ABSTRACT: One way to enhance therapeutic development is through the identification and development of evaluative tools such as biomarkers. This review focuses on putative diagnostic, pharmacodynamic, and predictive biomarkers for smoking cessation. These types of biomarkers may be used to more accurately diagnose a disease, personalize treatment, identify novel targets for drug discovery, and enhance the efficiency of drug development. Promising biomarkers are presented across a range of approaches including metabolism, genetics, and neuroimaging. A preclinical viewpoint is also offered, as are analytical considerations and a regulatory perspective summarizing a pathway toward biomarker qualification.
Project description:The diagnosis and management of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) remains a challenge in clinical trials in drug development. The qualification of emerging biomarkers capable of predicting DILI soon after the initiation of treatment, differentiating DILI from underlying liver disease, identifying the causal entity, and assigning appropriate treatment options after DILI is diagnosed are needed. Qualification efforts have been hindered by lack of properly stored and consented biospecimens that are linked to clinical data relevant to a specific context of use. Recommendations are made for biospecimen collection procedures, with the focus on clinical trials, and for specific emerging biomarkers to focus qualification efforts.
Project description:Osteoarthritis (OA) is a chronic and slowly progressive disease for which biomarkers may be able to provide a more rapid indication of therapeutic responses to therapy than is currently available; this could accelerate and facilitate OA drug discovery and development programs. The goal of this document is to provide a summary and guide to the application of in vitro (biochemical and other soluble) biomarkers in the development of drugs for OA and to outline and stimulate a research agenda that will further this goal.The Biomarkers Working Group representing experts in the field of OA biomarker research from both academia and industry developed this consensus document between 2007 and 2009 at the behest of the Osteoarthritis Research Society International Federal Drug Administration initiative (OARSI FDA initiative).This document summarizes definitions and classification systems for biomarkers, the current outcome measures used in OA clinical trials, applications and potential utility of biomarkers for development of OA therapeutics, the current state of qualification of OA-related biomarkers, pathways for biomarker qualification, critical needs to advance the use of biomarkers for drug development, recommendations regarding practices and clinical trials, and a research agenda to advance the science of OA-related biomarkers.Although many OA-related biomarkers are currently available they exist in various states of qualification and validation. The biomarkers that are likely to have the earliest beneficial impact on clinical trials fall into two general categories, those that will allow targeting of subjects most likely to either respond and/or progress (prognostic value) within a reasonable and manageable time frame for a clinical study (for instance within 1-2 years for an OA trial), and those that provide early feedback for preclinical decision-making and for trial organizers that a drug is having the desired biochemical effect. As in vitro biomarkers are increasingly investigated in the context of specific drug treatments, advances in the field can be expected that will lead to rapid expansion of the list of available biomarkers with increasing understanding of the molecular processes that they represent.
Project description:Biomarkers are widely used at every stage of drug discovery and development. Utilisation of biomarkers has a potential to make drug discovery, development and approval processes more efficient. An overview of the current global regulatory landscape is presented in this article with particular emphasis on the validation and qualification of biomarkers, as well as legal framework for companion diagnostics. Furthermore, this article shows how the number of approved drugs with at least 1 biomarker used during development (biomarker acceptance) is affected by the recent advances in the biomarker regulations. More than half of analysed approvals were supported by biomarker data and there has been a slight increase in acceptance of biomarkers in recent years, even though the growth is not continuous. For certain pharmacotherapeutic groups, approvals with biomarkers are more common than without. Examples include immunosuppressants, immunostimulants, drugs used in diabetes, antithrombotic drugs, antineoplastic agents and antivirals. As a conclusion, potential benefits, challenges and opportunities of using biomarkers in drug discovery and development in the current regulatory landscape are summarised and discussed.
Project description:Protein-based biomarkers for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and other motor neuron diseases (MNDs) have many potential clinical utilities, including diagnostic, prognostic, and drug development indications. During the past decade a number of potential protein biomarkers have been proposed for MNDs. Further verification studies, followed by large validation and qualification studies, are required to advance these initial discoveries toward clinical use. Study of additional patient populations, including disease mimics, is required during the validation phase of biomarker development. Important regulatory issues are discussed that will affect the timing and strategy for biomarker assay development in ALS and other MNDs. The continued development of protein biomarkers for MNDs requires extensive collaboration between academic clinicians and scientists in conjunction with the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries.
Project description:Imaging biomarkers (IBs) are integral to the routine management of patients with cancer. IBs used daily in oncology include clinical TNM stage, objective response and left ventricular ejection fraction. Other CT, MRI, PET and ultrasonography biomarkers are used extensively in cancer research and drug development. New IBs need to be established either as useful tools for testing research hypotheses in clinical trials and research studies, or as clinical decision-making tools for use in healthcare, by crossing 'translational gaps' through validation and qualification. Important differences exist between IBs and biospecimen-derived biomarkers and, therefore, the development of IBs requires a tailored 'roadmap'. Recognizing this need, Cancer Research UK (CRUK) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) assembled experts to review, debate and summarize the challenges of IB validation and qualification. This consensus group has produced 14 key recommendations for accelerating the clinical translation of IBs, which highlight the role of parallel (rather than sequential) tracks of technical (assay) validation, biological/clinical validation and assessment of cost-effectiveness; the need for IB standardization and accreditation systems; the need to continually revisit IB precision; an alternative framework for biological/clinical validation of IBs; and the essential requirements for multicentre studies to qualify IBs for clinical use.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Developments in biotechnology have stimulated the use of predictive biomarkers to identify patients who are likely to benefit from a targeted therapy. Several randomized phase III designs have been introduced for development of a targeted therapy using a diagnostic test. Most such designs require biomarkers measured before treatment. In many cases, it has been very difficult to identify such biomarkers. Promising candidate biomarkers can sometimes be effectively measured after a short run-in period on the new treatment.<h4>Methods</h4>We introduce a new design for phase III trials with a candidate predictive pharmacodynamic biomarker measured after a short run-in period. Depending on the therapy and the biomarker performance, the trial would either randomize all patients but perform a separate analysis on the biomarker-positive patients or only randomize marker-positive patients after the run-in period. We evaluate the proposed design compared with the conventional phase III design and discuss how to design a run-in trial based on phase II studies.<h4>Results</h4>The proposed design achieves a major sample size reduction compared with the conventional randomized phase III design in many cases when the biomarker has good sensitivity (?0.7) and specificity (?0.7). This requires that the biomarker be measured accurately and be indicative of drug activity. However, the proposed design loses some of its advantage when the proportion of potential responders is large (>50%) or the effect on survival from run-in period is substantial.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Incorporating a pharmacodynamic biomarker requires careful consideration but can expand the capacity of clinical trials to personalize treatment decisions and enhance therapeutics development.
Project description:The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has called for the use of analytically validated biomarkers that have strong evidence of being fit for purpose to identify patients likely to respond and to evaluate the patient response to a therapy, potential toxicity, and drug resistance. This article discusses development and application of these biomarkers in the context of urologic cancers-specifically in cancers of the prostate and urinary bladder.The FDA has defined four specific categories for contexts of biomarker use: prognostic, predictive, response-indicator, and efficacy-response (surrogate endpoints). Prognostic and predictive biomarkers include pretreatment characteristics of the patient and the tumor. Response-indicator and efficacy response biomarkers occur after treatment and show the effects of treatment on biomarkers. Efficacy response biomarkers show changes associated with clinical benefit and can be surrogates for clinical endpoints leading to drug approvals.Well-structured development plans are required to satisfy rigorous criteria that must be met to qualify biomarkers for specific contexts of use in drug development and patient management. A description of the extensive effort applied to the validation and qualification of circulating tumor cells in castration resistant prostate cancer is described as an example of the potential utility of biomarkers in urological cancers.Many potential biomarkers have been identified in prostate and urinary bladder cancers, but few have sufficient demonstration of analytical and clinical validity to meet FDA standards for use in clinical settings. Circulating tumor cell (CTC) assays are particularly promising candidates for informative new biomarkers to measure disease before and after treatment. New technologies are providing opportunities for high definition, more informative analysis. Statistical and computational methodologies to describe assay results are also rapidly evolving. These advances will lead to better diagnosis, earlier indications of treatment response and failure, and better definition of patient cohorts that will respond to a specific treatment.
Project description:Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease with a complex and heterogeneous pathophysiology. The number of people living with AD is predicted to increase; however, there are no disease-modifying therapies currently available and none have been successful in late-stage clinical trials. Fluid biomarkers measured in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) or blood hold promise for enabling more effective drug development and establishing a more personalized medicine approach for AD diagnosis and treatment. Biomarkers used in drug development programmes should be qualified for a specific context of use (COU). These COUs include, but are not limited to, subject/patient selection, assessment of disease state and/or prognosis, assessment of mechanism of action, dose optimization, drug response monitoring, efficacy maximization, and toxicity/adverse reactions identification and minimization. The core AD CSF biomarkers Aβ42, t-tau, and p-tau are recognized by research guidelines for their diagnostic utility and are being considered for qualification for subject selection in clinical trials. However, there is a need to better understand their potential for other COUs, as well as identify additional fluid biomarkers reflecting other aspects of AD pathophysiology. Several novel fluid biomarkers have been proposed, but their role in AD pathology and their use as AD biomarkers have yet to be validated. In this review, we summarize some of the pathological mechanisms implicated in the sporadic AD and highlight the data for several established and novel fluid biomarkers (including BACE1, TREM2, YKL-40, IP-10, neurogranin, SNAP-25, synaptotagmin, α-synuclein, TDP-43, ferritin, VILIP-1, and NF-L) associated with each mechanism. We discuss the potential COUs for each biomarker.
Project description:?-Secretase1 (BACE1) protein concentrations and rates of enzyme activity, analyzed in human bodily fluids, are promising candidate biological markers for guidance in clinical trials investigating BACE1 inhibitors to halt or delay the dysregulation of the amyloid-? pathway in Alzheimer's disease (AD). A robust body of evidence demonstrates an association between cerebrospinal fluid/blood BACE1 biomarkers and core pathophysiological mechanisms of AD, such as brain protein misfolding and aggregration, neurodegeneration, and synaptic dysfunction.In pharmacological trials, BACE1 candidate biomarkers may be applied to a wide set of contexts of use (CoU), including proof of mechanism, dose-finding, response and toxicity dose estimation. For clinical CoU, BACE1 biomarkers show good performance for prognosis and disease prediction.The roadmap toward validation and qualification of BACE1 biomarkers requires standardized pre-analytical and analytical protocols to reduce inter-site variance that may have contributed to inconsistent results.BACE1 biomarker-drug co-development programs, including biomarker-guided outcomes and endpoints, may support the identification of sub-populations with a higher probability to benefit from BACE1 inhibitors with a reduced risk of adverse effects, in line with the evolving precision medicine paradigm.
Project description:Abuse liability assessments influence drug development, federal regulation, and clinical care. One suggested procedure to reduce variability of assessments is a qualification phase, which assesses whether study applicants adequately distinguish active drug from placebo; applicants failing to make this distinction are disqualified. The present analyses assessed differences between qualification phase qualifiers and non-qualifiers.Data were collected from 23 completers of the qualification phase of an abuse liability study. Opioid abusing participants received 30 mg oxycodone and placebo orally on separate days, and were characterized as qualifiers (vs. non-qualifiers) if their peak visual analog scale liking rating for oxycodone was at least 20 points higher than placebo's peak rating. Groups were compared on demographic characteristics, drug history, and physiologic, subject and observer ratings.61% of participants were qualifiers and 39% were non-qualifiers. Groups had similar demographic characteristics, drug use histories, and pupillary constriction responses. However, unlike qualifiers, non-qualifiers had an exaggerated placebo response for the liking score (p=0.03) and an attenuated oxycodone response for the liking score (p<0.0001). Non-qualifiers' failure to differentiate oxycodone versus placebo was evident for subject and observer ratings.Different subjective responses to identical stimuli support the use of a qualification phase in abuse liability assessments. Further research should explore objective measures that may better account for these differences, determine optimal qualification criteria, and explore the developmental course of drug use. This study also documents certain opioid abusers fail to differentiate 30 mg of oxycodone from placebo, a phenomenon deserving further study.