Currently, pharmaceutical preparations are serious contributors to liver disease; hepatotoxicity ranking as the most frequent cause for acute liver failure and postcommercialization regulatory decisions. The diagnosis of hepatotoxicity remains a difficult task because of the lack of reliable markers for use in general clinical practice. To incriminate any given drug in an episode of liver dysfunction is a step-by-step process that requires a high degree of suspicion, compatible chronology, awareness of the drug's hepatotoxic potential, the exclusion of alternative causes of liver damage and the ability to detect the presence of subtle data that favors a toxic etiology. This process is time-consuming and the final result is frequently inaccurate. Diagnostic algorithms may add consistency to the diagnostic process by translating the suspicion into a quantitative score. Such scales are useful since they provide a framework that emphasizes the features that merit attention in cases of suspected hepatic adverse reaction as well. Current efforts in collecting bona fide cases of drug-induced hepatotoxicity will make refinements of existing scales feasible. It is now relatively easy to accommodate relevant data within the scoring system and to delete low-impact items. Efforts should also be directed toward the development of an abridged instrument for use in evaluating suspected drug-induced hepatotoxicity at the very beginning of the diagnosis and treatment process when clinical decisions need to be made. The instrument chosen would enable a confident diagnosis to be made on admission of the patient and treatment to be finetuned as further information is collected.

Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is an increasing health problem and a challenge for physicians, regulatory bodies and the pharmaceutical industry, not only because of its potential severity and elusive pathogenesis but also because it is often inaccurately diagnosed, commonly missed entirely and more often not reported. The general view is that idiosyncratic DILI, which is not predictable whether based on the pharmacology of the drug or on the dose administered, is determined by the presence in the recipient of variants in, or expression of, genes coding for key metabolic pathways and/or the immune response, and the interaction of these genetic variants with environmental variables. Furthermore, idiosyncratic DILI is an example of a complex-trait disease with two or more susceptibility loci, as reflected by the frequency of genetic variants in the population often being higher than the occurrence of significant liver injury. Polymorphisms of bioactivation/toxification pathways via the CYP450 enzymes (Phase I), detoxification reactions (Phase II) and excretion/transport (Phase III), together with immunological factors that might determine DILI are reviewed. Challenges such as gene-trait association studies and whole-genome studies, and future approaches to the study of DILI are explored. Better knowledge of the candidate genes involved could provide further insight for the prospective identification of susceptible patients at risk of developing drug-induced hepatotoxicity, development of new diagnostic tools and new treatment strategies with safer drugs.

Progress in the understanding of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is clearly hampered by the lack of specific markers of the disease. In this scenario, recrudescence of the liver injury upon re-exposure to the suspicious drug is considered the more reliable evidence of DILI. On-purpose re-exposure, however, entails both practical and ethical issues because the bulk of situations in clinical practice are non-immunoallergic DILI in which a provocation test frequently would give negative results. Besides, deliberate re-exposure with a drug that is not considered vital or essential is potentially harmful and, hence, hardly justified in DILI, and rechallenge is more commonly described in an unintentional basis. The causes, characteristics and consequences of rechallenge have been specifically addressed recently. For causality assessment, a positive rechallenge test carries the strong value, and is accordingly scored by clinical algorithms. Such clinical scales, however, reward drugs that are associated with a positive rechallenge response, but might be considered biased against those where re-administration fails to elicit a response or, more commonly, for which no rechallenge is attempted.