Cited by 340Drug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and ProtectionComplementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 210 of the 212 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 289 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

AASLD practice guidance on drug, herbal, and dietary supplement–induced liver injury

Open access

Abstract

INTRODUCTION There are currently more than 1000 prescription medications available for use in the United States and more than 100,000 over‐the‐counter herbal and dietary supplements (HDS) available for purchase in retail stores and online. In addition, the average adult American receives more than six prescription medications per year.1,2 Many of these drugs and HDS products have been implicated as causes of DILI. Furthermore, DILI is a leading reason for regulatory actions regarding drugs in development as well as those in the marketplace.1 Confidently establishing a diagnosis of DILI is difficult because of the need to exclude more common competing causes of liver injury, the protean clinical manifestations from an individual agent, and the lack of a validated diagnostic biomarker.3–5 This guidance was developed with the support and oversight of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases Practice Guidelines Committee, who chose to commission a guidance, rather than a guideline, because of the paucity of randomized controlled trials on this topic. This document was developed by consensus of an expert panel and provides guidance statements based on formal review and analysis of the literature on the topics and questions related to the needs of patients with drug and supplement–induced liver injury. The aim of this practice guidance is to provide recommendations regarding the common clinical, laboratory, and histological features seen in patients with DILI based on observational and epidemiological data reported in case series or DILI registries. In addition, expert opinion–based recommendations for patient management, including risk stratification, are provided to assist patients and practitioners. DILI classification DILI can be mechanistically classified as being either direct (i.e., dose‐dependent, intrinsic, and predictable) or idiosyncratic (largely dose‐independent, idiosyncratic, and unpredictable) (Table 1). Direct hepatotoxins such as acetaminophen (APAP) (N‐acetyl‐para‐aminophenol) can cause liver injury in nearly all exposed individuals if a threshold dose or duration is exceeded. In contrast, idiosyncratic hepatotoxins are usually neither dose‐related nor duration‐related but rather occur at varying times during or after drug administration.6 Idiosyncratic DILI is uncommon, with most approved drugs occurring in only 1 in 1000 to 1 in a million exposed individuals. Although most patients do not have rash, eosinophilia, or other hypersensitivity features at presentation, aberrant host immunity is implicated in most instances of idiosyncratic DILI.3 TABLE 1 - Proposed classification of DILI Mechanistic classification Direct hepatotoxicity Idiosyncratic hepatotoxicity Indirect hepatotoxicity Incidence Common Rare Intermediate Dose relatedness Yes No No Predictable Yes No Partially Reproduced in animal models Yes No Not usually Latency Rapid (days) Variable (days to years) Delayed (months) Phenotypes of injury Serum AST, ALT, or ALP elevations, hepatic necrosis, acute fatty liver, nodular regeneration Mixed or cholestatic hepatitis, bland cholestasis, chronic hepatitis Immune‐mediated hepatitis, fatty liver, chronic hepatitis Examples Acetaminophen, niacin, intravenous methotrexate Amoxicillin‐clavulanate, cephalosporins, isoniazid, nitrofurantoin Immune checkpoint inhibitors, anti‐CD20 monoclonal Ab, protein kinase inhibitors Touted mechanism of injury Intrinsic hepatotoxicity that is dose‐dependent Idiosyncratic host metabolic or immune reaction Indirect effect on liver or host immunity Source: Adapted from Björnsson et al.5 A third mechanism of hepatotoxicity is called indirect DILI, which arises when the biological action of the drug affects the host immune system, leading to a secondary form of liver injury. Like idiosyncratic DILI, indirect hepatotoxins are generally independent of the dose of medication administered and have a latency of weeks to months with varying clinical manifestations. Examples of indirect hepatotoxicity include the immune‐mediated hepatitis (IMH) observed with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and reactivation of HBV infection following rituximab infusions.7,8 Guidance statements Clinicians should be familiar with the three main types of hepatotoxicity when evaluating patients with suspected DILI. Direct hepatotoxins such as APAP can cause liver injury in nearly all exposed individuals once a threshold dose or duration of use is exceeded. Idiosyncratic DILI is largely independent of the dose and duration of medication use and characterized by a low incidence and variable drug latency and clinical and histological features. Idiosyncratic DILI is believed to arise from an aberrant adaptive host immune response to the drug and/or its metabolite(s). Indirect hepatotoxins are generally independent of the dose administered and have a variable latency and manifestations that arise from the biological action of the drug on the liver and/ or host immune system. Ep

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This AASLD practice guidance summarizes drug-, herbal-, and dietary supplement–induced liver injury (DILI), covering classification, epidemiology, diagnosis, causality assessment, histology, management, and monitoring. It provides consensus guidance statements because randomized controlled trial evidence is sparse.

Key findings

  • Idiosyncratic DILI is uncommon, with an estimated annual incidence of 14–19 per 100,000 in the general population (~60,000 US cases/year), higher in exposure-based electronic medical record studies (32.8–40 per 100,000) and up to 1.4% among medical inpatients.
  • Herbal and dietary supplements (HDS) account for ~20% of adult DILI cases in the DILIN registry; in China, Korea, and Singapore, HDS account for 27%–62% of DILI cases. Amoxicillin-clavulanate is the most frequently implicated individual agent in many Western countries, whereas anti-tuberculosis agents dominate in Asian countries.
  • Acetaminophen (APAP) is a dose-dependent hepatotoxin; in North America, APAP overdose is believed to cause 100,000 poison-control calls, 50,000 emergency room visits, and at least 500 deaths annually, and is the leading cause of acute liver failure among US adults.
  • With drug discontinuation, ~80% of DILI patients fully recover; ~10% with severe hepatocellular DILI and jaundice are at risk of death or transplant, and spontaneous survival in DILI-related acute liver failure is only ~25%. Chronic DILI occurred in 21% of DILIN subjects at 6 months, with 10%–20% persistence beyond 6–12 months in guidance statements.

Methods

  • The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases Practice Guidelines Committee commissioned a guidance, rather than a guideline, because of the paucity of randomized controlled trials; it was developed by expert panel consensus with formal literature review and analysis.
  • Evidence came largely from observational and epidemiological data in case series and DILI registries (e.g., DILIN, Spanish, Iceland, Latin America, China, India), supplemented by expert opinion for management and risk stratification.
  • The document synthesizes guidance statements, diagnostic algorithms, and tables on DILI classification, etiologies, genetic associations, histologic phenotypes, causality assessment instruments, prognostic indices, and monitoring/management.

Limitations

  • Stated in the paper: there is a paucity of randomized controlled trials on DILI, no validated diagnostic biomarker, and diagnosis remains difficult because it requires excluding more common competing causes of liver injury.
  • Stated in the paper: causality assessment tools have important limitations—RUCAM weighting and risk factors are not evidence-based, RECAM has not been tested in regions with different DILI spectra, in HDS-induced injury, or in cases with more than one suspect drug, and DILIN expert opinion requires specialized expertise that limits generalizability.
  • Stated in the paper and evident from the text: insufficient data exist to confirm age, sex, and race/ethnicity as reliable DILI susceptibility risk factors; HDS compositional complexity, adulteration, mislabeling, and batch variability confound assessment; and many recommendations rely on observational data and expert consensus rather than controlled trials.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hep.32689

Cites

210 of 210 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 289 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 131 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 84
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 83
151 of 151
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The available observational and epidemiological data from case series and DILI registries are adequate to support recommendations on the clinical, laboratory, and histological features of DILI.

    “The aim of this practice guidance is to provide recommendations regarding the common clinical, laboratory, and histological features seen in patients with DILI based on observational and epidemiological data reported in case series or DILI registries.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Expert opinion is an adequate basis for patient management recommendations when randomized controlled trials are lacking.

    “In addition, expert opinion–based recommendations for patient management, including risk stratification, are provided to assist patients and practitioners.”
    “This guidance was developed with the support and oversight of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases Practice Guidelines Committee, who chose to commission a guidance, rather than a guideline, because of the paucity of randomized controlled trials on this topic.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Up to 10% of patients with severe hepatocellular DILI with jaundice may be at risk of death because of their liver condition or underlying medical comorbidities.

    “However, up to 10% of patients with severe hepatocellular DILI with jaundice may be at risk of death because of their liver condition or underlying medical comorbidities.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In registry studies, 10% of patients with idiosyncratic DILI are at risk for adverse hepatic outcomes including ALF, liver transplantation, and death within 6 months of onset.

    “In registry studies, 10% of patients with idiosyncratic DILI are at risk for adverse hepatic outcomes including ALF, liver transplantation, and death within 6 months of onset.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Spontaneous survival in idiosyncratic DILI-related ALF is only 25%.

    “Because of the low likelihood of spontaneous survival in idiosyncratic DILI-related ALF of only 25%, early transfer of these individuals to a liver transplant center is recommended.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Chronic liver injury that persists beyond 6–12 months is observed in 10%–20% of patients with DILI and may be more commonly encountered in those with cholestatic DILI.

    “Chronic liver injury that persists beyond 6–12 months is observed in 10%–20% of patients with DILI and may be more commonly encountered in those with cholestatic DILI.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Individuals at increased risk for adverse outcomes include patients with DILI with severe necrosis and fibrosis on liver biopsy.

    “Individuals at increased risk for adverse outcomes include patients with DILI with higher bilirubin and INR values and lower serum albumin at presentation as well as those with severe necrosis and fibrosis on liver biopsy and those with medical comorbidities and pre-existing liver disease.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Defibrotide is approved for use in adults and children undergoing hematopoietic cell transplantation with moderate to severe SOS.

    “Defibrotide is a profibrolytic that is approved for use in adults and children undergoing hematopoietic cell transplantation with moderate to severe SOS.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Ursodeoxycholic acid is not an established therapy for patients with DILI but is presumably safe to administer.

    “Ursodeoxycholic acid is not an established therapy for patients with DILI but is presumably safe to administer.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A diagnosis of APAP overdose is based on a history of ingestion of excessive doses (usually > 4 g as a single time point) that can lead to variable severity of acute hepatocellular liver injury with towering transaminase levels (often > 1000 U/L) within the first 24 h of observation.

    “A diagnosis of APAP overdose is based on a history of ingestion of excessive doses (usually > 4 g as a single time point) that can then lead to variable severity of acute hepatocellular liver injury with towering transaminase levels (often > 1000 U/L) within the first 24 h of observation (Table 10).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Histologically, APAP toxicity is characterized by a variable degree of pericentral necrosis.

    “Histologically, APAP toxicity is characterized by a variable degree of pericentral necrosis.”
11 of 11

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • CDS definite category exceeds its maximum score

    Major

    Table 5 gives the CDS a maximum score of 17 but requires a score greater than 17 for a definite classification. No score in the stated range can meet that criterion.

  • APAP antidote infusion duration does not total 24 hours

    Minor

    The specified intravenous NAC loading infusion lasts 15-60 minutes, followed by infusions lasting 4 and 16 hours. The schedule therefore lasts 20 hours 15 minutes to 21 hours, rather than the stated 24 hours.

  • CDS score of 6 belongs to two categories

    Minor

    Table 5 classifies a CDS score of 6 as both unlikely (6-9) and excluded (≤ 6).

  • Conflicting R-value cutoffs at 2 and 5

    Minor

    The diagnostic text assigns hepatocellular injury to R > 5 and cholestatic injury to R < 2, but guidance statement 15 assigns those categories at R ≥ 5 and R ≤ 2. Cases with an R value of exactly 5 or 2 therefore receive different classifications.

4 of 4

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 212 references

2 of the 212 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. 2021, Dietary supplement use among adults: United States, 2017–2018, NCHS Data Brief, 399, 1
  2. 2021, A systematic comparison of hepatobiliary adverse drug reactions in FDA and EMA drug labelling reveals discrepancies, Drug Discov Today, 27, 337
  3. 2014, The National Lipid Association's statin safety task force. An assessment by the statin liver safety task force: 2014 update, J Clin Lipidol, 8, S47
  4. 2015, Role of osteopontin in liver diseases, Int J Biol Sci, 12, 1121

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 339

Metadata

Authors
Fontana, R. J., Liou, I., Reuben, A., Suzuki, A., Fiel, M. I., Lee, W., & Navarro, V.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Medical University of South Carolina (US)
  • Duke University (US)
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
  • The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
  • Einstein Healthcare Network (US)
Corresponding author
Fontana, Robert J.
Venue
Hepatology
Published
2023-02-17
Volume
77
Issue
3
Pages
1036-1065
ISSN
0270-9139 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4288077670
Cited by
340
References
212
Citations by year
2026: 152 · 2025: 85 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 38
FWCI
27.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Hepatology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases
  • Gilead Sciences
  • Alexion Pharmaceuticals
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Drug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and Protection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Complementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
Keywords
drug-induced liver injury, idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury, acetaminophen hepatotoxicity, liver injury biomarkers, risk stratification, hepatotoxicity
MeSH terms
Humans, Dietary Supplements, Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury, Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury, Chronic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review