Drug Safety

, Volume 35, Issue 10, pp 865–875

Validation of Multivariate Outlier Detection Analyses Used to Identify Potential Drug-Induced Liver Injury in Clinical Trial Populations

  • Xiwu Lin
  • Daniel Parks
  • Jeffery Painter
  • Christine M. Hunt
  • Heide A. Stirnadel-Farrant
  • Jie Cheng
  • Alan Menius
  • Kwan Lee
Original Research Article


Background: Potential severe liver injury is identified in clinical trials by ALT >3 × upper limits of normal (ULN) and total bilirubin >2 × ULN, and termed ‘Hy’s Law’ by the US FDA. However, there is limited evidence or validation of these thresholds in clinical trial populations. Using liver chemistry data from clinical trials, decision boundaries were built empirically with truncated robust multivariate outlier detection (TRMOD), in a statistically robust manner, and then compared with these fixed thresholds. Additionally, as the analysis of liver chemistry change from baseline has been recently suggested for the identification of liver signals, fold-baseline data was also assessed.

Objective: The aim of the study was to examine and validate the performance of fixed and empirically derived thresholds for severe liver injury in generally healthy clinical trial populations (i.e. populations without underlying renal, haematological or liver disease).

Methods: Using phase II-IV clinical trial data, ALT and total bilirubin data were analysed using outlier detection methods to compare with empirically derived and fixed thresholds of the FDA’s Hy’s Law limits, which were then assessed graphically with the FDA’s evaluation of Drug-Induced Serious Hepatotoxicity (eDISH) assessing fold-ULN, as well as a modified eDISH (mDISH) to assess fold-baseline liver chemistries. Data from 28 phase II–IV clinical trials conducted by GlaxoSmithKline were aggregated and analysed by the TRMOD algorithm to create decision boundaries. The data consisted of 18 672 predominantly female subjects with a mean age of 44 years and without known liver disease.

Results: Among generally healthy clinical trial subjects, the empirically-derived TRMOD boundaries were approximately equivalent to ‘Hy’s Law’. TRMOD boundaries for identifying outliers were an ALT limit of 3.4 × ULN and a bilirubin limit of 2.1× ULN, compared with the FDA’s ‘Hy’s Law’ of 3 × ULN and bilirubin 2 × ULN. Inter-laboratory data variations were observed across the 28 studies, and were diminished by use of baseline-corrected data. By applying TRMOD to baseline-corrected data, these boundaries became ALT limit of 3.8 × baseline and bilirubin limit of 4.8 × baseline. Cumulative incidence plots of liver signals identified over time were examined. TRMOD analyses identified normative boundaries and outliers that provide comparative data to detect liver signals in similar trial populations.

Conclusions: TRMOD liver chemistry analyses of clinical trial data in generally healthy subjects have confirmed the FDA’s Hy’s Law threshold as a robust means of detecting liver safety outliers. TRMOD evaluation of liver chemistry data, by both fold-ULN and fold-baseline, provides complementary analyses and valuable normative data for comparison in similar patient populations. No liver signal is present when new clinical trial data from similar patient populations lies within these normative boundaries. Use of baseline-corrected data diminishes inter-laboratory variation and may be more sensitive to possible drug effects. We suggest examining liver chemistries using graphical depictions of both ULN-corrected data (eDISH) and baseline-corrected data (mDISH), as complementary methods.


  1. 1.
    US Department of Health and Human Services, FDA. Guidance for industry. Drug-induced liver injury: premarketing clinical evaluation [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM174090.pdf [Accessed 2011 Apr 24]
  2. 2.
    Ostapowicz G, Fontana RJ, Schiodt FV, et al. Results of a prospective study of acute liver failure at 17 tertiary care centers in the United States. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137(12): 947–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zimmerman HJ. Hepatotoxicity. 2nd ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1999Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andrade RJ, Lucena MI, Fernández MC, et al. Drug-induced liver injury: an analysis of 461 incidences submitted to the Spanish Registry over a 10-year period. Gastroenterology 2005; 129: 512–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bjornsson E, Olsson R. Outcome and prognostic markers in severe drug-induced liver disease. Hepatology 2005; 42: 481–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Senior JR. How can Hy’s Law help the clinician? Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2006; 15: 235–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Temple R. Hy’s law: predicting serious hepatotoxicity. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2006; 15: 241–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guo T, Gelperin K, Senior J. A tool to help you decide (detect potentially serious liver injury). March 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/ResearchAreas/ucm076777.pdf [Accessed 2009 Dec 17]
  9. 9.
    Watkins PB, Desai M, Berkowitz SD, et al. Evaluation of Drug-Induced Serious Hepatotoxicity (eDISH): application of this data organization approach to phase III clinical trials of rivaroxaban after total hip or knee replacement surgery. Drug Saf 2011; 34(3): 243–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weil JG, Bains C, Linke A, et al. Background incidence of liver chemistry abnormalities in a clinical trial population without underlying liver disease. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2008; 52: 85–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reuben A, Koch DG, Lee WM, and the Acute Liver Failure Study Group. Drug-induced acute liver failure: results of a U.S. multicenter, prospective Study. Hepatology 2010; 52(6): 2065–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cai Z, Christianson AM, Ståhle L, et al. Reexamining transaminase elevation in phase I clinical trials: the importance of baseline and change from baseline. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2009; 65(10): 1025–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    M’Kada H, Munteanu M, Perazzo H, et al. What are the best reference values for a normal serum alanine transaminase activity (ALT)? Impact on the presumed prevalence of drug induced liver injury (DILI). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2011; 60(3): 290–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wooding WM. Planning pharmaceutical clinical trials: basic statistical principles. New York: Wiley-Interscience Publications, 1994Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Southworth H. Detecting outliers in multivariate laboratory data. J Biopharm Stat 2008; 18: 1178–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lin X, Parks D, Zhu L, et al. Truncated robust distance for clinical laboratory safety data monitoring and assessment. J Biopharm Stat. In pressGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rousseeuw PJ, Leroy AM. Robust regression and outlier detection. New York: Wiley, 1987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maesschalck RD, Jouan-Rimbaud D, Massart DL. The Mahalanobis distance. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 2000; 50: 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Trost DC. Multivariate probability-based detection of drug-induced hepatic signals. Toxicol Review 2006; 25: 37–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bosma PJ, Chowdhury JR, Bakker C, et al. The genetic basis of the UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 1 in Gilbert’s syndrome. N Engl J Med 1995; 333: 1171–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Graham DJ, Green L, Senior JR, et al. Troglitazone-induced liver failure: a case study. Am J Med 2003; 114: 299–306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dufour DR, Lott JA, Nolte FS, et al. Diagnosis and monitoring of hepatic injury: I. Performance characteristics of laboratory tests. Clin Chem 2000; 46: 2027–49PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhang D, Chando TJ, Everett DW, et al. In vitro inhibition of UDP glucuronosyl transferases by atazanavir and other HIV protease inhibitors and the relationship of this property to in vivo bilirubin glucuronidation. Drug Metab Dispos 2005; 33: 1729–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hunt CM, Papay JI, Theodore D, et al. Monitoring liver safety in drug development: the GSK experience. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2007; 49: 90–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiwu Lin
    • 1
  • Daniel Parks
    • 1
  • Jeffery Painter
    • 2
  • Christine M. Hunt
    • 3
  • Heide A. Stirnadel-Farrant
    • 4
  • Jie Cheng
    • 1
  • Alan Menius
    • 2
  • Kwan Lee
    • 1
  1. 1.Medical AnalyticsGlaxo-SmithKlineCollegevilleUSA
  2. 2.Medical AnalyticsGlaxoSmithKlineResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  3. 3.Global Clinical Safety and PharmacovigilanceGlaxoSmithKlineResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  4. 4.Worldwide EpidemiologyGlaxoSmithKlineStockley ParkUK

Personalised recommendations