CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 48

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Monocyte-derived hepatocyte-like cells for causality assessment of idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury

Benesic, Andreas, Leitl, Alexandra, Gerbes, Alexander L·2016·Gut
DOI 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-309528
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (iDILI) is a frequent cause of acute liver injury and a serious problem in late stage drug-development. Its diagnosis is one of the most challenging in hepatology, since it is done by exclusion and relies on expert opinion. Until now no reliable in vitro test exists to support the diagnosis of iDILI. In some instances it is impossible to determine the causative drug in polymedicated patients. Aim: To investigate if monocyte-derived hepatocyte-like (MH) cells might be a tool supporting clinical judgment for iDILI diagnosis and causality assessment. Methods: This prospective study included 54 patients with acute liver injury and intake of at least one drug. Thirty-one patients were diagnosed with iDILI based on causality likelihood. MH cells were generated from every patient and in vitro toxicity of the respective drugs was assessed by lactate-dehydrogenase release. The results from MH cells and RUCAM, the most widely used scoring system as methods to support clinical judgement were compared. Results: MH cells showed enhanced toxicity in 29 of the 31 patients with iDILI, similar to RUCAM score. MH cells exhibited negative results in the 23 non-DILI cases, whereas RUCAM indicated possible iDILI in six cases. Analysis of the comedications also showed superior specificity of MH cells. No MH cell toxicity of the drugs showing toxicity in patients with iDILI was observed in MH cells of healthy donors. Conclusions: In this pilot study in vitro testing using MH cells derived from patients with acute liver injury was able to identify patients with iDILI with an excellent sensitivity and a higher specificity than RUCAM, the most widely used current causality assessment score. Therefore, MH cells could be useful to identify the causative drugs even in polymedicated patients by adding objective data to causality assessment. Trial registration number: : NCT02353455

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-309528

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The MetaHeps® in vitro assay uses blood monocytes from the index patient differentiated to hepatocyte-like cells that exhibit increased cytotoxicity when cultured with the suspected drug, and is a patient-based approach to assess causality in idiosyncratic DILI.

    “The development of an in vitro assay, MetaHeps®, using blood monocytes from the index patient differentiated to hepatocyte‐like cells which exhibit increased cytotoxicity when cultured with the suspected drug, is an interesting patient‐based approach to assess causality in idiosyncratic DILI.”

    From Methods for causality assessment of idiosyncratic drug‐induced liver injury (2025) · cites this paper as [66]

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. 10.1016/j.cld.2013.07.001 · DOI
  2. 10.1097/00042737-200502000-00002 · DOI
  3. 10.1007/s11095-013-1007-6 · DOI
  4. 10.1172/JCI59755 · DOI
  5. 10.1016/j.cld.2013.07.002 · DOI · Paper page
  6. LeCluyse, 2005, Isolation and culture of primary hepatocytes, Methods Mol Biol, 290, 207
  7. 10.2174/138161210791208910 · DOI
  8. 10.1038/clpt.2011.9 · DOI
  9. 10.1038/ajg.2014.131 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1016/0895-4356(93)90101-6 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1016/j.jhep.2011.02.007 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1002/hep.23577 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1136/gut.2008.163675 · DOI
  14. 10.1093/toxsci/kfq009 · DOI
  15. 10.1097/ACI.0000000000000070 · DOI
  16. 10.1136/gut.41.4.534 · DOI
  17. Tajiri, 2014, Immunological aspects of drug-induced liver injury, World J Immunol, 4, 149, 10.5411/wji.v4.i3.149 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/0168-8278(95)80270-3 · DOI
  19. Mantani, 2003, Lymphocyte transformation test for medicinal herbs yields false-positive results for first-visit patients, Clin Diagn Lab Immunol, 10, 479
  20. 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)64995-4 · DOI
  21. 10.1053/jhep.2002.33162 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.4049/jimmunol.1400574 · DOI
  23. 10.1242/dev.01558 · DOI
  24. 10.1038/labinvest.2012.64 · DOI
  25. 10.1038/clpt.2011.58 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1016/j.cgh.2010.02.008 · DOI
  27. Avigan, 2014, Liver safety assessment: required data elements and best practices for data collection and standardization in clinical trials, Drug Saf, 37, S19, 10.1007/s40264-014-0183-6 · DOI
  28. 10.1002/hep.26175 · DOI
  29. 10.1002/hep.23577 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.1053/j.gastro.2014.05.027 · DOI
  31. 10.1053/j.gastro.2014.03.050 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1055/s-0034-1375962 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Stephens, 2012, Genetic variations in drug-induced liver injury (DILI): resolving the puzzle, Front Genet, 3, 253, 10.3389/fgene.2012.00253 · DOI
  34. 10.1053/jhep.2002.34857 · DOI · Paper page
  35. 10.1136/gut.44.5.731 · DOI
  36. 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.09.011 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Hernández, 2014, Profile of idiosyncratic drug induced liver injury in Latin America: an analysis of published reports, Ann Hepatol, 13, 231, 10.1016/S1665-2681(19)30886-5 · DOI
  38. 10.1111/bcp.12565 · DOI
  39. 10.4254/wjh.v6.i4.160 · DOI · Paper page
  40. 10.1034/j.1600-0676.2002.01718.x · DOI
  41. 10.1080/01926230590522356 · DOI
  42. 10.1016/j.cld.2007.06.002 · DOI
  43. Senior, 2014, Evolution of the Food and Drug Administration approach to liver safety assessment for new drugs: current status and challenges, Drug Saf, 37, S9, 10.1007/s40264-014-0182-7 · DOI
  44. 10.1111/liv.12540 · DOI
  45. Merz, 2014, Methodology to assess clinical liver safety data, Drug Saf, 37, S33, 10.1007/s40264-014-0184-5 · DOI
  46. 10.1007/s40264-014-0186-3 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Benesic, A., Leitl, A., & Gerbes, A. L.
Affiliations
Liver Center Munich, Department of Internal Medicine II, University Hospital Munich, Campus Grosshadern, Munich, Germany
ORCID
Benesic, Andreas
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2015-06-04
Volume
65
Issue
9
Pages
1555-1563
ISSN
  • 0017-5749
  • 1468-3288
DOI
10.1136/gutjnl-2015-309528
Cited by
48
References
3
Language
en

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.

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