Causality assessment is used to determine the likelihood that a drug caused a suspected ADR. There are a number of different methods used to judge causation, including the Naranjo algorithm, the Venulet algorithm and the WHO causality term assessment criteria. Each have pros and cons associated with their use and most require some level of expert judgement to apply.

An ADR should not be labeled as 'certain' unless the ADR abates with a challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge protocol (stopping and starting the agent in question). The chronology of the onset of the suspected ADR is important, as another substance or factor may be implicated as a cause; co-prescribed medications and underlying psychiatric conditions may be factors in the ADR.

Assigning causality to a specific agent often proves difficult, unless the event is found during a clinical study or large databases are used. Both methods have difficulties and can be fraught with error. Even in clinical studies some ADRs may be missed as large numbers of test individuals are required to find that adverse drug reaction. Psychiatric ADRs are often missed as they are grouped together in the questionnaires used to assess the population.

Many countries have official bodies that monitor drug safety and reactions. On an international level, the WHO runs the Uppsala Monitoring Centre, and the European Union runs the European Medicines Agency (EMEA). In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for monitoring post-marketing studies.

In Canada, the Marketed Health Products Directorate of Health Canada is responsible for the surveillance of marketed health products. In Australia, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) conducts postmarket monitoring of therapeutic products.

Lung symptoms in a patient who is taking a medicinal drug that can cause pulmonary toxicity should not automatically lead to a diagnosis of "pulmonary toxicity due to the medicinal drug", because some patients can have another (i.e., simultaneous) lung disease, e.g. an infection of the lungs "not" related to the medicinal drugs the patient is taking. But if the patient is taking such a medicinal drug, this should not be overlooked. Diagnostic care should be executed. The correct diagnosis is an exclusion diagnosis and can require some tests.

Side effects on the lungs can be very varied, and can include signs and symptoms that are either clinical, or radiological (i.e., seen on chest X-ray or CT), or both. They can include lung inflammation (pneumonitis), secondary (in this context, indirectly caused) lung infection (pneumonia), lung fibrosis, organising pneumonia (bronchiolitis obliterans organising pneumonia, BOOP), ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome), solitary pulmonary mass (even including lung cancer in some cases, mainly in cases of asbestos-related lung disease, but today this is very rare, because asbestos is now completely prohibited by law in most countries), or pulmonary nodule. The diagnosis should be made by a specialist, if possible.

A number of different tests are available to determine the degree of cirrhosis present. Transient elastography (FibroScan) is the test of choice, but it is expensive. Aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio index may be used when cost is an issue.

The tests, called assays, for detection of virus infection involve serum or blood tests that detect either viral antigens (proteins produced by the virus) or antibodies produced by the host. Interpretation of these assays is complex.

The surface antigen (HBsAg) is most frequently used to screen for the presence of this infection. It is the first detectable viral antigen to appear during infection. However, early in an infection, this antigen may not be present and it may be undetectable later in the infection as it is being cleared by the host. The infectious virion contains an inner "core particle" enclosing viral genome. The icosahedral core particle is made of 180 or 240 copies of the core protein, alternatively known as core antigen, or HBcAg. During this 'window' in which the host remains infected but is successfully clearing the virus, IgM antibodies specific to the core antigen ("anti-HBc IgM") may be the only serological evidence of disease. Therefore, most diagnostic panels contain HBsAg and total anti-HBc (both IgM and IgG).

Shortly after the appearance of the HBsAg, another antigen called e antigen (HBeAg) will appear. Traditionally, the presence of HBeAg in a host's serum is associated with much higher rates of viral replication and enhanced infectivity; however, variants of the virus do not produce the 'e' antigen, so this rule does not always hold true. During the natural course of an infection, the HBeAg may be cleared, and antibodies to the 'e' antigen ("anti-HBe") will arise immediately afterwards. This conversion is usually associated with a dramatic decline in viral replication.

If the host is able to clear the infection, eventually the HBsAg will become undetectable and will be followed by IgG antibodies to the surface antigen and core antigen ("anti-HBs" and "anti HBc IgG"). The time between the removal of the HBsAg and the appearance of anti-HBs is called the window period. A person negative for HBsAg but positive for anti-HBs either has cleared an infection or has been vaccinated previously.

Individuals who remain HBsAg positive for at least six months are considered to be carriers. Carriers of the virus may have chronic hepatitis B, which would be reflected by elevated serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels and inflammation of the liver, if they are in the immune clearance phase of chronic infection. Carriers who have seroconverted to HBeAg negative status, in particular those who acquired the infection as adults, have very little viral multiplication and hence may be at little risk of long-term complications or of transmitting infection to others.

PCR tests have been developed to detect and measure the amount of HBV DNA, called the viral load, in clinical specimens. These tests are used to assess a person's infection status and to monitor treatment. Individuals with high viral loads, characteristically have ground glass hepatocytes on biopsy.

Some cases of myotonia congenita do not require treatment, or it is determined that the risks of the medication outweigh the benefits. If necessary, however, symptoms of the disorder may be relieved with quinine, phenytoin, carbamazepine, mexiletine and other anticonvulsant drugs. Physical therapy and other rehabilitative measures may also be used to help muscle function. Genetic counseling is available.

In northern Scandinavia, the prevalence of myotonia congenita has been estimated at 1:10,000.

Myotonia congenita is estimated to affect 1 in 1,000,000 people worldwide.

Osteonecrosis of the jaw is classified based on severity, number of lesions, and lesion size. Osteonecrosis of greater severity is given a higher grade, with asymptomatic ONJ designated as grade 1 and severe ONJ as grade 4.

The treatment should be tailored to the cause involved and the severity of the disease process. With oral osteoporosis the emphasis should be on good nutrient absorption and metabolic wastes elimination through a healthy gastro-intestinal function, effective hepatic metabolism of toxicants such as exogenous estrogens, endogenous acetaldehyde and heavy metals, a balanced diet, healthy lifestyle, assessment of factors related to potential coagulopathies, and treatment of periodontal diseases and other oral and dental infections.

In cases of advanced oral ischaemic osteoporosis and/or ONJ that are not bisphosphonates related, clinical evidence has shown that surgically removing the damaged marrow, usually by curettage and decortication, will eliminate the problem (and the pain) in 74% of patients with jaw involvement. Repeat surgeries, usually smaller procedures than the first, may be required. Almost a third of jawbone patients will need surgery in one or more other parts of the jaws because the disease so frequently present multiple lesions, i.e., multiple sites in the same or similar bones, with normal marrow in between. In the hip, at least half of all patients will get the disease in the opposite hip over time; this pattern occurs in the jaws as well. Recently, it has been found that some osteonecrosis patients respond to anticoagulation therapies alone. The earlier the diagnosis the better the prognosis. Research is ongoing on other non-surgical therapeutic modalities that could alone or in combination with surgery further improve the prognosis and reduce the morbidity of ONJ. A greater emphasis on minimizing or correcting known causes is necessary while further research is conducted on chronic ischaemic bone diseases such as oral osteoporosis and ONJ.

In patients with bisphosphonates-associated ONJ, the response to surgical treatment is usually poor. Conservative debridement of necrotic bone, pain control, infection management, use of antimicrobial oral rinses, and withdrawal of bisphosphonates are preferable to aggressive surgical measures for treating this form of ONJ. Although an effective treatment for bisphosphonate-associated bone lesions has not yet been established, and this is unlikely to occur until this form of ONJ is better understood, there have been clinical reports of some improvement after 6 months or more of complete cessation of bisphosphonate therapy.