and increased risk of DILI during anti‐tuberculosis treatment [52, 104, 105]. This suggests that genotype‐based dosing for isoniazid might be of clinical relevance. In addition to the NAT2 pathway, an alternative pathway comprised of CYP2E1 and GST plays a role in the clearance of isoniazid. CYP2E1 polymorphisms also have a suggested association with isoniazid hepatotoxicity [51, 106], however, with inconsistent evidence [104, 107]. The pharmacogenetic association remains uncertain.
2.5.9 Hepatic Transporters
Certain genetic polymorphisms in drug transporter genes have been associated with increased DILI risk. In a study comparing 33 DILI patients and 95 European controls, Lang et al. sequenced ABCB11 and ABCB4, which encode BSEP and MDR3, and found four nonsynonymous mutations significantly associated with DILI, one of which resulted in a nonfunctional protein (ABCB11, exon 21: 2563G>A→G855R) [60]. Ciccacci et al. identified a variant in MDR1 (c.3435C>T) associated with nevirapine‐induced hepatoxicity in a study of 78 nevirapine‐induced hepatoxicity cases and 78 patients without hepatoxicity in Mozambique [108]. Another study found evidence that certain MDR1 polymorphisms can influence the basal CYP3A4 expression or function, i.e. individuals homozygous for MDR1 2677T (Ser893) had a higher hepatic expression or function of CYP3A4 than those homozygous for 2677G (Ala893) [109]. Daly et al. found that a variant in ABCC2, which encodes MRP2, was significantly associated with diclofenac‐induced hepatoxicity in a European population [55]. Interestingly, this same variant, ABCC2 C‐24T, was associated with a higher clearance rate and a shorter half‐life of deferasirox in the Chinese population [61]. A study of 94 drug‐ and herb‐induced hepatoxicity cases identified several polymorphisms in ABCC2 that were associated with susceptibility to liver injury in the Korean population [110].
2.6 Summary
Increasing evidence suggests that drug metabolism and hepatic transporters play essential roles in the development of hepatotoxicity. The formation of chemically‐RMs and the abnormal accumulation of toxic bile acids or drug metabolites are two proven mechanisms causing DILI. The formation of RMs is a byproduct of physiological biotransformation of phases I and II metabolism enzymes, while bile acid accumulation results from abrupted functions of the hepatic transporters. Some of these drug‐metabolizing enzymes and hepatic transporters have significantly varied expression levels among individuals, which can lead to outcomes other than the development of DILI. In addition to the gene variations summarized in this chapter, many environmental and host factors; such as age, gender, co‐medications, comorbidities, and life‐style all affect the susceptibility of individuals through the disturbance of drug‐metabolizing enzymes and hepatic transporters. The contribution of these factors has been well‐reviewed in the literature [111, 112] and the nature of the co‐factors in these events has led to the “multiple determinants hypothesis” for idiosyncratic drug toxicity [113]. Further investigations are still needed to establish the association between interactions of these factors and their contributions to the development of DILI.
Acknowledgment
The authors thank Joanne Berger with the FDA Library for manuscript editing assistance.
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this manuscript do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
References
1 1 Olson H, Betton G, Robinson D, Thomas K, Monro A, Kolaja G, et al. Concordance of the toxicity of pharmaceuticals in humans and in animals. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 2000; 32(1): 56–67.
2 2 Chen M, Suzuki A, Thakkar S, Yu K, Hu C, Tong W. DILIrank: the largest reference drug list ranked by the risk for developing drug‐induced liver injury in humans. Drug Discovery Today 2016; 21(4): 648–53.
3 3 Chen M, Vijay V, Shi Q, Liu Z, Fang H, Tong W. FDA‐approved drug labeling for the study of drug‐induced liver injury. Drug Discovery Today 2011; 16 (15–16): 697–703.
4 4 Watkins P. Drug safety sciences and the bottleneck in drug development. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 2011; 89(6): 788–90.
5 5 US FDA. Drug‐Induced Liver Injury: Premarketing Clinical Evaluation; 2009. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory‐information/search‐fda‐guidance‐documents/drug‐induced‐liver‐injury‐premarketing‐clinical‐evaluation.
6 6 Zanger UM, Schwab M. Cytochrome P 450 enzymes in drug metabolism: regulation of gene expression, enzyme activities, and impact of genetic variation. Pharmacology & Therapeutics 2013; 138(1): 103–41.
7 7 Uetrecht JP, editor Myeloperoxidase as a Generator of Drug Free Radicals. Biochemical Society Symposia; 1995: Portland Press Limited.
8 8 Srivastava A, Maggs J, Antoine D, Williams D, Smith D, Park B. Role of reactive metabolites in drug‐induced hepatotoxicity. In: Uetrecht JP, editor Adverse Drug Reactions; 2010: Springer. p. 165–94.
9 9 Bischoff R, Schlüter H. Amino acids: chemistry, functionality and selected non‐enzymatic post‐translational modifications. Journal of Proteomics 2012; 75(8): 2275–96.
10 10 Walgren JL, Mitchell MD, Thompson DC. Role of metabolism in drug‐induced idiosyncratic hepatotoxicity. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 2005; 35(4): 325–61.
11 11 Dahms M, Spahn‐Langguth H. Covalent binding of acidic drugs via reactive intermediates: detection of benoxaprofen and flunoxaprofen protein adducts in biological material. Die Pharmazie 1996; 51 (11): 874–81.
12 12 FDA TU. Safety Testing of Drug Metabolites Guidance for Industry; 2020. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/72279/download.
13 13 Uetrecht J. Prediction of a new drug's potential to cause idiosyncratic reactions. Current Opinion in Drug Discovery & Development 2001; 4(1): 55–9.
14 14 Lammert C, Bjornsson E, Niklasson A, Chalasani N. Oral medications with significant hepatic metabolism at higher risk for hepatic adverse events. Hepatology 2010; 51(2): 615–20.
15 15 Chen M, Borlak J, Tong W. A model to predict severity of drug‐induced liver injury in humans. Hepatology 2016; 64(3): 931–40.
16 16 Limban C, Nuţă DC, Chiriţă C, Negreș S, Arsene AL, Goumenou M, et al. The use of structural alerts to avoid the toxicity of pharmaceuticals. Toxicology Reports 2018; 5: 943–53.
17 17 Stepan AF, Walker DP, Bauman J, Price DA, Baillie TA, Kalgutkar AS, et al. Structural alert/reactive metabolite concept as applied in medicinal chemistry to mitigate the risk of idiosyncratic drug toxicity: a perspective based on the critical examination of trends in the top 200 drugs marketed in the United States. Chemical Research in Toxicology 2011; 24(9): 1345–410.
18 18 Enoch S, Ellison C, Schultz T, Cronin M. A review of the electrophilic reaction chemistry involved in covalent protein binding relevant to toxicity. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 2011; 41(9): 783–802.
19 19 Claesson A, Minidis A. Systematic approach to organizing structural alerts for reactive metabolite formation from potential drugs. Chemical Research in Toxicology 2018; 31(6): 389–411.
20 20 Evans DC, Watt AP, Nicoll‐Griffith DA, Baillie TA. Drug− protein adducts:
