Abstract
BACKGROUND AIMS: The Revised Electronic Causality Assessment Method (RECAM), a computerized update of the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Methodology (RUCAM), was recently proposed. In this study, we validated and compared the utility of the RECAM and RUCAM in Chinese patients with a single conventional or herbal agent-induced liver injury. METHODS: In this retrospective multicenter cohort of well-established DILI and non-DILI patients from 5 centers in China, the diagnostic performance of the RUCAM and RECAM was compared by AUC analysis. The consistency was evaluated by weighted kappa. The major causes of discrepancy were explored. RESULTS: A total of 481 DILI and 100 non-DILI patients were included. In total, 62.6% of the DILI cases were induced by conventional agents, and 37.4% were induced by herbs. The RECAM had relatively higher AUC than RUCAM for overall [0.947 (0.926-0.964) vs. 0.867 (0.836-0.893), p=0.0016], conventional agents [0.923 (0.890-0.949) vs. 0.819 (0.775-0.858), p=0.0185], and herbs [0.972 (0.941-0.989) vs.0.911 (0.866-0.944), p=0.0199]. Latency, scores associated with hepatitis B, and hepatotoxicity information of the insulting drugs were the 3 main causes for the inconsistency between RECAM and RUCAM scores. CONCLUSIONS: The RECAM had relatively better diagnostic performance than RUCAM, with a higher AUC for Chinese DILI patients. Timely updates of the LiverTox category and refinement of serum markers to exclude hepatitis B activity would further improve the applicability of RECAM in areas where the use of herbs and resolution of past HBV infections are common.