Recommendations to qualify biomarker candidates of drug-induced liver injury

Biomarkers in Medicine

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 475-483

  Ozer, Josef S ^a   Chetty, Raj ^b   Kenna, Gerry ^c   Koppiker, Nandan ^a   Karamjeet, Pandher ^a   Li, Dingzhou ^a   Palandra, Joe ^a   Lanevschi, Anne ^c   Souberbielle, Bernard E ^d   Ramaiah, Shashi ^a  

^a PFIZER INC   (United States)

^b ASTRAZENECA   (United Kingdom)

^c Astrazencea Research and Development Safety Assessment   (United Kingdom)

^d PFIZER GLOBAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Alanine aminotransferase; Aspartate aminotransferase; Biomarker qualification; Glutamate dehydrogenase; Histopathology; Regulatory

Indexed keywords

ALANINE AMINOTRANSFERASE; ASPARTATE AMINOTRANSFERASE; BILIRUBIN; BIOLOGICAL MARKER; GLUTAMATE DEHYDROGENASE; GLUTATHIONE TRANSFERASE; GLUTATHIONE TRANSFERASE ALPHA; IDITOL DEHYDROGENASE;

ALANINE AMINOTRANSFERASE BLOOD LEVEL; ASPARTATE AMINOTRANSFERASE BLOOD LEVEL; BILIRUBIN BLOOD LEVEL; CLINICAL LABORATORY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; DRUG INDUCED DISEASE; DRUG INDUSTRY; ENZYME ACTIVITY; ENZYME BLOOD LEVEL; ENZYME LINKED IMMUNOSORBENT ASSAY; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE; GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; LABORATORY TEST; LIVER FAILURE; LIVER FUNCTION TEST; LIVER INJURY; LIVER TOXICITY; PATHOLOGIST; PREDICTION; PROGNOSIS; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REVIEW; STANDARD; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TOXIC HEPATITIS; VALIDATION PROCESS;

ALANINE TRANSAMINASE; ASPARTATE AMINOTRANSFERASES; BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; DRUG-INDUCED LIVER INJURY; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; GLUTAMATE DEHYDROGENASE; HUMANS; L-IDITOL 2-DEHYDROGENASE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS;

EID: 77953798674     PISSN: 17520363     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2217/bmm.10.9     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Ozer JS, Chetty R, Kenna G et al.: Enhancing the utility of alanine aminotransferase as a reference standard biomarker for drug induced liver injury. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 56(3), 237-246 (2010).
2. Hanzlick RL: The autopsy lexicon: suggested headings for the autopsy report. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 124(4), 594-603 (2000).
3. Goodsaid FM, Frueh FW, Mattes W: Strategic paths for biomarker qualification. Toxicology 245(3), 219-223 (2008).
4. Sistare FD, Devarajan P, Bonventre J et al.: Assessing and predicting kidney safety. In: Accelerating the Development of Biomarkers for Drug Safety: Workshop Summary, Rapporteurs; Forum on Drug Discovery, Development, and Translation; Institue of Medicine. Olsen S, Robinson S, Giffin R (Eds). National Academy of Sciences, DC, USA, 29-41 (2009).
5. Sistare FD, Dieterle F, Troth S et al.: Towards establishing good biomarker qualification practices for new kidney safety biomarkers in early drug development and regulatory decision-making. Nature Biotechnol. (2010) (In Press).
6. Pavlakis K, Messini I, Athanassiadou S et al.: Endocervical glandular lesions: a diagnostic approach combining a semi-quantitative scoring method to the expression of CEA, MIB-1 and p16. Gynecol. Oncol. 103(3), 971-976 (2006).
7. Gupta RB, Harpaz N, Itzkowitz S et al.: Histologic inflammation is a risk factor for progression to colorectal neoplasia in ulcerative colitis: a cohort study. Gastroenterology 133(4), 1099-1105; quiz 1340-11091 (2007).
8. Astrakas LG, Zurakowski D, Tzika AA et al.: Noninvasive magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging biomarkers to predict the clinical grade of pediatric brain tumors. Clin. Cancer Res. 10(24), 8220-8228 (2004). (Pubitemid 40053381)
9. Vaidya VS, Ozer JS, Frank D et al.: Kidney injury molecule-1 outperforms traditional biomarkers of kidney injury in multisite preclinical biomarker qualification studies. Nature Biotechnol. (2010) (In Press).
10. Boyd JC: Mathematical tools for demonstrating the clinical usefulness of biochemical markers. Scand. J. Clin. Lab. Invest. Suppl. 227, 46-63 (1997).
11. Vaidya VS, Waikar SS, Ferguson MA et al.: Urinary biomarkers for sensitive and specific detection of acute kidney injury in humans. Clin. Transl. Sci. 1(3), 200-208 (2008).
12. Devarajan P: Proteomics for biomarker discovery in acute kidney injury. Semin. Nephrol. 27(6), 637-651 (2007).
13. Crissman JW, Goodman DG, Hildebrandt PK et al.: Best practices guideline: toxicologic histopathology. Toxicol. Pathol. 32(1), 126-131 (2004).
14. Society of toxicologists pathologists' position paper on blinded slide reading. Toxicol. Pathol. 14(4), 493-494 (1986).
15. Prasse K, Hildebrandt P, Dodd D: Should the microscopic evaluation of slides from toxicity and carcinogenicity studies in animals be conducted in a "blind" fashion. Vet. Pathol. 23(4), 540-541 (1986).
16. Newberne PM, de la Iglesia FA: Philosophy of blind slide reading in toxicologic pathology. Toxicol. Pathol. 13(4), 255 (1985).
17. Iatropoulos MJ: Appropriateness of methods for slide evaluation in the practice of toxicologic pathology. Toxicol. Pathol. 12(4), 305-306 (1984).
18. House DE, Berman E, Seely JC, Simmons JE: Comparison of open and blind histopathologic evaluation of hepatic lesions. Toxicol. Lett. 63(2), 127-133 (1992).
19. Ozer JS, Teitelbaum A: Novel prodromal biomarkers that are symptomatic of injury require histopathologic or clinical chemistry anchors to characterize activity. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Methods 60(3), 321-322 (2009).
20. Ozer J, Ratner M, Shaw M, Bailey W, Schomaker S: The current state of serum biomarkers of hepatotoxicity. Toxicology 245(3), 194-205 (2008).
21. Dooley JF, Turnquist LI, Racich L: Kinetic determination of serum sorbitol dehydrogenase activity with a centrifugal analyzer. Clin. Chem. 25(12), 2026-2029 (1979).
22. Ozer JS, Reagan WJ, Schomaker S, Palandra J, Baratta M, Ramaiah S: Translational biomarkers of acute drug induced liver injury: the current state, gaps and future opportunities. Biomarkers (2010) (In Press).
23. Tucholska M, Bowden P, Jacks K et al.: Human serum proteins fractionated by preparative partition chromatography prior to LC-ESI-MS/MS. J. Proteome Res. 8(3), 1143-1155 (2009).
24. Lewis JH: Hys law, the rezulin rule, and other predictors of severe drug-induced hepatotoxicity: putting risk-benefit into perspective. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 15(4), 221-229 (2006).
25. Ramaiah SK: A toxicologist guide to the diagnostic interpretation of hepatic biochemical parameters. Food Chem. Toxicol. 45(9), 1551-1557 (2007).
26. Nowicki MJ, Poley Jr: The hereditary hyperbilirubinaemias. Baillieres Clin. Gastroenterol. 12(2), 355-367 (1998).
27. Senior JR: How can Hys law help the clinician? Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 15(4), 235-239 (2006).
28. Goldkind L, Laine L: A systematic review of NSAIDS withdrawn from the market due to hepatotoxicity: lessons learned from the bromfenac experience. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 15(4), 213-220 (2006).
29. Watkins PB, Seligman PI, Pears JS, Avigan MI, Senior JR: Using controlled clinical trials to learn more about acute drug-induced liver injury. Hepatology 48(5), 1680-1689 (2008).
30. Xu JI, Henstock PV, Dunn Mc, Smith AR, Chabot JR, De Graaf D: Cellular imaging predictions of clinical drug-induced liver injury. Toxicol. Sci. 105(1), 97-105 (2008).
31. Holt MP, Ju C: Mechanisms of drug-induced liver injury. AAPS J. 8(1), E48-E54 (2006).
32. Ju C: Immunological mechanisms of drug-induced liver injury. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Devel. 8(1), 38-43 (2005).
33. Genzyme www.genzymediagnostics.com/resources/PI/ Sorbitol%20Dehydrogenase.pdf
34. US FDA: E16 genomic biomarkers related to drug response: context, structure, and format of qualification submission (2009) www.fda.gov/downloads/ Drugs/ GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ Guidances/UCM174433.pdf
35. US FDA: Guidance for industry: drug-induced liver injury: premarketing clinical evaluation (2009) www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ Guidances/UCM174090.pdf