SOT/EUROTOX debate: Biomarkers from blood and urine will replace traditional histopathological evaluation to determine adverse responses

Toxicological Sciences

Volumn 129, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 249-255

  Boekelheide, Kim ^a   Schuppe koistinen, Ina ^b  

^a BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ASTRAZENECA R AND D   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Adverse effect; Biomarkers; Histopathology

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

ACUTE KIDNEY FAILURE; ADVERSE OUTCOME; ARTICLE; BLOOD LEVEL; CREATININE BLOOD LEVEL; DRUG MONITORING; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KIDNEY TUBULE DISORDER; MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY; NONHUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICITY TESTING; UREA NITROGEN BLOOD LEVEL; URINE LEVEL;

BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; HUMANS; TOXICITY TESTS;

EID: 84866608012     PISSN: 10966080     EISSN: 10960929     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfs200     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Adams, C. P., and Brantner, V. V. (2010). Spending on new drug development. Health Econ. 19, 130-141.
2. BDWG (2001). Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: Preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 69, 89-95.
3. Bennett, B. D., and Grimes, M. M. (2011). Certification and maintenance of certification: Updates from the American Board of Pathology. Human Pathol. 42, 770-773.
4. Bonventre, J. V., Vaidya, V. S., Schmouder, R., Feig, P., and Dieterle, F. (2010). Next-generation biomarkers for detecting kidney toxicity. Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 436-440.
5. Bucher, J. R. (2002). The National Toxicology Program rodent bioassay: Designs, interpretations, and scientific contributions. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 982, 198-207.
6. Burkhardt, J. E., Pandher, K., Solter, P. F., Troth, S. P., Boyce, R. W., Zabka, T. S., and Ennulat, D. (2011). Recommendations for the evaluation of pathology data in nonclinical safety biomarkers qualification studies. Toxicol. Pathol. 39, 1129-1137.
7. Decarlo, K., Emley, A., Dadzie, O. E., and Mahalingam, M. (2011). Laser capture microdissection: Methods and applications. Methods Mol. Biol. 755, 1-15.
8. Dieterle, F., Sistare, F., Goodsaid, F., Papaluca, M., Ozer, J. S., Webb, C. P., Baer, W., Senagore, A., Chipper, M. J. S., Vonderscher, J., et al. (2010). Renal biomarker qualification submission: A dialog between the FDA_EMEA and Predictive Safety Testing Consortium. Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 455-462.
9. Dorato, M. A., and Engelhardt, J. A. (2005). The no-observed-adverse-effect-level in drug safety evaluations: Use, issues, and definition(s). Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 42, 265-274.
10. Farragher, S. M., Tanney, A., Kennedy, R. D., and Paul Harkin, D. (2008). RNA expression analysis from formalin fixed paraffin embedded tissues. Histochem. Cell Biol. 130, 435-445.
11. Hawkins, D. M., Garrett, J. A., and Stephenson, B. (2001). Some issues in resolution of diagnostic tests using an imperfect gold standard. Stat. Med. 20, 1987-2001.
12. Ioannidis, J. P., and Panagiotou, O. A. (2011). Comparison of effect sizes associated with biomarkers reported in highly cited individual articles and in subsequent meta-analyses. JAMA 305, 2200-2210.
13. Kiernan, J. A. (1999). Histological and Histochemical Methods: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, U.K.
14. Kola, I., and Landis, J. (2004). Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 3, 711.
15. Lewis, R. W., Billington, R., Debryune, E., Gamer, A., Lang, B., and Carpanini, F. (2002). Recognition of adverse and nonadverse effects in toxicity studies. Toxicol. Pathol. 30, 66-74.
16. Matheis, K., Laurie, D., Andriamandroso, C., Arber, N., Badimon, L., Benain, X., Bendjama, K., Clavier, I., Colman, P., Firat, H., et al. (2011). A generic operational strategy to qualify translational safety biomarkers. Drug Discov. Today 16, 600-608.
17. Olson, H., Betton, G., Robinson, D., Thomas, K., Monro, A., Kolaja, G., Lilly, P., Sanders, J., Sipes, G., Bracken, W., et al. (2000). Concordance of the toxicity of pharmaceuticals in humans and in animals. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 32, 56-67.
18. PSTC. (2008). FDA and EMEA conclude that new renal safety biomarkers are qualified for specific regulatory purposes [serial online]. Available at: http://www.c-path.org/pdf/PSTC_nephro_VXDS_summary_final.pdf. Accessed May 25, 2012.
19. Vaidya, V. S., Ozer, J. S., Dieterle, F., Collings, F. B., Ramirez, V., Troth, S., Muniappa, N., Thudium, D., Gerhold, D., Holder, D. J., et al. (2010). Kidney injury molecule-1 outperforms traditional biomarkers of kidney injury in preclinical biomarker qualification studies. Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 478-485.
20. Valenstein, P. N. (1990). Evaluating diagnostic tests with imperfect standards. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 93, 252-258.
21. Waikar, S. S., Betensky, R. A., and Bonventre, J. V. (2009). Creatinine as the gold standard for kidney injury biomarker studies? Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 24, 3263-3265.
22. Warnock, D. G., and Peck, C. C. (2010). A roadmap for biomarker qualification. Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 444-445.