IQ DILI Consensus Opinion: Best Practices for Rechallenge Following Suspected Drug-Induced Liver Injury in Clinical Trials.

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Klaudia Steplewski, Lucy Walker, Nefeteria Coffee, Maura Fallon, Rie Yonemochi, David Alpers, Don Rockey, James Lewis, Eric Cohen, John Caminis, Judith Hey-Hadavi, Raul Jesus Andrade, Melissa Palmer
{"title":"IQ DILI Consensus Opinion: Best Practices for Rechallenge Following Suspected Drug-Induced Liver Injury in Clinical Trials.","authors":"Klaudia Steplewski, Lucy Walker, Nefeteria Coffee, Maura Fallon, Rie Yonemochi, David Alpers, Don Rockey, James Lewis, Eric Cohen, John Caminis, Judith Hey-Hadavi, Raul Jesus Andrade, Melissa Palmer","doi":"10.1007/s40264-025-01540-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Rechallenge with study drug after suspected drug-induced liver injury (DILI) during drug development requires a comprehensive assessment of risks and benefits. Lack of universal consensus or societal guidelines makes this decision-making process more challenging and difficult to manage in clinical development. The sparse published literature is biased towards reporting cases of positive rechallenge (recurrent DILI), often with adverse outcomes. The heterogeneity of available data and inconsistent approaches to drug rechallenge likely lead to bias in our perception of the risks of rechallenge, ultimately leaving this topic controversial. The IQ DILI Causality Assessment Working Group, in collaboration with academic and regulatory experts, developed this manuscript with the following objectives: (1) understand and describe current practices via literature review and survey of practices and opinions among drug developers, academic experts, and regulators; (2) propose a consistent and structured approach to decision-making and managing the rechallenge process; (3) facilitate better understanding of the risks and benefits of rechallenge via a standardized approach to collecting rechallenge data, including outcomes and the importance of publishing rechallenge data; and (4) the role of obtaining a liver biopsy, guidance on when a biopsy might be considered, and what histologic findings can assist in making the rechallenge decision. Lastly, knowledge gaps in the drug rechallenge paradigm are highlighted alongside the proposal to standardize the collection and publication of rechallenge data to help address these gaps. This consensus expert opinion does not encourage rechallenge but provides guidance for drug developers to apply a consistent approach to rechallenge.</p>","PeriodicalId":11382,"journal":{"name":"Drug Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-025-01540-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rechallenge with study drug after suspected drug-induced liver injury (DILI) during drug development requires a comprehensive assessment of risks and benefits. Lack of universal consensus or societal guidelines makes this decision-making process more challenging and difficult to manage in clinical development. The sparse published literature is biased towards reporting cases of positive rechallenge (recurrent DILI), often with adverse outcomes. The heterogeneity of available data and inconsistent approaches to drug rechallenge likely lead to bias in our perception of the risks of rechallenge, ultimately leaving this topic controversial. The IQ DILI Causality Assessment Working Group, in collaboration with academic and regulatory experts, developed this manuscript with the following objectives: (1) understand and describe current practices via literature review and survey of practices and opinions among drug developers, academic experts, and regulators; (2) propose a consistent and structured approach to decision-making and managing the rechallenge process; (3) facilitate better understanding of the risks and benefits of rechallenge via a standardized approach to collecting rechallenge data, including outcomes and the importance of publishing rechallenge data; and (4) the role of obtaining a liver biopsy, guidance on when a biopsy might be considered, and what histologic findings can assist in making the rechallenge decision. Lastly, knowledge gaps in the drug rechallenge paradigm are highlighted alongside the proposal to standardize the collection and publication of rechallenge data to help address these gaps. This consensus expert opinion does not encourage rechallenge but provides guidance for drug developers to apply a consistent approach to rechallenge.

IQ DILI共识意见:临床试验中疑似药物性肝损伤后再挑战的最佳实践。
在药物开发过程中,在怀疑药物性肝损伤(DILI)后重新使用研究药物需要对风险和获益进行全面评估。缺乏普遍共识或社会指导方针使得这一决策过程在临床开发中更具挑战性和难以管理。稀疏的已发表文献偏向于报道阳性再挑战(复发性DILI)的病例,通常有不良后果。现有数据的异质性和药物再挑战方法的不一致性可能导致我们对再挑战风险的认知存在偏见,最终使这一话题引起争议。IQ DILI因果关系评估工作组与学术和监管专家合作,编写了这份手稿,目的如下:(1)通过文献综述和对药物开发商、学术专家和监管机构的实践和意见的调查,理解和描述当前的实践;(2)提出一个统一的、结构化的决策和管理再挑战过程的方法;(3)通过收集再挑战数据的标准化方法,包括结果和发布再挑战数据的重要性,促进更好地理解再挑战的风险和收益;(4)获得肝活检的作用,何时可以考虑活检的指导,以及哪些组织学结果可以帮助做出重新质疑的决定。最后,强调了药物再挑战范式中的知识差距,并提出了标准化再挑战数据的收集和发布以帮助解决这些差距的建议。这一一致的专家意见不鼓励再质疑,但为药物开发人员采用一致的方法进行再质疑提供了指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Drug Safety
Drug Safety 医学-毒理学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
7.10%
发文量
112
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Drug Safety is the official journal of the International Society of Pharmacovigilance. The journal includes: Overviews of contentious or emerging issues. Comprehensive narrative reviews that provide an authoritative source of information on epidemiology, clinical features, prevention and management of adverse effects of individual drugs and drug classes. In-depth benefit-risk assessment of adverse effect and efficacy data for a drug in a defined therapeutic area. Systematic reviews (with or without meta-analyses) that collate empirical evidence to answer a specific research question, using explicit, systematic methods as outlined by the PRISMA statement. Original research articles reporting the results of well-designed studies in disciplines such as pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacovigilance, pharmacology and toxicology, and pharmacogenomics. Editorials and commentaries on topical issues. Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in Drug Safety Drugs may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信