Use of Hy's law and a new composite algorithm to predict acute liver failure in patients with drug-induced liver injury.

BACKGROUND & AIMS Hy's Law, which states that hepatocellular drug-induced liver injury (DILI) with jaundice indicates a serious reaction, is used widely to determine risk for acute liver failure (ALF). We aimed to optimize the definition of Hy's Law and to develop a model for predicting ALF in patients with DILI. METHODS We collected data from 771 patients with DILI (805 episodes) from the Spanish DILI registry, from April 1994 through August 2012. We analyzed data collected at DILI recognition and at the time of peak levels of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and total bilirubin (TBL). RESULTS Of the 771 patients with DILI, 32 developed ALF. Hepatocellular injury, female sex, high levels of TBL, and a high ratio of aspartate aminotransferase (AST):ALT were independent risk factors for ALF. We compared 3 ways to use Hy's Law to predict which patients would develop ALF; all included TBL greater than 2-fold the upper limit of normal (×ULN) and either ALT level greater than 3 × ULN, a ratio (R) value (ALT × ULN/alkaline phosphatase × ULN) of 5 or greater, or a new ratio (nR) value (ALT or AST, whichever produced the highest ×ULN/ alkaline phosphatase × ULN value) of 5 or greater. At recognition of DILI, the R- and nR-based models identified patients who developed ALF with 67% and 63% specificity, respectively, whereas use of only ALT level identified them with 44% specificity. However, the level of ALT and the nR model each identified patients who developed ALF with 90% sensitivity, whereas the R criteria identified them with 83% sensitivity. An equal number of patients who did and did not develop ALF had alkaline phosphatase levels greater than 2 × ULN. An algorithm based on AST level greater than 17.3 × ULN, TBL greater than 6.6 × ULN, and AST:ALT greater than 1.5 identified patients who developed ALF with 82% specificity and 80% sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS When applied at DILI recognition, the nR criteria for Hy's Law provides the best balance of sensitivity and specificity whereas our new composite algorithm provides additional specificity in predicting the ultimate development of ALF.

Why Public Health Agencies Cannot Depend on Good Laboratory Practices as a Criterion for Selecting Data: The Case of Bisphenol A

In their safety evaluations of bisphenol A (BPA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a counterpart in Europe, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), have given special prominence to two industry-funded studies that adhered to standards defined by Good Laboratory Practices (GLP). These same agencies have given much less weight in risk assessments to a large number of independently replicated non-GLP studies conducted with government funding by the leading experts in various fields of science from around the world. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed differences between industry-funded GLP studies of BPA conducted by commercial laboratories for regulatory purposes and non-GLP studies conducted in academic and government laboratories to identify hazards and molecular mechanisms mediating adverse effects. We examined the methods and results in the GLP studies that were pivotal in the draft decision of the U.S. FDA declaring BPA safe in relation to findings from studies that were competitive for U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, peer-reviewed for publication in leading journals, subject to independent replication, but rejected by the U.S. FDA for regulatory purposes. DISCUSSION: Although the U.S. FDA and EFSA have deemed two industry-funded GLP studies of BPA to be superior to hundreds of studies funded by the U.S. NIH and NIH counterparts in other countries, the GLP studies on which the agencies based their decisions have serious conceptual and methodologic flaws. In addition, the U.S. FDA and EFSA have mistakenly assumed that GLP yields valid and reliable scientific findings (i.e., "good science"). Their rationale for favoring GLP studies over hundreds of publically funded studies ignores the central factor in determining the reliability and validity of scientific findings, namely, independent replication, and use of the most appropriate and sensitive state-of-the-art assays, neither of which is an expectation of industry-funded GLP research. CONCLUSIONS: Public health decisions should be based on studies using appropriate protocols with appropriate controls and the most sensitive assays, not GLP. Relevant NIH-funded research using state-of-the-art techniques should play a prominent role in safety evaluations of chemicals.