Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T13:10:57.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Drug safety biomarkers

from II - INTEGRATED APPROACHES OF PREDICTIVE TOXICOLOGY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 December 2010

Jinghai J. Xu
Affiliation:
Merck Research Laboratory, New Jersey
Laszlo Urban
Affiliation:
Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Massachusetts
Get access

Summary

SCOPE

There is growing impetus to develop improved biomarkers for drug safety: to make medicines safer, to reduce the growing costs of drug development, and to catalyze improved disease diagnosis and patient care. Even though we have largely relied on the same biomarkers for decades, we now have new technologies for biomarker discovery and development such as inexpensive genome sequence analyses, and gene expression technologies, multiplexed protein analytics, and multiple imaging modalities. The history of safety biomarker development illustrates the current state of affairs, and the opportunities and challenges for additional biomarkers.

We will address the nature of safety biomarkers, the current status of these tools, the difficulties and recent successes in biomarker development, and the outlook for qualifying new safety biomarkers for utility in regulated phases of drug development. To limit the scope of this discussion, we define safety biomarkers as measurable molecules or characteristics that provide information regarding the health and physiological function of an organism following exposure to a drug or drug candidate. Biomarkers may be indicators of injury (e.g., proteins released into serum), of exposure (e.g., DNA adducts), or of susceptibility (e.g., a DNA polymorphism). This review will focus on safety biomarkers that describe active responses to injury, as well as the passive consequences of injury such as loss of organ function and release of contents from dying cells. Focus will be on safety biomarkers as molecules or images that indicate adverse events in drug-treated animals or patients, rather than models as surrogates.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Sikorska, K, Stalke, P, Jaskiewicz, K, et al. Could iron deposits in hepatocytes serve as a prognostic marker of HFE gene mutations?Hepatogastroenterology. 2008;55:1024–1028.Google ScholarPubMed
Schena, M, Shalon, D, Davis, RW, et al. Quantitative monitoring of gene expression patterns with a complementary DNA microarray. Science. 1995;270:467–470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, FS, Haseltine, WA. Of genes and genomes: What lies between the base pairs. J Investig Med. 2000;48:295–301.Google ScholarPubMed
Ahmed, FE. Role of miRNA in carcinogenesis and biomarker selection: a methodological view. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2007;7:569–603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, HJ, Wark, AW, Corn, RM. Microarray methods for protein biomarker detection. Analyst. 2008;133:975–983.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peng, Y, Li, W, Liu, Y. A hybrid approach for biomarker discovery from microarray gene expression data for cancer classification. Cancer Inform. 2007;2:301–311.Google ScholarPubMed
Lonneborg, A. Biomarkers for Alzheimer disease in cerebrospinal fluid, urine, and blood. Mol Diagn Ther. 2008;12:307–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagner, JA, Williams, SA, Webster, CJ. Biomarkers and surrogate end points for fit-­­for-purpose development and regulatory evaluation of new drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007;81:104–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olson, H, et al. Concordance of the toxicity of pharmaceuticals in humans and in animals. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2000;32:56–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagner, JA. Overview of biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in drug development. Dis Markers. 2002;18:41–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tugendreich, S, Pearson, CI, Sagartz, J, et al. NSAID-induced acute phase response is due to increased intestinal permeability and characterized by early and consistent alterations in hepatic gene expression. Toxicol Pathol. 2006;34:168–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fielden, MR, et al. A gene expression signature that predicts the future onset of drug-induced renal tubular toxicity. Toxicol Pathol. 2005;33:675–683.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fielden, MR, Brennan, R, Gollub, J. A gene expression biomarker provides early prediction and mechanistic assessment of hepatic tumor induction by nongenotoxic chemicals. Toxicol Sci. 2007;99:90–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oguri, T, et al. MRP7/ABCC10 expression is a predictive biomarker for the resistance to paclitaxel in non-small cell lung cancer. Mol Cancer Ther. 2008;7:1150–1155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dehdashti, F, et al. PET-based estradiol challenge as a predictive biomarker of response to endocrine therapy in women with estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;113:509–517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dagues, N, et al. Investigation of the molecular mechanisms preceding PDE4 inhibitor-induced vasculopathy in rats: tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 1, a potential predictive biomarker. Toxicol Sci. 2007;100: 238–247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, DH, et al. Elevation of sphinganine 1-phosphate as a predictive biomarker for fumonisin exposure and toxicity in mice. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2006;69: 2071–2082.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa, LG, et al. Paraoxonase (PON 1) as a biomarker of susceptibility for organophosphate toxicity. Biomarkers. 2003;8:1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nantermet, PV, et al. Identification of genetic pathways activated by the androgen receptor during the induction of proliferation in the ventral prostate gland. J Biol Chem. 2004;279:1310–1322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palacio, L, et al. Pharmacogenetic Impact of VKORC1 and CYP2C9 Allelic Variants on warfarin dose requirements in a Hispanic population isolate. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2009; 16: 83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tibshirani, R. A simple method for assessing sample sizes in microarray experiments. BMC Bioinformat. 2006;7:106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tong, T, Zhao, H. Practical guidelines for assessing power and false discovery rate for a fixed sample size in microarray experiments. Stat Med. 2008;27:1960–1972.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mattes, WB, Walker, EG. Translational toxicology and the work of the predictive safety testing consortium. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009;85:327–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Recanatini, M, Poluzzi, E, Masetti, M, et al. QT prolongation through hERG K(+) channel blockade: Current knowledge and strategies for the early prediction during drug development. Med Res Rev. 2005;25:133–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olson, S, Robinson, S, Giffin, R, rapporteurs. Forum on Drug Discovery, Development, and Translation; Institute of Medicine 100. National Academies Press; Washington DC 2009.Google Scholar
O'Brien, PJ. Cardiac troponin is the most effective translational safety biomarker for myocardial injury in cardiotoxicity. Toxicology 245, 206–218 (2008).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boswood, A. Biomarkers in cardiovascular disease: beyond natriuretic peptides. J Vet Cardiol 11 Suppl 1, S23–32 (2009).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collison, PO.Cardiac markers. Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 70, M84–87 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menown, IB, et al. Prediction of recurrent events by D-dimer and inflammatory markers in patients with normal cardiac troponin I (PREDICT) study. Am Heart J. 2003;145:986–992.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kerns, W, et al. Drug-induced vascular injury – a quest for biomarkers. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2005;203:62–87.Google ScholarPubMed
Brott, D, et al. Biomarkers of drug-induced vascular injury. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2005;207:441–445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devarajan, P.Emerging biomarkers of acute kidney injury. Contrib Nephrol. 2007;156:203–212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sawicki, PT, Heinemann, L, Berger, M.Comparison of methods for determination of microalbuminuria in diabetic patients. Diabet Med. 1989;6:412–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vaidya, VS, Bonventre, JV.Mechanistic biomarkers for cytotoxic acute kidney injury. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2006;2:697–713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vaidya, VS, et al. Urinary biomarkers for sensitive and specific detection of acute kidney injury in humans. Clin Transl Sci. 2008;1:200–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dieterle, F et al. Renal biomarker qualification submission: a dialog between the FDA-EMEA and Predictive Safety Testing Consortium. Nat Biotechnol. 2010; 5:455–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amacher, DE.Serum transaminase elevations as indicators of hepatic injury following the administration of drugs. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 1998;27:119–130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burtis, CA, ed. Fundamentals of Clinical Chemistry, Vol. 6. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders; 2001.
Poynard, T, et al. Assessment of liver fibrosis: Noninvasive means. Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2008;14:163–173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, D.The critical path to medical innovation. Med Device Technol. 2004;15:8–10.Google ScholarPubMed
Woodcock, J.Chutes and ladders on the critical path: Comparative effectiveness, product value, and the use of biomarkers in drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009;86:12–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ratner, M.Looking for solid ground along the Critical Path. Nat Biotechnol. 2006;24:885–887.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunter, AJ.The Innovative Medicines Initiative: a pre-competitive initiative to enhance the biomedical science base of Europe to expedite the development of new medicines for patients. Drug Discov Today. 2008;13:371–373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metias, SM, Lianidou, E, Yousef GM. MicroRNAs in clinical oncology: At the crossroads between promises and problems. J Clin Pathol. 2009;62:771–776.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kannel, WB.Cardioprotection and antihypertensive therapy: the key importance of addressing the associated coronary risk factors (the Framingham experience). Am J Cardiol. 1996;77:6B-11B.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fontana, RJ, et al. Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN) prospective study: Rationale, design and conduct. Drug Saf. 2009;32:55–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×