Stratified medicine in practice : review of predictive biomarkers in European Medicines Agency (EMA) indications

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{0c2531f830814f45ab1640d1fd2ba97f,
title = "Stratified medicine in practice : review of predictive biomarkers in European Medicines Agency (EMA) indications",
abstract = "Stratified medicine has been defined as using a biomarker to match a patient to a cohort that has exhibited a differential response to a treatment. This is important where the proportion of patients benefiting from treatment is low and possible adverse events can be serious. To maximise patient benefit, valid predictive biomarkers need to be used. Several trial designs have been proposed to evaluate the use of predictive biomarkers in clinical practice including: enrichment, stratified and biomarker-based strategy design.Our aim was to review the EMA indications that include a predictive biomarker in order to investigate the type and strength of evidence considered sufficient for such decisions.MethodsWe have undertaken a review to identify predictive biomarkers included in EMA indications, together with the supporting study designs and strength of evidence. The authorised, refused, withdrawn and pending decisions on the EMA website were reviewed in October 2010. Where predictive biomarkers were identified, data was collected on the details of the therapeutic indication and supporting evidence.ResultsFifteen predictive biomarkers were included in the indications of 18 drugs. For one biomarker the license was refused and for one withdrawn. Only three biomarkers were included in an indication before 2004. Five of the 18 drugs had an orphan designation.Thirteen biomarkers for 10 drugs were included in indications for treatment of various cancers (including a range of haematological diseases, breast, colorectal, gastric and lung cancer). Two biomarkers were included in the indications of four drugs for the treatment of HIV infections.The majority of identified studies were enrichment design or used a subgroup analysis (sometimes post hoc) to evaluate the predictive biomarker. One stratified and one marker- based strategy design study was identified.ConclusionsThe specialties where predictive biomarkers were identified were limited to cancer and HIV infection. No predictive biomarkers have been identified in other specialties where treatments are often effective only in a relatively small subgroup of patients (such as mental health).Our review found that evidence from subgroup analyses and studies with an enrichment design has been often considered sufficient to grant marketing authorisation. Such results would ordinarily be interpreted with caution due to underlying methodological limitations.",
keywords = "Molecular aspects, oncology, Therapeutics",
author = "Kinga Malottki and Mousumi Biswas and Jonathan Deeks and Richard Riley and Charles Craddock and Lucinda Billingham",
year = "2011",
month = dec
day = "13",
doi = "10.1186/1745-6215-12-S1-A16",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
journal = "Trials",
issn = "1745-6215",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "Suppl 1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Stratified medicine in practice : review of predictive biomarkers in European Medicines Agency (EMA) indications

AU - Malottki, Kinga

AU - Biswas, Mousumi

AU - Deeks, Jonathan

AU - Riley, Richard

AU - Craddock, Charles

AU - Billingham, Lucinda

PY - 2011/12/13

Y1 - 2011/12/13

N2 - Stratified medicine has been defined as using a biomarker to match a patient to a cohort that has exhibited a differential response to a treatment. This is important where the proportion of patients benefiting from treatment is low and possible adverse events can be serious. To maximise patient benefit, valid predictive biomarkers need to be used. Several trial designs have been proposed to evaluate the use of predictive biomarkers in clinical practice including: enrichment, stratified and biomarker-based strategy design.Our aim was to review the EMA indications that include a predictive biomarker in order to investigate the type and strength of evidence considered sufficient for such decisions.MethodsWe have undertaken a review to identify predictive biomarkers included in EMA indications, together with the supporting study designs and strength of evidence. The authorised, refused, withdrawn and pending decisions on the EMA website were reviewed in October 2010. Where predictive biomarkers were identified, data was collected on the details of the therapeutic indication and supporting evidence.ResultsFifteen predictive biomarkers were included in the indications of 18 drugs. For one biomarker the license was refused and for one withdrawn. Only three biomarkers were included in an indication before 2004. Five of the 18 drugs had an orphan designation.Thirteen biomarkers for 10 drugs were included in indications for treatment of various cancers (including a range of haematological diseases, breast, colorectal, gastric and lung cancer). Two biomarkers were included in the indications of four drugs for the treatment of HIV infections.The majority of identified studies were enrichment design or used a subgroup analysis (sometimes post hoc) to evaluate the predictive biomarker. One stratified and one marker- based strategy design study was identified.ConclusionsThe specialties where predictive biomarkers were identified were limited to cancer and HIV infection. No predictive biomarkers have been identified in other specialties where treatments are often effective only in a relatively small subgroup of patients (such as mental health).Our review found that evidence from subgroup analyses and studies with an enrichment design has been often considered sufficient to grant marketing authorisation. Such results would ordinarily be interpreted with caution due to underlying methodological limitations.

AB - Stratified medicine has been defined as using a biomarker to match a patient to a cohort that has exhibited a differential response to a treatment. This is important where the proportion of patients benefiting from treatment is low and possible adverse events can be serious. To maximise patient benefit, valid predictive biomarkers need to be used. Several trial designs have been proposed to evaluate the use of predictive biomarkers in clinical practice including: enrichment, stratified and biomarker-based strategy design.Our aim was to review the EMA indications that include a predictive biomarker in order to investigate the type and strength of evidence considered sufficient for such decisions.MethodsWe have undertaken a review to identify predictive biomarkers included in EMA indications, together with the supporting study designs and strength of evidence. The authorised, refused, withdrawn and pending decisions on the EMA website were reviewed in October 2010. Where predictive biomarkers were identified, data was collected on the details of the therapeutic indication and supporting evidence.ResultsFifteen predictive biomarkers were included in the indications of 18 drugs. For one biomarker the license was refused and for one withdrawn. Only three biomarkers were included in an indication before 2004. Five of the 18 drugs had an orphan designation.Thirteen biomarkers for 10 drugs were included in indications for treatment of various cancers (including a range of haematological diseases, breast, colorectal, gastric and lung cancer). Two biomarkers were included in the indications of four drugs for the treatment of HIV infections.The majority of identified studies were enrichment design or used a subgroup analysis (sometimes post hoc) to evaluate the predictive biomarker. One stratified and one marker- based strategy design study was identified.ConclusionsThe specialties where predictive biomarkers were identified were limited to cancer and HIV infection. No predictive biomarkers have been identified in other specialties where treatments are often effective only in a relatively small subgroup of patients (such as mental health).Our review found that evidence from subgroup analyses and studies with an enrichment design has been often considered sufficient to grant marketing authorisation. Such results would ordinarily be interpreted with caution due to underlying methodological limitations.

KW - Molecular aspects

KW - oncology

KW - Therapeutics

U2 - 10.1186/1745-6215-12-S1-A16

DO - 10.1186/1745-6215-12-S1-A16

M3 - Article

C2 - 22376817

VL - 12

JO - Trials

JF - Trials

SN - 1745-6215

IS - Suppl 1

M1 - A16

ER -