Adaptive bayesian approach to clinical trial renal impairment biomarker signal from urea and creatinine

International Journal of Biological Sciences

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 156-163

  Sottas, Pierre Edouard ^a   Kapke, Gordon F ^b   Leroux, Jean Marc ^a  

^a Department of Drug Monitoring   (Switzerland)

^b Vaccine and Novel Immunotherapy Solutions   (United States)

Author keywords

Adaptive design; Bayesian inference; Biologic variation; Biomarker signal; Individual reference ranges; Renal toxicity

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER; CREATININE; UREA;

ADAPTIVE DESIGN; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; BAYESIAN INFERENCE.; BIOLOGIC VARIATION; BIOMARKER SIGNAL; BLOOD; CHEMICALLY INDUCED DISORDER; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COMPUTER SIMULATION; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG SCREENING; DRUG TOXICITY; FACTUAL DATABASE; HUMAN; INDIVIDUAL REFERENCE RANGES; KIDNEY FAILURE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NEPHROTOXICITY; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; REFERENCE VALUE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STATISTICS; VERY ELDERLY;

ADAPTIVE DESIGN; BAYESIAN INFERENCE.; BIOLOGIC VARIATION; BIOMARKER SIGNAL; INDIVIDUAL REFERENCE RANGES; RENAL TOXICITY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BAYES THEOREM; BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CREATININE; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; DRUG EVALUATION; DRUG TOXICITY; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; REFERENCE VALUES; RENAL INSUFFICIENCY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC; UREA;

EID: 84873713156     PISSN: 14492288     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7150/ijbs.5225     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Kola I, Landis J. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nat Rev Drug Disc 2004; 3: 711-8.
2. Dieterle F, Sistare F, Goodsaid F, et al. Renal biomarker qualification submission: a dialog between the FDA-EMEA and Predictive Safety Testing Consortium. Nat Biotechnol 2010; 28: 455-62.
3. Wilson SS, Guillan RA, Hocker EV. Studies of the stability of 18 chemical constituents of human serum. Clin Chem 1972; 18: 1498-1503.
4. Vaidya V, Ferguson MA, Bonventre JV. Biomarkers of acute kidney injury. Annu Rev Pharmocol Toxicol 2008; 48: 463-93.
5. Fraser CG. Biologic Variation: Principles and Practice. Washington DC, USA: AACC Press; 2001.
6. Sottas PE, Baume N, Saudan C, et al. Bayesian detection of abnormal values in longitudinal biomarkers with an application to T/E ratio. Biostatistics 2007; 2: 285-96.
7. Sottas PE, Robinson N, Saugy M. The athlete's biological passport and indirect markers of blood doping. In: Thieme D and Hemmershach P (eds) Doping in Sports. Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology, vol 195. Berlin: Springer; 2010.
8. Sottas PE, Robinson N, Rabin O, et al. The athlete biological passport. Clin Chem 2011; 57: 969-76.
9. Sottas PE, Kapke GF, Leroux JM. Adaptive bayesian analysis of serum creatinine as a marker for drug-induced renal impairment in an early- phase clinical trial. Clin Chem 2012; 58:1592-6.
10. Sottas PE, Robinson N, Saugy M, et al. A Forensic Approach to the Interpretation of Blood Doping Markers. Law Prob Risk 2008; 7: 191-210.
11. Sottas PE, Kapke GF, Vesterqvist O, et al. Patient-specific measures of a biomarker for the generation of individual reference intervals: hemoglobin as example. Transl Res 2011; 158: 360-8.
12. National Kidney Foundation. K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification. Am J Kidney Dis 2002; 39:1-266.
13. Dieterle F, Sistare F, Goodsaid F, et al. Renal biomarker qualification submission: a dialog between the FDA-EMEA and Predictive Safety Testing Consortium. Nat Biotechnol 2010; 28:455-62.
14. Suhre K, Shin SY, Petersen AK, et al. Human metabolic individuality in biomedical and pharmaceutical research. Nature 2011; 477:54-60.