Next Article in Journal
Identifying Subgroup at High Risk of Transarterial Chemoembolization Failure Among Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Awaiting Liver Transplantation
Previous Article in Journal
Changes and Future Directions in Liver Transplantation in the United States
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Immunology Highlights of Four Major Idiosyncratic DILI Subtypes Verified by the RUCAM: A New Evidence-Based Classification

1
Department of Internal Medicine II, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Klinikum Hanau, D-63450 Hanau, Germany
2
Academic Teaching Hospital of the Medical Faculty, Goethe University Frankfurt/Main, Frankfurt/Main, D-63450 Hanau, Germany
Submission received: 13 December 2024 / Revised: 27 January 2025 / Accepted: 7 February 2025 / Published: 14 February 2025

Abstract

:
Conventionally, drug-induced liver injury (DILI) exists in two types: idiosyncratic and intrinsic. Both types are classified as non-immune disorders, thereby ignoring that some iDILI cases may have an immune or autoimmune background that requires a different therapeutic approach because steroids may be helpful. The purpose of this analysis was to analyze and classify the subtypes of iDILI which, indeed, show autoimmune or immune features among four cohorts, namely idiosyncratic DILI type 1: idiosyncratic drug-induced autoimmune hepatitis (DIAIH), to be differentiated from the classic drug-unrelated idiosyncratic autoimmune hepatitis (AIH); idiosyncratic DILI type 2: human leucocyte antigen-based idiosyncratic drug-induced autoimmune hepatitis; idiosyncratic DILI type 3: anti-cytochrome P450-based idiosyncratic drug-induced autoimmune hepatitis; and idiosyncratic DILI type 4: immune-based idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury associated with Stevens–Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). In conclusion, the traditional non-immune and non-autoimmune iDILI, as well as the four immune or autoimmune iDILI subtypes, are now well classified and clinically characterized by the broadly applied Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM), facilitating additional immunology and therapy studies for the four subtypes, all of which could benefit from steroid treatment.

1. Introduction

Drugs used as therapeutic agents may trigger different liver injuries. Idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (iDILI) is commonly described as a non-immune and complex disease that requires a robust causality assessment to provide evidence-based feature characteristics of this disruptive disorder [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Using validated diagnostic approaches, substantial information was gathered on cases of iDILI by new drugs like androgenic anabolic steroids [7], antidepressants [8], antituberculosis drugs [9], atezolizumab [10], certolizumab [11], gemcitabine [12], memantine [13], pazopanib [14], sintilimab [15], sunitinib [14], teriflunomide [16], and tigecycline [17]. Similarly, additional descriptions of the features and clinical aspects of iDILI were also provided in other studies focusing on newborn and pediatric patients [18,19,20], geriatric patients [21,22], patients with cystic fibrosis [23], the utility of lymphocyte transformation tests [24], and epidemiology [2,6,25,26]. DILI covers a range of clinical facets with various complexities. It unquestionably has a strong global impact with major clinical significance in view of the risks of liver transplantation as the ultimate therapy approach to prevent death. These clinical outcomes warrant further studies on DILI, which is a worldwide challenge.
By convention, the iDILI pattern is preferentially characterized as a hepatocellular injury, cholestatic injury, or mixed liver injury, resulting from conclusions of international consensus meetings published as the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) of 1993 [27,28] and now preferentially used as the updated RUCAM of 2016 [29]. Similarly, drugs may rarely cause RUCAM-based metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) [30], RUCAM-based drug-induced vanishing bile duct syndrome [31], or even RUCAM-based hepatic sinusoidal obstructive syndrome [32]. However, the diagnosis of iDILI may be confounded by alternative causes, a major clinical issue emerging in cases of erroneously suspected but not verified DILI due to causality assessment by the RUCAM [33,34,35,36]. If alternatives are not recognized in time, published clinical features and mechanistic steps may be incorrectly attributed to liver diseases that have nothing to do with drug treatment.
Common clinical features of the classic non-immune iDILI with diagnosis evidenced by RUCAM include the following: (1) idiosyncrasy, which reflects the fact that the liver injury develops unexpectedly at normal drug doses in a genetically predisposed individual, as opposed to the dose-dependent intrinsic DILI occurring in an individual, which is unrelated to their genetic background and clearly defined by RUCAM [29]; (2) liver injury, with serum activities of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) being at least five times the upper limit of normal (ULN), or with those of alkaline phosphatase (ALP) being at least two times the ULN is required, as defined by the RUCAM [29] and ascertained recently [5]; (3) a pattern of liver injury, as defined by serum ALT and ALP activities being hepatocellular in 42.2%, cholestatic in 40.6%, and mixed in 17.2% of the RUCAM-based iDILI cases [5]; (4) a time to onset of 5–90 days in 53.1%, <5 or <90 days, and ≤30 days from the cessation of the drug in 21.9% of the RUCAM-based iDILI cases [5]; (5) causality, the assessment of which requires the prospective use of the updated RUCAM in future cases [29]; (6) only iDILI cases with a RUCAM score of ≥6, which illustrates that a probable or highly probable causality grading should be used [29]; (7) cohorts that are homogenous and limited to drugs as culprits, excluding all non-drugs, like herbs, that cause herb-induced liver injury (HILI) and not iDILI [29]; (8) incidence, which classically considers the number of new cases of patients with a specific disease in a group of inhabitants within a pre-defined period of time. When incidences of RUCAM-based iDILI were calculated per 100,000 individuals, the results for different countries were as follows [3]: France (13.9) [37], Nigeria (18.2) [38], and Sweden (19.1) [39]. For future studies assessing details on the incidence and prevalence of iDILI, the use of the updated RUCAM has strongly been recommended [1]; (9) prevalence—a parameter reflecting the proportion of a particular population found to be affected by a medical condition at a specific time was assumed as typically low with ≤1%, and often with as low as ≤0.01% in iDILI, but these data remain uncertain as cases were not assessed by the RUCAM [40]; (10) age, which was 55.00 ± 18.35 years in RUCAM-based iDILI cases [5]; (11) gender, where the proportion of males was 73.4% in RUCAM-based iDILI cases [5]; and (12) mortality, which was high in a single RUCAM-based cohort, with 26.4%, but this substantially outnumbered the published results of other studies [41]. The classic RUCAM-based iDILI, with the features described above, clearly characterizes the non-immune liver injury cohort by their lack of serum immune and autoimmune parameters, and this was also verified in 81,856 iDILI cases evaluated by the RUCAM and reported before mid-2020 [42] to be differentiated from autoimmune and immune iDILI cases [43,44].
In this review article, actual new developments within the broad spectrum of immunology concepts in RUCAM-based iDILI were discussed as opposed to the classic non-immune iDILI cases described above. Therefore, the current focus is on autoimmune and immune iDILI, presenting four major types: type 1, which is drug-induced autoimmune hepatitis (DIAIH); type 2, a human leucocyte antigen-based iDILI autoimmune hepatitis; type 3, the anti-cytochrome P450-based idiosyncratic drug-induced autoimmune hepatitis; and type 4, the immune-based iDILI concomitantly with the Stevens–Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). The current literature shows that not all previous iDILI cases have been classified into the four subtypes, a problem easily to be solved in future studies by using appropriate diagnostic algorithms. The aim was to characterize these four different types and formulate the results of the analysis as a practical proposal for clinical use because patients with iDILI and an immune or autoimmune background could benefit from steroid therapy.

2. Literature Search and Search Terms

The literature search strategy involved the PubMed database and Google Science, using the following terms: idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury; autoimmune drug-induced liver injury; HLA; Stevens–Johnson syndrome; toxic epidermal necrolysis; RUCAM; Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method; immunology; and immune cells. The search was finalized on 25 November 2024.

3. RUCAM

RUCAM was inaugurated with the understanding to help verify causality in iDILI, based on the final recommendations resulting from international consensus meetings with the following participating expert DILI peers [27]: J. P. Benhamou (France), J. Bircher (Germany), G. Danan (France), W. C. Maddrey (USA), J. Neuberger (UK), F. Orlandi (Italy), N. Tygstrup (Denmark), and H. J. Zimmerman (USA) [27,28]. Using cohorts of iDILI cases with established positive reexposure tests, commonly viewed as a gold standard, RUCAM was well validated in the course of the internal validation process [28] and also benefited from external validation [45,46,47,48,49], including interrater reliability [45,46,47]. RUCAM is recognized as a valuable structured clinical method for objective, standardized, and quantitative causality assessment in iDILI cases [27,29], achieved through assigning individual points for the most relevant clinical, biochemical, reexposure, and serologic elements and by excluding obvious non-drug causes. Similarly, conditions relating to concomitant use of other medications or drug use prior to reexposure are well considered as scores in the updated RUCAM. Summarizing the individual points assigned to each key element results in the following final RUCAM causality gradings: score ≤0, excluded causality; 1–2, unlikely; 3–5, possible; 6–8, probable; and ≥9, highly probable, which reflects the likelihood that the hepatic injury is due to a specific medication [27,29]. RUCAM is applied up to now throughout the world in almost 100,000 iDILI cases [42] and outperforms any other method operationally [29,44] and with respect to both method quality and case numbers [44]. It is valued as a user-friendly method, a resources-saving approach that provides results within a short time, circumventing so-called expert rounds with their questionable, untransparent, arbitrary opinions, leaving much room for discussion [29,44]. Convincing evidence is lacking that other methods can replace RUCAM. As an example, both the Naranjo method and the WHO/UMC method were not created specifically for drug-related hepatic injuries but are used in cases of general adverse drug reactions described in various organs or organ systems [44]. Consequently, both methods lacked appropriate validation for iDILI. Missing validation is also a discouraging characteristic feature of the US DILIN method that is confined to its homeland but did not receive worldwide appreciation due to its methodology flaws like lack of validation, missing of individual scores for elements important for iDILI, and providing clouded percentage ranges of probability based on opinions that lack reproducibility, transparency, and objectivity. Assessing the DILI part of the four subtypes should be done by the updated RUCAM alone and not be linked with other unsuitable tools, just to provide clarity.
RUCAM is privileged and applicable without any limitations to assess causality for drugs in all immune and autoimmune iDILI cases. More specifically, there is currently no practical need to incorporate new immunological markers in the updated RUCAM because this would not improve its overall clinical performance. Indeed, such an incorporation is not warranted, considering also the need for a cumbersome new validation of the RUCAM.

4. Definition of Four Major Autoimmune and Immune Drug-Induced Liver Injury Types

The traditional idiosyncratic and intrinsic drug-induced liver injury lacks, by convention, overt immune features [27,29,42]. However, if serum immune parameters are detected in patients with iDILI, their cases may be identified as a new subtype among separate autoimmune or immune liver injury cohorts [50], for which four major types are now known with iDILI diagnoses, verified by RUCAM.

4.1. Type 1: Idiosyncratic Autoimmune DILI

Type 1 corresponds to drug-induced autoimmune hepatitis (DIAIH), as described by many authors in their reports [2,3,4,25,43,44,50,51,52]. DIAIH is best described as the classic RUCAM-based idiosyncratic DILI [27,29] combined with the classic autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) based on criteria of the simplified AIH scoring method [53], requiring, therefore, both tools to verify the DIAIH diagnosis, but this has not been done by all authors. Regarding its autoimmune features, type 1 is caused by a drug and characterized by serum autoimmune parameters preferentially with anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA), the parameter most frequently detected, and increased serum levels of IgG [44]. It has to be differentiated from the classic idiopathic autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) that develops in the absence of any drug treatment or any known culprit [52,53].

4.2. Type 2: HLA-Based Drug-Induced Autoimmune Hepatitis

Type 2 characterizes a group of patients who experienced HLA-based drug-induced autoimmune hepatitis [44,54,55]. Genetically mediated, this type has features of idiosyncrasy that explain its sporadic occurrence. Many drugs are implicated as culprit medications [44,54].

4.3. Type 3: Idiosyncratic Anti-CYP Autoimmune DILI

Type 3 refers to a group of patients who experienced anti-CYP drug-induced autoimmune hepatitis, as evidenced by positive serum anti-CYP antibodies following drug treatment [44]. This type may be seen in connection with drug metabolism via CYPs [44,56,57].

4.4. Type 4: Idiosyncratic Immune Rather than Autoimmune DILI

Type 4 includes cohorts of iDILI patients, in whom typical serum autoimmune parameters like ANA or anti-CYP antibodies are not detected, but instead, innate and adaptive immune mechanisms are discussed based on circumstantial evidence. This applies, for instance, to the iDILI associated with SJS and TEN [58] or to the iDILI due to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) [43,59].

5. Clinical Characteristics of Four Idiosyncratic Autoimmune and Immune DILI Types

5.1. Type 1: Drug-Induced Autoimmune Hepatitis (DIAIH)

Among the four types of autoimmune and immune iDILI, type 1 is the most abundant one. Clinical features of type 1 are based on iDILI combined with AIH criteria in connection with the seropositivity of serum autoimmune parameters applied in combination or as a single constellation: anti-liver kidney microsomes antibodies (ALKMA), anti-mitochondrial antibodies (AMA), anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA), anti-smooth muscle antibodies (ASMA), and anti-soluble liver antigen antibodies (ASLA) (Table 1) [60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77].
The following clinical characteristics of RUCAM-based DIAIH are well described in the listed reports (Table 1) [60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78]: (1) age was in the range from 15 to 86 years [67,71,73,75]; (2) gender (M:F) was 11:18 [75], with confirmed female predominance (92%) [67], (76%) [73], and (58%) [60]; (3) symptoms included jaundice and pruritus (71%), fatigue and malaise (25%), abdominal pain (11%), and arthralgia (4%) [73]; (4) medium values for total bilirubin were 13.7 mg/dL, ALT 487 U/L, AST 717 U/L, and ALP 193 U/L [67]; (5) serum antibody ANA (71%), ASMA (29%), SLA/LP (0%), LKM (0%), and seronegative (18%) [73]; (6) RUCAM-based liver injury pattern was hepatocellular (92%), cholestatic (4%), and mixed (4%) [70]; (7) liver histology with an Ishak score included periportal interface hepatitis (2.4), confluent necrosis (2.5), focal lytic necrosis (2.3), portal inflammation (2.1), as well as plasma cell aggregates (61%) and eosinophile aggregates (18%) [73]. (8) For most patients (76%), the RUCAM score was 6–8, in line with a probable causality grading for DIAIH by drugs excluding herbs, while 23% scored 3–5, suggesting a possible grading [73], and with a RUCAM score of 7.3, it was viewed as a probable or highly probable causality grading [74]; (9) the drug group most commonly implicated in DIAIH consisted of antibiotics with nitrofurantoin as the drug on top, followed by the tetracyclines minocycline and lymecycline [73]; (10) treatment of patients with DIAIH was accomplished by steroids (79%), azathioprine (43%), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (4%), and tacrolimus (4%) [73]; (11) biochemical remission was at 1 month (32%), 3 months (46%), 6 months (50%), and 12 months (57%, death occurred in 7% and liver transplantation was performed in 4% [70] or 14% [73]; and (12) among 362 patients initially diagnosed as AIH, 12/362 cases (6.3%) were finally diagnosed as DIAIH, with 178/362 cases (93.7%) finally being diagnosed as genuine AIH [67].

5.2. Type 2: Idiosyncratic Autoimmune HLA-Based DILI

An association of variable HLA alleles was often observed with RUCAM-based iDILI attributed to drugs, although causality gradings were not always specified (Table 2) [78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94].
Clinical features of RUCAM-based iDILI that were associated with several forms of HLA were variably described in the listed reports but cannot firmly be summarized due to the inhomogeneity of the studied cohorts (Table 2) [78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94]. What is especially valuable for a quick overview are the reports of a single case or publications confined to a single causative drug with a large case number and, thereby, presenting a homogeneous study cohort rather than reports that included many different drugs incriminated in liver injury [78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94]. It is obvious that flucloxacillin is the drug most studied in the evaluated cohort (Table 2). This warrants a detailed analysis of this special iDILI cohort (Table 3) [78,86,87,88].
Flucloxacillin leads to a rare RUCAM-based iDILI associated with HLA B*57:01 and provides the following typical characteristics [95,96]: (1) The study cohorts, as listed (Table 3), are homogenous, as all patients used in conjunction with flucloxacillin an identical drug and were followed for causality assessment using RUCAM [78,86,87,88], which asks among others for thresholds of ALT and ALP [27,28,29] and thereby provided firm case details. (2) RUCAM-based scoring was highly probable with a score of ≥8 in 72/163 cases (44%), probable with a score of 6–8 in 73/163 cases (45%), and possible with a score of 3–5 in 18/163 cases (11%) [78]. (3) Clinical features included maculopapular exanthem, arthralgia, and eosinophilia [87]. (4) Gender (F/M) presented with 133/64, demonstrating a female predominance [78]. (5) The mean age was 62 ± 13 (SD) years [78]. (6) The mean time to onset was 24 ± 18 days [78]. (7) The total days on a drug were 10 ± 6 days [78]. (8) The pattern of liver injury was hepatocellular in 20%, mixed in 43%, and cholestatic in 38% of cases [78]. (9) ALT was 646 U/L (normal 4–43) and AST 349 U/L (normal 4–43) [88]. (10) Invasive liver biopsy to acquire a liver specimen for histology is not part of the RUCAM algorithm but liver histology was provided in one study [88] out of four reports [78,86,87,88], and as evaluated during hospitalization, there was a slight multifocal, microvesicular steatosis, sinusoidal dilatation, marked congestion, hemorrhage, a multifocal collapse of hepatocytes, and inflammatory infiltrate of the mononuclear type in one single large study [88]. (11) In only 163/197 patients (83%), HLA B*57 positivity was firmly established vs. 34/197 cases (17%) with confirmed HLA B*57 negativity [78]; and (12) the risk of iDILI by flucloxacillin was shown as increased with ages >70 years, female gender, and HLA B*57:01 [78].
Another study on RUCAM-based iDILI by flucloxacillin, but without evaluating the HLA B*57:01 status, provided the following additional features of iDILI by flucloxacillin [96]: (1) An increased risk for iDILI by flucloxacillin use was described in patients aged >70 years, with reexposure to flucloxacillin, and co-medication with other drugs; (2) considering a prevalence of 8.5 iDILI cases by flucloxacillin per 100,000 individuals, approaches of predictive genetic testing for a reaction would be unrealistic because as many as 13,513 people would require screening to avoid one case; and (3) other parameters such as the type of gender and age at onset, which specifically affect the liver injury pattern, as well as RUCAM-based causality gradings [96], were similar to the RUCAM-based HLA B*57:01 cohort study [78].

5.3. Type 3: Idiosyncratic Autoimmune Anti-CYP-Based DILI

Serum anti-CYP antibodies were detected in patients with iDILI attributable to a few drugs [44,57,97,98]. This is expected because 58.3% of drugs implicated in iDILI with verified diagnosis by RUCAM are known substrates of CYP isoforms [56,99]. Among these drugs causing serum anti-CYP antibodies in association with iDILI were halothane (causing anti-CYP 2E1 antibodies) [57,98,99,100,101,102,103], isoflurane (anti-CYP 2E1) [103], isoniazid (anti-CYP 2C9) [99], as well as dihydralazine (anti-CYP 1A2), tienilic acid (anti-CYP 2C9), and antiepileptics (anti-CYP 3A) [98]. For all these drugs, iDILI, as a firm diagnosis, was assumed but not verified using RUCAM [57,97,98,99,100,101,102,103].
In opposition, better-validated results were obtained from case studies of iDILI that RUCAM evaluated to verify the diagnosis [47,104]. Accordingly, serum anti-CYP 2E1 antibodies were detected after anesthesia with the volatile anesthetic sevoflurane in four patients with iDILI and a verified diagnosis by using the RUCAM, resulting in a highly probable causality [104]. These data were similar to those of another report that focused on sevoflurane and desflurane, again modern volatile anesthetics, whereby sevoflurane was used in most cases as a single anesthetic and rarely combined with desflurane [47]. For five patients with iDILI, the RUCAM score was ≥6, and serum anti-CYP 2E1 antibodies were found in three patients with RUCAM scores of 12, 7, and 6, whereas antibodies remained undetected in two DILI patients with a RUCAM score of 12 and 7 [47]. Detailed information on the anesthetic cohorts is available (Table 4) [47,104].
Most informative was the note that sevoflurane caused not only acute but also chronic liver injury that evolved into cirrhosis with portal hypertension in one reported patient [104]. The association of iDILI due to sevoflurane and desflurane with the occurrence of anti-CYP 2E1 as well as anti-trifluoroacetate (TFA) antibodies support the concept that autoimmune processes participate in these iDILI cases (Table 3) [47,104].

5.4. Type 4: Idiosyncratic Immune DILI Combined with SJS and TEN

Liver disease in patients with a dermatological disorder is a rare condition [105]. More specifically, drugs causing liver injury associated with the skin entities of SJS and TEN represent a substantial clinical challenge [106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114] because it requires a firm diagnosis of both the liver injury by RUCAM [29] and the cutaneous disorders SJS/TEN by the Algorithm for Drug Causality for Epidermal Necrolysis (ALDEN) [115]. Similar to the updated RUCAM [29], ALDEN is a quantitative tool to assess causality for culprit drugs in suspected SJS/TEN [115].
ALDEN is appreciated as a validated, specific, reproducible, structured, and quantitative method using key items as individually scored elements, whereby the sum of these scores reaches from −12 to 10 and provides a final causality grading of very unlikely, unlikely, possible, probable, and very probable [114]. The six elements specifically include the following: (1) a delay from the initial drug intake to an onset of a reaction (index day); (2) the drug present in the body on the index day; (3) prechallenge/rechallenge; (4) dechallenge; (5) type of drug (notoriety); and finally (6), other cause [115]. As a result, to describe the robust clinical characteristics of this special cohort, patients are preferred with valid diagnoses verified by RUCAM and ALDEN. DILI experts commonly applied RUCAM but occasionally forgot to use ALDEN, which inevitably confounded the results. Selected cases are presented as a listing delineating suspected drugs in alphabetical order and whether an appropriate causality algorithm was applied (Table 5) [58,116,117,118,119,120].
For many SJS/TEN patients, iDILI was substantiated by liver tests (LTs) above the normal range, as evidenced by increased serum activities of ALT, AST, or ALP, in addition to RUCAM [58,116,117,118,119,120,121]. Differential dermatology diseases have to be excluded in all three types: SJS, SJS/TEN overlap, and TEN, known as multifaceted disease entities that need a diagnostic verification by ALDEN, associated with a careful exclusion of differential diagnoses and primary focus on alternative dermatology disorders. The exclusion process must be in the hands of an experienced dermatologist to define the correct diagnosis and treatment option. Selected alternative dermatology diseases are provided in the literature [113,114,115,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128]. They include [121]: (1) Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP) [113,122]; (2) acute or subacute cutaneous lupus with epidermal necrosis (Rowell syndrome) [113,123]; (3) bullous pemphigoid [113,124]; (4) drug rashes [114]; (5) erythema multiforme major (EMM) [113,114]; (6) exfoliative erythroderma [114]; (7) generalized bullous fixed drug eruption (GBFDE), also termed generalized fixed drug eruption [113,115]; (8) linear IgA bullous dermatosis [113,125]; (9) paraneoplastic pemphigus [113,114]; (10) pemphigus vulgaris (PV) [113,126]; (11) phototoxic eruptions [113,127]; and finally (12) staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome [113,128].
Irritating was the fact that if the SJS/TEN studies used partial cohorts assessed by ALDEN alone and not combined with RUCAM, or if they used non-RUCAM approaches like the Naranjo method, WHO-UMC method, or Liverpool method [121], all tools were not specific for liver toxicity [29], or they applied even the DILI network method [121] that is based on arbitrary subjective opinion in the sense of global introspection. This method never received a correct internal or external validation [55]. As a cautionary note, SJS/TEN are caused by drugs in 85–89% of cases [115,121], but non-drug culprits are also known and have to be considered separately [112,121,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136]. For this cohort, specific diagnostic and therapeutic approaches may be indicated differently from those of the common iDILI.

6. Perspectives

The novel categorization of immune and autoimmune iDILI subtypes invites other physicians and scientists to add more information for these four subtypes. It will be of interest to see whether blood parameters such as cytokines, chemokines, or specific immune cells such as T cells, B cells, or dendritic cells can contribute to further differentiation of the four subtypes. The results from these studies will expand our knowledge of the immune mechanisms that lead to liver injury, as well as perhaps the role of the innate and adaptive immune systems.
As it presently stands, the therapeutic options are similar for all immune and autoimmune iDILI subtypes, consisting primarily of the cessation of the suspected drug already at the time when iDILI is first considered. The clinical course becomes serious if cessation does not lead to the desired decline of LTs and when clinical signs such as jaundice remain. This calls for a re-evaluation of whether the diagnosis of iDILI is still correct and whether the liver injury must be attributed to a non-drug cause as an alternative condition that may afford another diagnostic and therapeutic approach. Clinical deterioration, despite drug cassation, requires the decision for a steroid therapy of the immune or autoimmune iDILI in all cases belonging to one of the four subtypes. In comparison, a case-by-case decision regarding a steroid treatment is recommended for patients who are not clearly attributable to any of the four subtypes. In a worst-case scenario, liver transplantation must be considered to circumvent lethal outcomes due to untreatable acute liver failure.

7. Conclusions

The new categorization of four major autoimmune and autoimmune idiosyncratic DILI subtypes with disruptive properties of drugs paves the scientific avenue for the universal characterization of these different disorders and fosters comparability studies from countries around the world. The advantage of this new classification is the uniform use of RUCAM as the major diagnostic algorithm to ascertain that the iDILI in question is really a liver injury caused by drugs and not due to non-drug causatives—a general issue often recognized in published DILI reports. In addition, and specifically for the DIAIH subtype, more clarification is needed in the future that a suspected DIAIH case needs causality assessment not only by RUCAM but also by the simplified AIH score to ascertain the AIH part as the correct diagnostic part of the disorder. This will reduce publications of DIAIH cases that were classified erroneously as DIAIH despite lacking the appropriate causality assessment approaches. Finally, the new classification will help in searches for the mechanistic steps involved in the immunology process, as evidenced by elevations of serum cytokines and chemokines, which reflect the actions of hepatic immune processes triggered by the suspect drugs or their metabolites, converting the silent liver to a transparent organ. As parameters that can easily be analyzed in the blood of iDILI patients, these cytokine and chemokine mediators can be used by physicians and scientists for additional research, which can amplify our understanding of the mechanistic steps in homogeneous cohorts of patients with these iDILI subtypes, indicating that dysregulation and cross-talk of mediators may play a role. It is expected that future case reports of iDILI will use this new classification to refine the quality of their cases. Depending on the suspected subtype, the use of validated causality assessment methods like the updated RUCAM, the simplified AIH scoring method, and the ALDEN method is mandatory.

Funding

There was no funding for this invited review article.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest regarding this invited manuscript.

References

  1. Ke, L.; Lu, C.; Shen, R.; Lu, T.; Ma, B.; Hua, Y. Knowledge mapping of drug-induced liver injury: A scientometric investigation (2010–2019). Front. Pharmacol. 2020, 11, 842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Kobayashi, T.; Iwaki, M.; Nogami, A.; Yoneda, M. Epidemiology and management of drug-induced liver injury: Importance of the updated RUCAM. J. Clin. Transl. Hepatol. 2023, 11, 1239–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Allison, R.; Guraka, A.; Shawa, I.T.; Tripathi, G.; Moritz, W.; Kermanizadet, A. Drug induced liver injury—A 2023 update. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part. B 2023, 26, 442–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Hosack, T.; Damry, D.; Biswas, S. Drug-induced liver injury: A comprehensive review. Ther. Adv. Gastroenterol. 2023, 16, 17562848231163410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Yang, H.; Guo, D.; Xu, Y.; Zhu, M.; Yao, C.; Chen, C.; Jia, W. Comparison of different liver test thresholds for drug-induced liver injury: Updated RUCAM versus other methods. Front. Pharmacol. 2019, 10, 816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Chen, Y.; Wang, C.; Yang, H.; Huang, P.; Shi, J.; Tong, Y.; Jiang, J.; Zhang, X.; Chen, W.; Xuan, Z. Epidemiology of drug- and herb-induced liver injury assessed for causality using the updated RUCAM in two hospitals from China. Biomed. Res. Int. 2021, 2021, 8894498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Abeles, R.D.; Foxton, M.; Khan, S.; Goldin, R.; Smith, B.; Thursz, M.R.; Verma, S. Androgenic anabolic steroid-induced liver injury: Two case reports assessed for causality by the updated Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) score and a comprehensive review of the literature. BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2020, 7, e000549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. González-Muñoz, M.; Monserrat Villatoro, J.; Marín-Serrano, E.; Stewart, S.; Bardón Rivera, B.; Marín, J.; Martínez de Soto, L.; Seco Meseguer, E.; Ramírez, E. A case report of a drug-induced liver injury (DILI) caused by multiple antidepressants with causality established by the updated Roussel Uclaf causality assessment method (RUCAM) and in vitro testing. Clin. Case Rep. 2020, 8, 3105–3109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Wang, M.G.; Wu, S.Q.; Zhang, M.M.; He, J.Q. Urine metabolomics and microbiome analyses reveal the mechanism of anti-tuberculosis drug-induced liver injury, as assessed for causality using the updated RUCAM: A prospective study. Front. Immunol. 2022, 13, 1002126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Tzadok, R.; Levy, S.; Aouizerate, J.; Shibolet, O. Acute liver failure following a single dose of atezolizumab, as assessed for causality using the updated RUCAM. Case Rep. Gastrointest. Med. 2022, 2022, 5090200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Shakhashiro, M.; Crasta, R.; Javed, F. Certolizumab-induced liver injury: As assessed for causality by the updated RUCAM. BMJ Case Rep. 2023, 16, e256879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Mascherona, I.; Maggioli, C.; Biggiogero, M.; Mora, O.; Marelli, L. A Severe case of drug-induced liver injury after gemcitabine administration: A highly probable causality grading as assessed by the updated RUCAM diagnostic scoring system. Case Rep. Hepatol. 2020, 2020, 8812983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Shumar, J.; Ordway, S.; Junga, Z.; Sadowski, B.; Torres, D. Memantine-induced liver injury with probable causality as assessed using the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM). ACG Case Rep. J. 2019, 6, e00184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Studentova, H.; Volakova, J.; Spisarova, M.; Zemankova, A.; Aiglova, K.; Szotkowski, T.; Melichar, B. Severe tyrosine-kinase inhibitor induced liver injury in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients: Two case reports assessed for causality using the updated RUCAM and review of the literature. BMC Gastroenterol. 2022, 22, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zheng, C.; Huang, S.; Lin, M.; Hong, B.; Dai, H.; Yang, J. Development and validation of a clinical risk score to predict immune-mediated liver injury caused by sintilimab: Assessed for causality using updated RUCAM. J. Clin. Transl. Hepatol. 2023, 11, 1387–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Wurzburger, R. A case of delayed hepatic injury associated with teriflunomide use as assessed for causality using the updated RUCAM. Case Rep. Hepatol. 2022, 2022, 6331923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Shi, X.; Zuo, C.; Yu, L.; Lao, D.; Li, X.; Xu, Q.; Lv, Q. Real-world data of tigecycline-associated drug-induced liver injury among patients in China: A 3-year retrospective study as assessed by the updated RUCAM. Front. Pharmacol. 2021, 12, 761167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Andújar-Vera, F.; Alés-Palmer, M.L.; Muñoz-de-Rueda, P.; Iglesias-Baena, I.; Ocete-Hita, E. Metabolomic analysis of pediatric patients with idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury according to the updated RUCAM. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 13562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Qin, F.L.; Sang, G.Y.; Zou, X.Q.; Cheng, D.H. Drug-Induced Liver Injury during Consolidation Therapy in Childhood Acute lymphoblastic leukemia as assessed for causality using the updated RUCAM. Can. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2022, 2022, 5914593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Ye, L.; Feng, Z.; Huang, L.; Guo, C.; Wu, X.; He, L.; Tan, W.; Wang, Y.; Wu, X.; Hu, B.; et al. Causality evaluation of drug-induced liver injury in newborns and children in the intensive care unit using the updated Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method. Front. Pharmacol. 2021, 12, 790108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Danjuma, M.I.M.; Almasri, H.; Alshokri, S.; Khir, F.K.; Elmalik, A.; Battikh, N.G.; Abdallah, I.M.H.A.; Elshafei, M.; Fatima, H.; Mohamed, M.F.H.; et al. Avoidability of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) in an elderly hospital cohort with cases assessed for causality by the updated RUCAM score. BMC Geriatr. 2020, 20, 346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Pedraza, L.; Laosa, O.; Rodríguez-Mañas, L.; Gutiérrez-Romero, D.F.; Frías, J.; Carnicero, J.A.; Ramírez, E. Drug induced liver injury in geriatric patients detected by a two-hospital prospective pharmacovigilance program: A comprehensive analysis using the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method. Front. Pharmacol. 2021, 11, 600255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Tewkesbury, D.; Jones, A.M.; Bright-Thomas, R.; Cratchley, A.; Hanley, K.P.; Wyatt, J.; Athwal, V.; Barry, P.J. Aetiology of significant liver test abnormalities in a single-centre cohort of people with cystic fibrosis exposed to elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor, utilizing the updated RUCAM. Drugs 2023, 83, 1699–1707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Rodríguez, A.; García-García, I.; Soto, L.; Huertas, A.; Borobia, A.; González-Torbay, A.; Akatbach-Bousaid, I.; González-Muñoz, M.; Ramirez, E. Utility of lymphoycyte transformation test for assisting updated Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method in drug-induced liver injury: A case-control study. Front. Pharmacol. 2022, 13, 819589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Yu, Y.C.; Mao, Y.M.; Chen, C.W.; Chen, J.J.; Chen, J.; Cong, W.M.; Ding, Y.; Duan, Z.P.; Fu, Q.C.; Guo, X.Y.; et al. CSH guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of drug-induced liver injury. Hepatol. Int. 2017, 11, 221–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cano-Paniagua, A.; Amariles, P.; Angulo, N.Y.; Restrepo-Garay, M. Epidemiology of drug-induced liver injury in a university hospital from Colombia: Updated RUCAM being used for prospective causality assessment. Ann. Hepatol. 2019, 18, 501–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. 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, 1323–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Bénichou, C.; Danan, G.; Flahault, A. Causality assessment of adverse reactions of drugs—II. An original model for validation of drug causality assessment methods: Case reports with positive rechallenge. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1993, 46, 1331–1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Danan, G.; Teschke, R. RUCAM in drug and herb induced liver injury: The update. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016, 17, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Satapathy, S.K.; Kuwajima, V.; Nadelson, J.; Atiq, O.; Sanyal, A.J. Drug-induced fatty liver disease: An overview of pathogenesis and management. Ann. Hepatol. 2015, 14, 789–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Xie, W.; Wang, Q.; Gao, Y.; Pan, C.Q. Vanishing bile duct syndrome with hyperlipidemia after ibuprofen therapy in an adult patient: A case report. BMC Gastroenterol. 2018, 18, 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Teschke, R.; Vongdala, N.; Quan, N.V.; Quy, T.N.; Xuan, T.D. Metabolic toxification of 1,2-unsaturated pyrrolizidine alkaloids causes human hepatic sinusoidal obstruction syndrome: The update. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 10419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Teschke, R.; Frenzel, C.; Wolff, A.; Eickhoff, A.; Schulze, J. Drug induced liver injury: Accuracy of diagnosis in published reports. Ann. Hepatol. 2014, 13, 248–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Teschke, R.; Danan, G. Review: Drug induced liver injury with analysis of alternative causes as confounding variables. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2018, 84, 1467–1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Huang, Y.S.; Tseng, S.Y.; Chen, W.W.; Chang, T.T.; Peng, C.Y.; Lo, G.H.; Hsu, C.W.; Hu, C.T.; Huang, Y.H. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of drug-induced liver injury in Taiwan: With emphasis on the impact of chronic hepatitis B infection. J. Chin. Med. Assoc. 2022, 85, 286–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Zhu, Y.; Niu, M.; Chen, J.; Zou, Z.S.; Ma, Z.J.; Liu, S.H. Hepatobiliary and pancreatic: Comparison between Chinese herbal medicine and Western medicine-induced liver injury of 1985 patients. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2016, 31, 1476–1482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sgro, C.; Clinard, F.; Ouazir, K.; Chanay, H.; Allard, C.; Guilleminet, C.; Lenoir, C.; Lemoine, A.; Hillon, P. Incidence of drug-induced hepatic injuries: A French population-based study. Hepatology 2002, 36, 451–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Isa, S.E.; Ebonyi, A.O.; Shehu, N.Y.; Idoko, P.; Anejo-Okopi, J.A.; Simji, G.; Odesanya, R.U.; Abah, I.O.; Jimoh, H.O. Antituberculosis drugs and hepatotoxicity among hospitalized patients in Jos, Nigeria. Int. J. Mycobacteriol. 2016, 5, 21–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. De Valle, M.; Klinteberg, V.; Alem, N.; Olsson, R.; Björnsson, E. Drug-induced liver injury in a Swedish university hospital out-patient hepatology clinic. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2006, 24, 1187–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Vazquez, J.H.; McGill, M.R. Redrawing the map to novel DILI biomarkers in circulation: Where are we, where should we go, and how can we get there? Livers 2021, 1, 286–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Abid, A.; Subhani, F.; Kayani, F.; Awan, S.; Abid, S. Drug induced liver injury is associated with high mortality—A study from a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0231398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Teschke, R.; Danan, G. Worldwide use of RUCAM for causality assessment in 81,856 DILI and 14,029 HILI cases published 1993-mid 2020: A comprehensive analysis. Medicines 2020, 7, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Liu, Z.; Zhu, Y.; Xie, H.; Zou, Z. Immune-mediated hepatitis induced by immune checkpoint inhibitors: Current updates and future perspectives. Front. Pharmacol. 2023, 13, 1077468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Teschke, R.; Danan, G. Advances in idiosyncratic drug induced liver injury issues: New clinical and mechanistic analysis due to Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method use. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 10855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Björnsson, E.; Olsson, R. Outcome and prognostic markers in severe drug-induced liver disease. Hepatology 2005, 42, 481–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Naseralallah, L.M.; Aboujabal, B.A.; Geryo, N.M.; Al Boinin, A.; Al Hattab, F.; Akbar, R.; Umer, W.; Abdul Jabbar, L.; Danjuma, M.I. The determination of causality of drug induced liver injury in patients with COVID-19 clinical syndrome. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0268705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Bishop, B.; Hannah, N.; Doyle, A.; Amico, F.; Hockey, B.; Moore, D.; Sood, S.; Gorelik, A.; Liew, D.; Njoku, D.; et al. A prospective study of the incidence of drug-induced liver injury by the modern volatile anaesthetics sevoflurane and desflurane. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2019, 49, 940–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Lunardelli, M.J.M.; Becker, M.W.; Blatt, C.R. Tradução e validação de algoritmo para identificação de lesão hepática induzida por medicamentos. Rev. Cont. Amp Saúde 2020, 20, 226–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lunardelli, M.M.; Becker, M.W.; Ortiz, G.X.; Blatt, C.R. Drug-induced liver injury causality assessment data from a crosssectional study in Brazil: A call for the use of updated RUCAM in hospital Pharmacy. Rev. Bras. Farm. Hosp. Serv. Saude 2022, 13, 791–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sakulsaengprapha, V.; Wasuwanich, P.; Naraparaju, G.; Korotkaya, Y.; Thawillarp, S.; Oshima, K.; Karwowski, C.; Scheimann, A.O.; Karnsakul, W. Applicability of International Autoimmune Hepatitis Group (IAIHG) scoring system for autoimmune hepatitis in pediatrics. Biology 2023, 12, 479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Devarbhavi, H. An update on drug-induced liver injury. J. Clin. Exp. Hepatol. 2012, 2, 247–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sebode, M.; Schulz, L.; Lohse, A.W. “Autoimmune (-like)” drug and herb induced liver injury: New insights into molecular pathogenesis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 1954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Hennes, E.M.; Zeniya, M.; Czaja, A.J.; Parés, A.; Dalekos, G.N.; Krawitt, E.L.; Bittencourt, P.L.; Porta, G.; Boberg, K.M.; Hofer, H.; et al. Simplified criteria for the diagnosis of autoimmune hepatitis. Hepatology 2008, 48, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Clare, K.E.; Miller, M.H.; Dillon, J.F. Genetic factors influencing drug-induced liver injury: Do they have a role in prevention and diagnosis? Curr. Hepatol. Rep. 2017, 16, 258–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Teschke, R.; Danan, G. Human Leucocyte Antigen genetics in idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury with evidence based on the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method. Medicines 2024, 11, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Teschke, R. Top-ranking drugs out of 3312 drug-induced liver injury cases evaluated by the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method. Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol. 2018, 14, 1169–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Jee, A.; Sernoskie, S.C.; Uetrecht, J. Idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury: Mechanistic and clinical challenges. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 2954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Devarbhavi, H.; Raj, S.; Aradya, V.H.; Rangegowda, V.T.; Veeranna, G.P.; Singh, R.; Reddy, V.; Patil, M. Drug-induced liver injury associated with Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis: Patient characteristics, causes, and outcome in 36 cases. Hepatology 2016, 63, 993–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kawano, M.; Yano, Y.; Yamamoto, A.; Yasutomi, E.; Inoue, Y.; Kitadai, J.; Yoshida, R.; Matsuura, T.; Shiomi, Y.; Ueda, Y.; et al. Risk factors for immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced liver injury and the significance of liver biopsy. Diagnostics 2024, 14, 815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Licata, A.; Maida, M.; Cabibi, D.; Butera, G.; Macaluso, F.S.; Alessi, N.; Caruso, C.; Craxì, A.; Almasio, P.L. Clinical features and outcomes of patients with drug-induced autoimmune hepatitis: A retrospective cohort study. Dig. Liver Dis. 2014, 46, 1116–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Shelton, E.; Chaudrey, K.; Sauk, J.; Khalili, H.; Masia, R.; Nguyen, D.D.; Yajnik, V.; Ananthakrishnan, A.N. New onset idiosyncratic liver enzyme elevations with biological therapy in inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2015, 41, 972–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Hisamochi, A.; Kage, M.; Ide, T.; Arinaga-Hino, T.; Amano, K.; Kuwahara, R.; Ogata, K.; Miyajima, I.; Kumashiro, R.; Sata, M.; et al. An analysis of drug-induced liver injury, which showed histological findings similar to autoimmune hepatitis. J. Gastroenterol. 2016, 51, 597–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Yeong, T.T.; Lim, K.H.J.; Goubet, S.; Parnell, N.; Verma, S. Natural history and outcomes in drug-induced autoimmune hepatitis. Hepatol. Res. 2016, 46, E79–E88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Björnsson, E.S.; Bergmann, O.; Jonasson, J.G.; Grondal, G.; Gudbjornsson, B.; Olafsson, S. Drug-induced autoimmune hepatitis: Response to corticosteroids and lack of relapse after cessation of steroids. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2017, 15, 1635–1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. de Boer, Y.S.; Kosinski, A.S.; Urban, T.J.; Zhao, Z.; Long, N.; Chalasani, N.; Kleiner, D.E.; Hoofnagle, J.H.; Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network. Features of autoimmune hepatitis in patients with drug-induced liver injury. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2017, 15, 103–112.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Alqrinawi, S.H.; Akbar, N.; AlFaddag, H.; Akbar, S.; Akbar, L.; Butt, S.A.; Aljawad, M. Menotrophin Induced Autoimmune Hepatitis. Case Rep. Gastrointest. Med. 2019, 2019, 7343805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Martínez-Casas, O.Y.; Díaz-Ramírez, G.S.; Marín-Zuluaga, J.I.; Muñoz-Maya, O.; Santos, O.; Donado-Gómez, J.H.; Restrepo-Gutiérrez, J.C. Differential characteristics in drug-induced autoimmune hepatitis. JGH Open 2018, 2, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Weber, S.; Benesic, A.; Rotter, I.; Gerbes, A.L. Early ALT response to corticosteroid treatment distinguishes idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury from autoimmune hepatitis. Liver Int. 2019, 39, 1906–1917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Valgeirsson, K.B.; Hreinsson, J.P.; Björnsson, E.S. Increased incidence of autoimmune hepatitis is associated with wider use of biological drugs. Liver Int. 2019, 39, 2341–2349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Riveiro-Barciela, M.; Barreira-Díaz, A.; Vidal-González, J.; Muñoz-Couselo, E.; Martínez-Valle, F.; Viladomiu, L.; Mínguez, B.; Ortiz-Velez, C.; Castells, L.; Esteban, R.; et al. Immune-related hepatitis related to checkpoint inhibitors: Clinical and prognostic factors. Liver Int. 2020, 40, 1906–1916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Stephens, C.; Robles-Diaz, M.; Medina-Caliz, I.; Garcia-Cortes, M.; Ortega-Alonso, A.; Sanabria-Cabrera, J.; Gonzalez-Jimenez, A.; Alvarez-Alvarez, I.; Slim, M.; Jimenez-Perez, M.; et al. Comprehensive analysis and insights gained from long-term experience of the Spanish DILI Registry. J. Hepatol. 2021, 75, 86–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Tan, C.K.; Ho, D.; Wang, L.M.; Kumar, R. Drug-induced autoimmune hepatitis: A minireview. World J. Gastroenterol. 2022, 28, 2654–2666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Chung, Y.; Morrison, M.; Zen, Y. Heneghan MA: Defining characteristics and long-term prognosis of drug-induced autoimmune-like hepatitis: A retrospective cohort study. United Eur. Gastroenterol. J. 2024, 12, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Hassoun, J.; Goossens, N.; Restellini, S.; Ramer, L.; Ongaro, M.; Giostra, E.; Hadengue, A.; Rubbia-Brandt, L.; Spahr, L. Discontinuation of immunosuppression in patients with immune-mediated drug-induced liver injury or idiopathic autoimmune hepatitis: A case-control study. JGH Open 2023, 7, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Kakisaka, K.; Nakayama, N.; Kumagai, K.; Hisanaga, T.; Kondo, T.; Setsu, T.; Sato, S.; Kooka, Y.; Endo, K.; Yoshida, Y.; et al. Distinction of drug-induced liver injury from autoimmune hepatitis in patients with acute liver injury: Proposal of a combination of diagnostic scores. Gastro Hep Adv. 2023, 2, 497–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Tse, J.; Natla, S.; Mekala, R.; Crumm, I.; Olken, M.H. Atorvastatin-induced autoimmune hepatitis: A case report. Cereus 2023, 15, e47807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Memiş, A.C.; Alcan, S.Y.; Temiz, S.G.; Başar, F.; Arslan, K. Managing unpredictable challenge of a liver injury in ornidazole use: A case report. Med. Rep. 2024, 6, 100097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Nicoletti, P.; Aithal, G.P.; Chamberlain, T.C.; Coulthard, S.; Alshabeeb, M.; Grove, J.I.; Andrade, R.J.; Björnsson, E.; Dillon, J.F.; Hallberg, P.; et al. Drug-induced liver injury due to Flucloxacillin: Relevance of multiple Human Leukocyte Antigen alleles. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2019, 106, 245–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Lucena, M.I.; Molokhia, M.; Shen, Y.; Urban, T.J.; Aithal, G.P.; Andrade, R.J.; Day, C.P.; Ruiz-Cabello, F.; Donaldson, P.T.; Stephens, C.; et al. Susceptibility to amoxicillin-clavulanate-induced liver injury is influenced by multiple HLA class I and II alleles. Gastroenterology 2011, 141, 338–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Stephens, C.; López-Nevot, M.Á.; Ruiz-Cabello, F.; Ulzurrun, E.; Soriano, G.; Romero-Gómez, M.; Romero-Casares, A.; Lucena, M.I.; Andrade, R.J. HLA alleles influence the clinical signature of amoxicillin-clavulanate hepatotoxicity. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e68111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. O’Donohue, J.; Oien, K.A.; Donaldson, P.; Underhill, J.; Clare, M.; MacSween, R.N.; Mills, P.R. Co-amoxiclav jaundice: Clinical and histological features and HLA class II association. Gut 2000, 47, 717–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Petros, Z.; Kishikawa, J.; Makonnen, E.; Yimer, G.; Habtewold, A.; Aklillu, E. HLA-B*57 Allele is associated with concomitant anti-tuberculosis and antiretroviral drugs induced liver toxicity in Ethiopians. Front. Pharmacol. 2017, 8, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Nicoletti, P.; Barrett, S.; McEvoy, L.; Daly, A.K.; Aithal, G.; Lucena, M.I.; Andrade, R.J.; Wadelius, M.; Hallberg, P.; Stephens, C.; et al. Shared Genetic Risk Factors Across Carbamazepine-Induced Hypersensitivity Reactions. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2019, 106, 1028–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Devarbhavi, H.; Patil, M.; Menon, M. Association of human leukocyte antigen-B*13:01 with dapsone-induced liver injury. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2022, 88, 1369–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Nicoletti, P.; Aithal, G.P.; Bjornsson, E.S.; Andrade, R.J.; Sawle, A.; Arrese, M.; Barnhart, H.X.; Bondon-Guitton, E.; Hayashi, P.H.; Bessone, F.; et al. Association of liver injury from specific drugs, or groups of drugs, with polymorphisms in HLA and other genes in a genome-wide association study. Gastroenterology 2017, 152, 1078–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Daly, A.K.; Donaldson, P.T.; Bhatnagar, P.; Shen, Y.; Pe’er, I.; Floratos, A.; Daly, M.J.; Goldstein, D.B.; John, S.; Nelson, M.R.; et al. HLA-B*5701 genotype is a major determinant of drug-induced liver injury due to flucloxacillin. Nat. Genet. 2009, 41, 816–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Monshi, M.M.; Faulkner, L.; Gibson, A.; Jenkins, R.E.; Farrell, J.; Earnshaw, C.J.; Alfirevic, A.; Cederbrant, K.; Daly, A.K.; French, N.; et al. Human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-B*57:01-restricted activation of drug-specific T cells provides the immunological basis for flucloxacillin-induced liver injury. Hepatology 2013, 57, 727–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Teixeira, M.; Macedo, S.; Batista, T.; Martins, S.; Correia, A.; Matos, L.C. Flucloxacillin-induced hepatotoxicity: Association with HLA-B*5701. Rev. Assoc. Med. Bras. 2020, 66, 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Nicoletti, P.; Werk, A.N.; Sawle, A.; Shen, Y.; Urban, T.J.; Coulthard, S.A.; Bjornsson, E.S.; Cascorbi, I.; Floratos, A.; Stammschulte, T.; et al. HLA-DRB1*16: 01-DQB1*05: 02 is a novel genetic risk factor for flupirtine-induced liver injury. Pharmacogenet Genom. 2016, 26, 218–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Bruno, C.D.; Fremd, B.; Church, R.J.; Daly, A.K.; Aithal, G.P.; Björnsson, E.S.; Larrey, D.; Watkins, P.B.; Chow, C.R. HLA associations with infliximab-induced liver injury. Pharmacogenomics J. 2020, 20, 681–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Li, X.; Jin, S.; Fan, Y.; Fan, X.; Tang, Z.; Cai, W.; Yang, J.; Xiang, X. Association of HLA-C*03:02 with methimazole-induced liver injury in Graves’ disease patients. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2019, 117, 109095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Urban, T.J.; Nicoletti, P.; Chalasani, N.; Serrano, J.; Stolz, A.; Daly, A.K.; Aithal, G.P.; Dillon, J.; Navarro, V.; Odin, J.; et al. Minocycline hepatotoxicity: Clinical characterization and identification of HLA-B*35:02 as a risk factor. J. Hepatol. 2017, 67, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Daly, A.K.; Björnsson, E.S.; Lucena, M.I.; Andrade, R.J. Drug-induced liver injury due to nitrofurantoin: Similar clinical features, but different HLA risk alleles in an independent cohort. J. Hepatol. 2023, 78, e165–e182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Li, Y.J.; Phillips, E.J.; Dellinger, A.; Nicoletti, P.; Schutte, R.; Li, D.; Ostrov, D.A.; Fontana, R.J.; Watkins, P.B.; Stolz, A.; et al. Human Leukocyte Antigen B*14:01 and B*35:01 are associated with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole induced liver injury. Hepatology 2021, 73, 268–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Teschke, R. Idiosyncratic hepatocellular drug-induced liver injury by flucloxacillin with evidence based on Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method and HLA B*57:01 genotype: From metabolic CYP 3A4/3A7 to immune mechanisms. Biomedicines 2024, 12, 2208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Wing, K.; Bhaskaran, K.; Pealing, L.; Root, A.; Smeeth, L.; van Staa, T.P.; Klungel, O.H.; Reynolds, R.F.; Douglas, I. Quantification of the risk of liver injury associated with flucloxacillin: A UK population-based cohort study. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2017, 72, 2636–2646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Sutti, S.; Rigamonti, C.; Vidali, M.; Albano, E. CYP2E1 autoantibodies in liver diseases. Redox Biol. 2014, 3, 72–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Meunier, L.; Larrey, D. Drug-induced liver injury: Biomarkers, requirements, candidates, and validation. Front. Pharmacol. 2019, 10, 1482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Teschke, R.; Danan, G. Idiosyncratic drug induced liver injury, cytochrome P450, metabolic risk factors and lipophilicity: Highlights and controversies. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 3441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Njoku, D.B.; Mellerson, J.L.; Talor, M.V.; Kerr, D.R.; Faraday, R.; Outshoor, I.; Rose, N.R. Role of CYP2E1 immunoglobulin G4 subclass antibodies and complement in the pathogenesis of idiosyncratic drug-induced hepatitis. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 2006, 13, 258–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Bourdi, M.; Chen, W.; Peter, R.M.; Martin, J.L.; Buters, J.T.; Nelson, S.D.; Pohl, L.R. Human cytochrome P450 2E1 is a major autoantigen associated with halothane hepatitis. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 1996, 9, 1159–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Kenna, J.G.; Neuberger, J.; Williams, R. Identification by immunoblotting of 3 halothane-induced liver microsomal polypeptide antigens recognized by antibodies in sera from patients with halothane-associated hepatitis. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 1987, 242, 733–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Njoku, D.B.; Greenberg, R.S.; Bourdi, M.; Borkowf, C.B.; Dake, E.M.; Martin, J.L.; Pohl, L.R. Autoantibodies associated with volatile anesthetic hepatitis found in the sera of a large cohort of pediatric anesthesiologists. Anesth. Analg. 2002, 94, 243–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Nicoll, A.; Moore, D.; Njoku, D.; Hockey, B. Repeated exposure to modern volatile anaesthetics may cause chronic hepatitis as well as acute liver injury. BMJ Case Rep. 2012, 2012, bcr2012006543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Patel, A.D.; Katz, K.; Gordon, K.B. Cutaneous manifestations of chronic liver disease. Clin. Liver Dis. 2020, 24, 351–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Stevens, A.M.; Johnson, F.C. A new eruptive fever associated with stomatitis and ophthalmia: Report of two cases in children. Am. J. Dis. Child. 1922, 24, 526–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Bohigian, G.M. The History of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and a Case Study. 2015. Available online: https://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/historyofmedicine_presentations/1 (accessed on 15 June 2024).
  108. Lyell, A. Toxic epidermal necrolysis: An eruption resembling scalding of the skin. Br. J. Dermatol. 1956, 68, 355–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Roujeau, J.C.; Chosidow, O.; Saiag, P.; Guillaume, J.C. Toxic epidermal necrolysis (Lyell syndrome). J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 1990, 23 Pt 1, 1039–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Harr, T.; French, L.E. Toxic epidermal necrolysis and Stevens-Johnson syndrome. Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 2010, 5, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Wang, L.; Varghese, S.; Bassir, F.; Lo, Y.C.; Ortega, C.A.; Shah, S.; Blumenthal, K.G.; Phillips, E.J.; Zhou, L. Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis: A systematic review of PubMed/MEDLINE case reports from 1980 to 2020. Front. Med. 2022, 9, 949520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Frantz, R.; Huang, S.; Are, A.; Motaparthi, K. Stevens–Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: A review of diagnosis and management. Medicina 2021, 57, 895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. . Labib, A.; Milroy, C. Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis. In StatPearls [Internet]; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  114. Cho, Y.T.; Lin, J.W.; Chen, Y.C.; Chang, C.Y.; Hsiao, C.H.; Chung, W.H.; Chu, C.Y. Generalized bullous fixed drug eruption is distinct from Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis by immunohistopathological features. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2014, 70, 539–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Sassolas, B.; Haddad, C.; Mockenhaupt, M.; Dunant, A.; Liss, Y.; Bork, K.; Haustein, U.F.; Vieluf, D.; Roujeau, J.C.; Le Louet, H. ALDEN, an algorithm for assessment of drug causality in Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis: Comparison with case-control analysis. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2010, 88, 60–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Zhang, Z.; Li, S.; Zhang, Z.; Yu, K.; Duan, X.; Long, L.; Zhang, S.; Jiang, M.; Liu, O. Clinical features, risk factors, and prognostic markers of drug-induced liver injury in patients with Stevens-Johnson Syndrome/Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis. Indian J. Dermatol. 2020, 65, 274–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Ortega-Alonso, A.; Stephens, C.; Lucena, M.I.; Andrade, R.J. Case characterization, clinical features and risk factors in drug-induced liver injury. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016, 17, 714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Devarbhavi, H.; Sridhar, A.; Kurien, S.S.; Gowda, V.; Kothari, K.; Patil, M.; Singh, R. Clinical and liver biochemistry phenotypes, and outcome in 133 patients with anti-seizure drug-induced liver injury. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2023, 68, 2099–2106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Agrawal, R.; Almoghrabi, A.; Attar, B.M.; Gandhi, S. Fluoxetine-induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome and liver injury. J. Clin. Pharm. Ther. 2019, 44, 115–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Xiong, H.; Liu, T.; Xiao, J.; Wan, J.; Yang, J.; Huang, G.; Han, Y.; Liu, G.; Dong, X. Warfarin-induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome with severe liver injury. J. Int. Med. Res. 2021, 49, 3000605211033196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Teschke, R. Liver injury in immune Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis: Five new classification types. J. Clin. Transl. Hepatol. 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Szatkowski, J.; Schwartz, R.A. Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP): A review and update. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2015, 73, 843–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Romero, L.S.; Bari, O.; Forbess Smith, C.J.; Schneider, J.A.; Cohen, P.R. Toxic epidermal necrolysis-like acute cutaneous lupus erythematosus: Report of a case and review of the literature. Dermatol. Online J. 2018, 24, 13030/qt5r79d67k. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Baigrie, D.; Nookala, V. StatPearls [Internet]; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2024. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK535374/ (accessed on 25 November 2024).
  125. Genovese, G.; Venegoni, L.; Fanoni, D.; Muratori, S.; Berti, E.; Marzano, A.V. Linear IgA bullous dermatosis in adults and children: A clinical and immunopathological study of 38 patients. Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 2019, 14, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Ingold, C.J.; Sathe, N.C.; Khan, M.A.B. Pemphigus Vulgaris. In StatPearls [Internet]; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  127. Glatz, M.; Hofbauer, G.F. Phototoxic and photoallergic cutaneous drug reactions. Chem. Immunol. Allergy 2012, 97, 167–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Mishra, A.K.; Yadav, P.; Mishra, A. A Systemic review on Staphylococcal Scalded Skin Syndrome (SSSS): A rare and critical disease of neonates. Open Microbiol. J. 2016, 10, 150–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. McKinley, B.J.; Allen, M.E.; Michels, N. Photodistributed Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis: A systematic review and proposal for a new diagnostic classification. Eur. J. Med. Res. 2023, 28, 188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Yang, S.C.; Hu, S.; Zhang, S.Z.; Huang, J.W.; Zhang, J.; Ji, C.; Cheng, B. The epidemiology of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis in China. J. Immunol. Res. 2018, 2018, 4320195, Erratum in J. Immunol. Res. 2018, 2018, 4154507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Lim, J.H.; Kim, H.S.; Kim, H.O.; Park, Y.M. Stevens-Johnson syndrome following occupational exposure to carbamate insecticide. J. Dermatol. 2010, 37, 182–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Chung, W.H.; Shih, S.R.; Chang, C.F.; Lin, T.Y.; Huang, Y.C.; Chang, S.C.; Liu, M.T.; Ko, Y.S.; Deng, M.C.; Liau, Y.L.; et al. Clinicopathologic analysis of coxsackievirus a6 new variant induced widespread mucocutaneous bullous reactions mimicking severe cutaneous adverse reactions. J. Infect. Dis. 2013, 208, 1968–1978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. De Guido, C.; Calderaro, A.; Ruozi, M.B.; Maffini, V.; Varini, M.; Lapetina, I.; Rubini, M.; Montecchini, S.; Caffarelli, C.; Dodi, I. An unusual cause of Steven-Johnson syndrome. Acta Biomed. 2020, 91, 128–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Voltan, A.; Azzena, B. A case of toxic epidermal necrolysis (Ten) with severe chronic ocular complications in a healthy 46-year-old woman. Ann. Burn. Fire Disasters 2010, 23, 81–87. [Google Scholar]
  135. Kim, H.I.; Kim, S.W.; Park, G.Y.; Kwon, E.G.; Kim, H.H.; Jeong, J.Y.; Chang, H.H.; Lee, J.M.; Kim, N.S. Causes and treatment outcomes of Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis in 82 adult patients. Korean J. Intern. Med. 2012, 27, 203–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Zang, X.; Chen, S.; Zhang, L.; Zhai, Y. Toxic epidermal necrolysis in hepatitis A infection with acute-on-chronic liver failure: Case report and literature review. Front. Med. 2022, 9, 964062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Type 1: Autoimmune features in selected DIAIH cases.
Table 1. Type 1: Autoimmune features in selected DIAIH cases.
Serum Autoimmune ParameterRUCAM UsedClinical Details of DIAIH Cases and CommentsDrugs and Drug GroupsReferences
AMA
ANA
ASMA
YESAt the start of the hospital stay, jaundice was a common initial finding. Portal inflammation and infiltration with lymphoplasmacytic cells were evident in the liver histology specimen.AntimicrobialsLicata, 2014 [60]
ANA
ASMA
YESThis excellent study provided results of serum autoantibodies in cohorts with careful exclusion of confounding cases that had nothing to do with DIAIH but had to be diagnosed as common, non-immune DILI caused, for instance, by antibiotics.Adalimumab Certolizumab InfliximabShelton, 2015 [61]
ANAYESIn Japan, DIAIH was rarely attributed to chemical drugs as opposed predominantly to herbal TCMs, making the term DIAIH incorrect because herbal products are in no way chemical drugs.Clarithromycin NSAIDsHisamochu, 2016 [62]
ANA
ASMA
YESInitial therapy started with prednisone given as a sole drug, while later, sometimes, azathioprine was provided alone or combined with prednisone. Under these treatment regimes, there was no lethality due to liver disease and no necessity for liver transplantation. Nitrofurantoin NSAIDsYeong, 2016 [63]
ANAYESThe female gender prevailed with 93% of cases. Improvement was seen in 40% after drug cessation.Imatinib
Infliximab Nitrofurantoin
Björnsson, 2017 [64]
ANA
ASMA
NOWith 91%, females were in the majority. Patients were symptomatic with icterus, pruritus, exanthema, and increased body temperature. Eosinophilia was a typical laboratory abnormality in the affected patients. The liver pattern was mostly of the hepatocellular injury type.Hydralazine
Methyldopa Minocycline Nitrofurantoin
de Boer 2017 [65]
ANAYESMenotrophin was given as a hormonal fertility medication.MenotrophinAlqrinawi, 2019 [66]
AMA
ANA
ASMA
YESSteroids and immunomodulators provided an efficient therapy. This was an excellent clinical study on the DIAIH study from Latin America.Nitrofurantoin
NSAIDs
Martinez-Casas, 2018 [67]
ALKMA
AMA
ANA
ASMA
YESThe decline of serum ALT activities one week following starting the treatment with steroid therapy was more evident in the DIAIH cases than in patients with genuine AIH, seen as another diagnostic parameter that could help differentiate DIAIH from AIH.Atorvastatin Dabigatran Diclofenac Ezetimibe Metamizole RivaroxabanWeber, 2019 [68]
SMAYESIn line with previous reports, the treatment with immunosuppressive agents was efficient. InfliximabValgareisson 2019 [69]
ANA
ASMA
YESNormal IgG levels were reported as well as serum ANA and ASMA positivity in 32% of patients.ICIsRiveiro-Barciela, 2020 [70]
AMA
ANA
ASMA
YESRUCAM-based liver injury pattern was hepatocellular in 92% of cases. Females predominated with 62%.Antibacterials
Statins
Stephens, 2021 [71]
ALKMA
ANA
ASLA
ASMA
YESThis immuno-allergic phenotype was based on a rash, facial edema, lymphadenopathy, fever, and eosinophilia in a range of 11–27% and of 70–75% in cases with jaundice. An elevated serum IgG level was a common finding. Specimens of the liver showed histological signs of portal inflammation, plasma cell infiltrates, rosettes, and focal necrosis.Atorvastatin Diclofenac Etanercept Infliximab Methyldopa Minocycline Nitrofurantoin RosuvastatinTan, 2022 [72]
ANA
ASMA
YESIn 18% of patients, seronegativity was observed, and cirrhosis in 25% of cases. Infliximab Minocycline NitrofurantoinChung, 2023 [73]
ANA
SMA
YESAt baseline, all patients had jaundice and elevated serum ALT and AST activities.Ibuprofen TrazodoneHassoun, 2023 [74]
AMA
ANA
YESThe cohort was inhomogeneous due to mixing with non-drugs such as herbs and undetermined classification.Antibiotics HormonesKakisaka 2023 [75]
ANAYESA positive test was reported after unintentional reexposure to the same drug.AtorvastatinTse, 2023 [76]
ANAYESAfter drug cessation, a decline in ALT and AST was observed, with an increase on day 10.OrnidazoleMemiş, 2024 [77]
Data were actualized after being taken from a previous open-access publication [44]. A few data are provisionally due to a lack of appropriate diagnostic tools of RUCAM and/or the simplified AIH score. Abbreviations: ALKMA, anti-liver kidney microsomes antibodies; AMA, anti-mitochondrial antibodies; ANA, anti-nuclear antibodies; ASMA, anti-smooth muscle antibodies; ASLA, anti-soluble liver antigen antibodies; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; DIAIH, drug-induced autoimmune hepatitis; NSAIDs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; RUCAM, Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method; TCM, traditional Chinese medicines.
Table 2. HLA association with selected drugs triggering iDILI was assessed for causality by RUCAM.
Table 2. HLA association with selected drugs triggering iDILI was assessed for causality by RUCAM.
DrugHLA AlleleRUCAM-Based
iDILI Cases (n)
References
Amoxicillin A*01:01
C*03:02
B*58:01
DPB1*01:01
15Nicoletti, 2019
[78]
Amoxicillin-clavulanateA*02:01
DQB1*06:02
201Lucena, 2011 [79]
Amoxicillin-clavulanateA*30:02
B*18:01
DRB1*15:01
DQB1*06:02
75Stephens, 2013 [80]
Amoxicillin-clavulanateDRB1*15:0114O’Donohue, 2000 [81]
Antituberculotics + antiretroviralsB*57:02
B*57:03
46Petros, 2017 [82]
CarbamazepineA*31:0129Nicoletti, 2019 [83]
DapsoneB*13:014Devarbhavi, 2022 [84]
EnalaprilA*33:014Nicoletti, 2017 [85]
ErythromycinA*33:0110Nicoletti, 2017 [85]
FenofibrateA*33:017Nicoletti, 2017 [85]
Flucloxacillin B*570151Daly, 2009 [86]
Flucloxacillin B*57:016Monshi, 2013 [87]
FlucloxacillinB*57:01
B*57:03
197Nicoletti, 2019 [78]
Flucloxacillin B*57:011Teixera, 2020 [88]
FlupirtineDRB1*16:01-DQB*05:0211Nicoletti, 2016 [89]
InfliximabB*39:0118Bruno, 2020 [90]
Isoxazolyl
penicillins
C*07:04
DQB1*06:09
6Nicoletti, 2019 [78]
MethimazoleC*03:0240Li, 2019 [91]
MethyldopaA*33:014Nicoletti, 2017 [85]
MinocyclineB*35:0225Urban, 2017 [92]
NitrofurantoinA*33:01
DQB1*02:02
A*30:02
DQA1*02:01 DRB1*07:01 DPB1*16:01
C*06:02
26Daly, 2023 [93]
SertalineA*33:015Nicoletti, 2017 [85]
TerbinafineA*33:0114Nicoletti, 2017 [85]
TiclopidineA*33:015Nicoletti, 2017 [85]
Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazoleB*14:01
B*14:02
B*35:01
86Li, 2021 [94]
Data were reproduced from a previous open-access publication [55]. The diagnosis was affirmed by the authors of the reports using RUCAM. Abbreviations: iDILI, idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury; HLA, human leucocyte antigen; RUCAM, Roussel Uclaf Causality assessment method.
Table 3. Flucloxacillin, as a suspected drug of iDILI assessed for HLA association and causality by RUCAM.
Table 3. Flucloxacillin, as a suspected drug of iDILI assessed for HLA association and causality by RUCAM.
DRUG HLA AlleleRUCAM-Based
iDILI Cases (n)
RUCAM-Based Causality References
Flucloxacillin B*57:01514/51 patients had a possible causality, 18 a probable one, and 29 a highly probable causality oneDaly, 2009 [86]
Flucloxacillin B*57:0162/6 patients had a possible causality, 2 a probable, and 2 a highly probable causalityMonshi, 2013 [87]
FlucloxacillinB*57:01
B*57:03
19722/197 of the patients had a possible causality, 90 a probable, and 85 a highly probable causality gradingNicoletti, 2019 [83]
Flucloxacillin B*57:011RUCAM score of 8, equivalent to a probable causality gradingTeixera, 2020 [88]
The table was retrieved from a recent paper published in an open-access journal [95]. Abbreviations: iDILI, idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury; HLA, human leucocyte antigen; RUCAM, Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method.
Table 4. Serum antibodies represent immune features of iDILI in patients with RUCAM-based iDILI following the use of volatile anesthetics.
Table 4. Serum antibodies represent immune features of iDILI in patients with RUCAM-based iDILI following the use of volatile anesthetics.
Autoimmune ParameterDetails of RUCAM-Based iDILI CasesDrugReferences
Serum
anti-CYP 2E1
Patients experiencing iDILI attributed to the volatile anesthetic sevoflurane use exhibited positive serum titers of anti-CYP 2E1 in cases with highly probable causalities and well-described clinical features. Among these were flu-like symptoms, fever, jaundice, vomiting, right upper quadrant abdominal pain, reduced appetite, rash, and myalgias, all described after the second anesthesia. In the liver histology, centrilobular necrosis with hemorrhage and rosetting of liver cells prevailed.SevofluraneNicoll, 2012 [104]
Serum
anti-CYP 2E1
Clinical case details of the RUCAM-based iDILI were published as a result of volatile anesthetic use in combination. Considering alternative causes such as hypotension and DILI by antibiotics or paracetamol was highly appreciated for reasons of clarity and transparency.Sevoflurane + DesfluraneBishop, 2019 [47]
Serum
anti-TFA
Aditional valuable insight into the mechanistic steps involved in iDILI with a verified diagnosis by RUCAM was evident in patients with detected toxic intermediates in the form of trifluoroacetate (TFA) halide, produced during the drug metabolism via CYP 2E1. This provided clues of irreversible protein adduct formation and free radical generation, resulting in detectable anti-TFA antibodies as a sign of an immune process.Sevoflurane + DesfluraneNicoll, 2012 [104] Bishop, 2019 [47]
Data of this table were retrieved from a previous open access publication [44]. Abbreviations: CYP, Cytochrome P450; DILI, drug-induced liver injury; RUCAM, Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method.
Table 5. Selected drugs implicated in RUCAM-based iDILI and ALDEN-based SJS/TEN.
Table 5. Selected drugs implicated in RUCAM-based iDILI and ALDEN-based SJS/TEN.
Drugs/Drug Classes Cases (n) Causality
Algorithm Use
OutcomeReferences
Allopurinol2RUCAM +
ALDEN +
All survivedDevarbhavi, 2016 [58]
Allopurinol 1RUCAM +
ALDEN +
N.A.Zhang, 2020 [116]
AmoxicillinN.A.RUCAM +
ALDEN −
Cases of acute liver failure, outcome unknownOrtega-Alonso, 2017 [117]
AmpicillinN.A.RUCAM +
ALDEN −
Cases of acute liver failure, outcome unknownOrtega-Alonso, 2017 [117]
Aspirin1RUCAM +
ALDEN +
N.A.Zhang, 2020 [116]
Carbamazepine 2RUCAM +
ALDEN +
All diedDevarbhavi, 2016 [58]
Carbamazepine8RUCAM +
ALDEN +
N.A.Zhang, 2020 [116]
Carbamazepine36RUCAM +
ALDEN +
4/36 diedDevarbhavi, 2023 [118]
Ceftazidime1RUCAM +
ALDEN +
N.A.Zhang, 2020 [116]
Ceftriaxone 1RUCAM +
ALDEN +
Lethal outcomeDevarbhavi, 2016 [58]
Ceftriaxone1RUCAM +
ALDEN +
N.A.Zhang, 2020 [116]
CelecoxibN.A.RUCAM +
ALDEN −
No cases of acute liver failureOrtega-Alonso, 2017 [117]
Clobazam 2RUCAM +
ALDEN +
1/3 died Devarbhavi, 2023 [118]
Clonazepam 2RUCAM +
ALDEN +
All survived Devarbhavi, 2023 [118]
Cotrimoxazole 3RUCAM +
ALDEN +
All survivedDevarbhavi, 2016 [58]
Dapsone 5RUCAM +
ALDEN +
3/5 diedDevarbhavi, 2016 [58]
Fluoxetine1RUCAM +
ALDEN +
SurvivedAgrawal, 2019 [119]
Gabapentin 1RUCAM +
ALDEN +
Survived Devarbhavi, 2023 [118]
IbuprofenN.A.RUCAM +
ALDEN −
Cases of acute liver failure, outcome unknownOrtega-Alonso, 2017 [117]
Lamotrigine1RUCAM +
ALDEN +
Lethal outcomeDevarbhavi, 2016 [58]
Lamotrigine1RUCAM +
ALDEN +
N.A.Zhang, 2020 [116]
Lamotrigine 3RUCAM +
ALDEN +
1/3 diedDevarbhavi, 2023 [118]
Leflunomide 3RUCAM +
ALDEN +
All diedDevarbhavi, 2016 [58]
Leflunomide 2RUCAM +
ALDEN +
N.A.Zhang, 2020 [116]
Levitericetam1RUCAM +
ALDEN +
Lethal outcomeDevarbhavi, 2016 [58]
Levitericetam 3RUCAM +
ALDEN +
All survivedDevarbhavi, 2023 [118]
Levofloxacin1RUCAM +
ALDEN +
SurvivedDevarbhavi, 2016 [58]
Nevirapine 6RUCAM +
ALDEN +
All survivedDevarbhavi, 2016 [58]
Omeprazole1RUCAM +
ALDEN +
N.A.Zhang, 2020 [116]
Oxacarbazepine 1RUCAM +
ALDEN +
SurvivedDevarbhavi, 2016 [58]
Oxacarbazepine2RUCAM +
ALDEN +
N.A. Zhang, 2020 [116]
Oxacarbazepine 2RUCAM +
ALDEN +
All survivedDevarbhavi, 2023 [118]
Paracetamol1RUCAM +
ALDEN +
N.A. Zhang, 2020 [116]
Penicillin 1RUCAM +
ALDEN +
N.A.Zhang, 2020 [116]
Phenobarbitone 2RUCAM +
ALDEN +
1/2 diedDevarbhavi, 2016 [58]
Phenobarbitone1RUCAM +
ALDEN +
N.A.Zhang, 2020 [116]
Phenobarbitone 8RUCAM +
ALDEN +
2/8 diedDevarbhavi, 2023 [118]
Phenylbutazone2RUCAM +
ALDEN +
N.A.Zhang, 2020 [116]
Phenytoin2RUCAM +
ALDEN +
1/2 diedDevarbhavi, 2016 [58]
Phenytoin 1RUCAM +
ALDEN +
N.A. Zhang, 2020 [116]
Phenytoin 71RUCAM +
ALDEN +
4/71 diedDevarbhavi 2023 [118]
Tegafur 1RUCAM +
ALDEN +
N.A. Zhang, 2020 [116]
TerbinafineN.A.RUCAM +
ALDEN −
Cases of acute liver failure, outcome unknownOrtega-Alonso, 2017 [117]
Topiramate1RUCAM +
ALDEN +
SurvivedDevarbhavi, 2023 [118]
Valproate 14RUCAM +
ALDEN +
1/14 diedDevarbhavi, 2023 [118]
Warfarin1RUCAM +
ALDEN +
Survived Xiong 2021 [120]
Zonisamide1RUCAM +
ALDEN +
SurvivedDevarbhavi, 2023 [118]
Data were actualized and in detail discussed in and taken from a recent open-access publication [121]. Compilation of selected drugs implicated in causing iDILI in patients with SJS/TEN. In all listed drugs causality of DILI for the culprit drug was verified using the scoring RUCAM algorithm. For most of the drugs, the diagnosis of SJS/TEN was verified by the scoring ALDEN algorithm. Listing was confined to conventional drugs, excluding herbal medicines like herbal TCM because these non-drugs cause herb-induced liver injury (HILI) rather than DILI. The + sign indicated that the specific diagnostic algorithm was used to verify the diagnosis as opposed to the − sign, which signified that the specific algorithm was not applied. Abbreviations: ALDEN, Algorithm for Drug Causality for Epidermal Necrolysis; N.A., Not available; RUCAM, Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method; TCM, traditional Chinese medicines.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Teschke, R. Immunology Highlights of Four Major Idiosyncratic DILI Subtypes Verified by the RUCAM: A New Evidence-Based Classification. Livers 2025, 5, 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/livers5010008

AMA Style

Teschke R. Immunology Highlights of Four Major Idiosyncratic DILI Subtypes Verified by the RUCAM: A New Evidence-Based Classification. Livers. 2025; 5(1):8. https://doi.org/10.3390/livers5010008

Chicago/Turabian Style

Teschke, Rolf. 2025. "Immunology Highlights of Four Major Idiosyncratic DILI Subtypes Verified by the RUCAM: A New Evidence-Based Classification" Livers 5, no. 1: 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/livers5010008

APA Style

Teschke, R. (2025). Immunology Highlights of Four Major Idiosyncratic DILI Subtypes Verified by the RUCAM: A New Evidence-Based Classification. Livers, 5(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/livers5010008

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop