{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01649746192893401, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0025380710659898475, 'mean_word_length': 5.921052631578948, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The best approach to reintroducing tuberculosis treatment after hepatotoxicity is still open to debate.

To the Editor—The best approach of reintroducing tuberculosis drugs after hepatotoxicity is still open to debate. Sharma et al [1] suggested that simultaneous reintroduction of isoniazid, rifampin, and pyrazinamide after drug-induced hepatotoxicity did not yield statistically significantly different results from sequential reintroduction with regard to the risk of recurrent hepatotoxicity. An editorial attempted to attribute the negative finding to mere hepatic adaptation or incidental liver function derangement for many of the initial events and to noncompliance during reintroduction [2]. We would like to share slightly different views in the interpretation of the findings.