ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2026
A pharmacist-led framework for antibiotic-associated liver injury: from pharmacovigilance signals to bedside surveillance with the updated RUCAM and susceptibility markers.
Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Antibiotics account for more cases of idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (DILI) than any other drug class. At the bedside, attributing injury to a particular antibiotic is difficult: there is no confirmatory test, and latency and biochemical pattern vary markedly among agents. Spontaneous-reporting databases add a second kind of evidence. Disproportionality analyses repeatedly identify strong reporting signals for amoxicillin-clavulanate and nitrofurantoin, but these describe reporting patterns rather than incidence, rest on reports that are seldom assessed by a validated causality method, and cannot establish causation in an individual patient. This review considers how clinical pharmacists might use such population-level information, together with the globally used updated Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM), without overstating what either can show. We bring together evidence on culprit antibiotics and their characteristic phenotypes, the mechanistic basis of susceptibility markers including HLA-B*57:01 and slow NAT2 acetylator status, the methods and limits of disproportionality analysis, and the pharmacist's role in medication review and monitoring. On that basis we propose a closed surveillance cycle. A pharmacovigilance signal first informs risk stratification and the timing of laboratory monitoring; suspected cases then undergo updated RUCAM assessment, which yields a quantitative causality score at no marginal cost, with genotyping reserved for patients in whom the result would change interpretation; intervention and structured reporting close the loop. Published antibiotic-associated cases are tabulated with their RUCAM scores and susceptibility results. Research priorities include prospective validation of composite risk scores, agreed monitoring intervals, multicenter evaluation of pharmacist-led detection, and appraisal of emerging biomarkers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.