A Systematic approach to preclinical and clinical safety biomarker qualification incorporating bradford hill's principles of causality association

Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics

Volumn 88, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 260-262

  Chetty, R K ^a   Ozer, J S ^b   Lanevschi, A ^a   Schuppe Koistinen, I ^c   McHale, D ^a   Pears, J S ^a   Vonderscher, J ^d   Sistare, F D ^e   Dieterle, F ^f  

^a ASTRAZENECA   (United Kingdom)

^b PFIZER INC   (United States)

^c ASTRAZENECA R AND D   (Sweden)

^d F HOFFMANN LA ROCHE LTD   (Switzerland)

^e MERCK RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (United States)

^f NOVARTIS PHARMA AG   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

DRUG INDUSTRY; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HISTOPATHOLOGY; KIDNEY INJURY; NEPHROTOXICITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SHORT SURVEY;

EID: 77954887461     PISSN: 00099236     EISSN: 15326535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/clpt.2010.77     Document Type: Short Survey

References (15)

1. Sistare, F.D. et al. towards consensus practices to qualify safety biomarkers for use in early drug development. Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 446-454 (2010).
2. European Medicines Agency. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. Qualifcation of novel methodologies for drug development: guidance to applicants draft (2008).
3. Ozer, J.S. et al. gaps for qualifying biomarker candidates of drug induced liver injury. Biomark. Med., in press.
4. Dieterle, F. et al. Renal biomarker qualifcation submission: a dialog between the FDA/EMEA and PstC. Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 455-462 (2010).
5. Altar, C.A. et al. A prototypical process for creating evidentiary standards for biomarkers and diagnostics. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 83, 368-371 (2008).
6. Bradford-Hill, A. the environment and disease: association or causation? Proc. R. Soc. Med. 58, 295-300 (1965).
7. Sistare, F.D. 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 (eds. Olsen, S., Robinson, S. & gifn, R.) 29-41 (Institute of Medicine, National Academy of sciences, Washington, DC, 2009).
8. Branscum, A.J., gardner, I.A., & Johnson, W.O. Estimation of diagnostic-test sensitivity and specifcity through Bayesian modelling. Prev. Vet. Med. 68, 145-163 (2005).
9. Enøe, C., georgiadis, M.P. & Johnson, W.O. Estimation of sensitivity and specifcity of diagnostic tests and disease prevalence when the true disease state is unknown. Prev. Vet. Med. 45, 61-81 (2000).
10. Pinches, M.D., Diesel, G., Helps, C.R., tasker, S., Egan, K. & grufydd-Jones, T.J. An update on FIV and FeLV test performance using a Bayesian statistical approach. Vet. Clin. Pathol. 36, 141-147 (2007).
11. Ozer, J.S. et al. A panel of urinary biomarkers to monitor reversibility of renal injury and a serum marker with improved potential to assess renal function. Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 486-494 (2010).
12. Höfer, M. the Bradford Hill considerations on causality: a counterfactual perspective. Emerg. Themes Epidemiol. 2, 11 (2005).
13. Mauer, M. et al. Renal and retinal efects of enalapril and losartan in type 1 diabetes. N. Engl. J. Med. 361, 40-51 (2009)
14. Susser, M. What is a cause and how do we know one? A grammar for pragmatic epidemiology. Am. J. Epidemiol. 133, 635-648 (1991).
15. Rothman, K.J. & greenland, S. Modern Epidemiology 2nd edn. p. 27 (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA, 1998).