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

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Drug Safety
Published
2025-04-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-025-01540-x
Primary Topic
Drug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and Protection
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Klaudia Steplewski, David Alpers, Eric Cohen, Raúl J. Andrade et al.
Drug Safety
Drug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and Protection
article

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

Klaudia Steplewski, David Alpers, Eric Cohen, Raúl J. Andrade, Don C. Rockey, Maura Fallon, Lucy S. K. Walker, Melissa Palmer, John Caminis, James H. Lewis, Judith Hey‐Hadavi, Nefeteria Coffee, Rie Yonemochi
article en

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.

Drug SafetyVol. 48(8)
Daiichi Sankyo (Germany) (DE), Pfizer (United States) (US), Georgetown University (US), Doctors Company (United States) (US), Washington University in St. Louis (US), Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (GB), AbbVie (United States) (US), Sanofi (France) (FR), Accenture (United States) (US), Daiichi Sankyo (United Kingdom) (GB), GlaxoSmithKline (United States) (US), BridgeBio (United States) (US), Digestive Care (United States) (US), Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga (ES)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 92%
Drug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and Protection
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.