Group for the Study of Drug-induced Liver Disease. Drug-induced liver injury: an analysis of 461 incidences submitted to the Spanish registry over a 10-year period. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:512–21. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2005.05.00.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Teschke R, Eickhoff A. The Honolulu liver disease cluster at the Medical Center: its mysteries and challenges. Int J Mol Sci 2016; 17 (4). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17040476. (Article 476).

  46. Teschke R, Eickhoff A, Schwarzenboeck A, Schmidt-Taenzer W, Genthner A, Frenzel C, Wolff A, Schulze J. Herbal hepatotoxicity and the call for systematic data documentation of individual cases. J Liver Clin Res. 2015;2(1):1008.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Björnsson E, Jacobsen EI, Kalaitzakis E. Hepatotoxicity associated with statins: reports of idiosyncratic liver injury post-marketing. J Hepatol. 2012;56:374–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2011.07.023.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Teschke R, Larrey D, Melchart D, Danan G. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and herbal hepatotoxicity: RUCAM and the role of novel diagnostic biomarkers such as microRNAs. Medicines 2016; 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicines3030018. (Article 18).

  49. Teschke R, Eickhoff A. Suspected liver injury and the dilemma of causality. Dig Dis Sci. 2017;62:1095–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-016-4442-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Navarro VJ, Barnhart H, Bonkovsky HL, Davern T, Fontana RJ, Grant L, Reddy KR, Seeff LB, Serrano J, Averell H, Sherker AH, Stolz A, Talwalkar J, Vega M, Vuppalanchi R. Liver injury from herbals and dietary supplements in the U.S. Drug-induced liver injury network. Hepatology. 2014;60(4):1399–408. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.27317.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Navarro VJ, Barnhart HX, Bonkovsky HL, Reddy KR, Seeff L, Serrano J, Talwalkar JA, Vega M, Vuppalanchi R. Diagnosing hepatotoxicity attributable to herbal and dietary supplements (HDS): test-retest reliability of a novel causality assessment tool. J Hepatol. 2012;56:S536. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-8278(12)61375-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Hayashi PH, Barnhart HX, Fontana RJ, Chalasani N, Davern TJ, Talwalkar JA, Reddy KR, Stolz AA, Hoofnagle JH, Rockey DC. Reliability of causality assessment for drug, herbal and dietary supplement hepatotoxicity in the drug-induced liver injury network (DILIN). Liver Int. 2015;35(5):1623–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/liv.12540.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Miljkovic MM, Dobric S, Dragojevic-Simic V. Consistency between causality assessments obtained with two scales and their agreement with clinical judgments in hepatotoxicity. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20(3):272–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.2081.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Miljkovic MM, Dobric S, Dragojevic-Simic V. Accuracy and reproducibility of two scales in causality assessment of unexpected hepatotoxicity. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2012;37(2):196–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2710.2011.01282.x.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Bessone F, Hernandez, N, Lucena, MI, Andrade RJ, on behalf of the Latin DILI Network (LATINDILIN) and Spanish DILI Registry (2016) The Latin American DILI registry experience: a successful ongoing collaborative strategic initiative. Int J Mol Sci 2016; 17(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17030313. (Article 313).

  56. Teschke R, Andrade R. Drug-induced liver injury: expanding our knowledge by enlarging population analysis with prospective and scoring causality assessment. Gastroenterology. 2015;148:1271–3. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2015.04.027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Teschke R, Andrade RJ. Drug, herb, and dietary supplement hepatotoxicity. Int J Mol Sci 2016; 7(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17091488. (Article 1488).

  58. EMA. Letter of support for drug-induced liver injury (DILI) biomarker. In: Rasi G, editor EMA/423870/2016, 30 September 2016. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2016/09/WC500213479.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2018.

  59. NIH LiverTox website: https://livertox.nih.gov. Accessed 14 Feb 2018.

  60. Cheetham TC, Lee J, Hunt MC, Niu F, Reisinger S, Murray R, Powell G, Papay J. An automated causality assessment algorithm to detect drug-induced liver injury in electronic medical record data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014;6:601–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.3531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Pichler WJ, Tilch J. The lymphocyte transformation test in the diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity. Allergy. 2004;59:809–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Mantani N, Kogure T, Tamura J, Shimada Y, Terasawa K. Lymphocyte transformation test for medicinal herbs yields false-positive results for first-visit patients. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 2003;10:479–80.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Niijima K, Niijima Y, Okada S, Yamada M. Drug-induced liver injury caused by ipragliflozin administration with causality established by a positive lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) and the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM): a case report. Ann Hepatol. 2017;16:308–11. https://doi.org/10.5604/16652681.1231592.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article is dedicated to the memory of Christian Bénichou.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pharmacovigilance Consultancy, 18, rue des ormeaux, 75020, Paris, France

    Gaby Danan

  2. Department of Internal Medicine II, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Klinikum Hanau, Hanau, Germany

    Rolf Teschke

  3. Teaching Hospital of the Medical Faculty, Goethe University, Frankfurt/Main, Germany

    Rolf Teschke

Authors
  1. Gaby Danan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rolf Teschke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Each author contributed equally to the writing of the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gaby Danan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Gaby Danan and Rolf Teschke have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Financial support

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 720 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Danan, G., Teschke, R. Drug-Induced Liver Injury: Why is the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) Still Used 25 Years After Its Launch?. Drug Saf 41, 735–743 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-018-0654-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-018-0654-2

Search

Navigation