Biomarker Insights最新文献

Biomarkers are widely used at every stage of drug discovery and development. Utilisation of biomarkers has a potential to make drug discovery, development and approval processes more efficient. An overview of the current global regulatory landscape is presented in this article with particular emphasis on the validation and qualification of biomarkers, as well as legal framework for companion diagnostics. Furthermore, this article shows how the number of approved drugs with at least 1 biomarker used during development (biomarker acceptance) is affected by the recent advances in the biomarker regulations. More than half of analysed approvals were supported by biomarker data and there has been a slight increase in acceptance of biomarkers in recent years, even though the growth is not continuous. For certain pharmacotherapeutic groups, approvals with biomarkers are more common than without. Examples include immunosuppressants, immunostimulants, drugs used in diabetes, antithrombotic drugs, antineoplastic agents and antivirals. As a conclusion, potential benefits, challenges and opportunities of using biomarkers in drug discovery and development in the current regulatory landscape are summarised and discussed.

Biomarker discovery in the field of risk prediction in chronic kidney disease (CKD) embraces the prospect of improving our ability to risk stratify future adverse outcomes and thereby guide patient care in a new era of personalised medicine. However, many studies that report biomarkers predictive of CKD progression share a key methodological limitation: failure to characterise patients' renal progression precisely. This weakens any observable association between a biomarker and an outcome poorly defined by a patient's change in renal function over time. In this commentary, we discuss the need for a better approach in this research arena and describe a compelling strategy that has the advantage of offering robust and meaningful biomarker exploration relevant to CKD progression.

Over the last decade, biomarkers have significantly improved our understanding of the pathophysiology of Alzheimer disease (AD) and provided valuable tools to examine different disease mechanisms and their progression over time. While several markers of amyloid, tau, neuronal, synaptic, and axonal injury, inflammation, and immune dysregulation in AD have been identified, there is a relative paucity of biomarkers which reflect other disease mechanisms such as oxidative stress, mitochondrial injury, vascular or endothelial injury, and calcium-mediated excitotoxicity. Importantly, there is an urgent need to standardize methods for biomarker assessments across different centers, and to identify dynamic biomarkers which can monitor disease progression over time and/or response to potential disease-modifying treatments. The updated research framework for AD, proposed by the National Institute of Aging- Alzheimer's Association (NIA-AA) Work Group, emphasizes the importance of incorporating biomarkers in AD research and defines AD as a biological construct consisting of amyloid, tau, and neurodegeneration which spans pre-symptomatic and symptomatic stages. As results of clinical trials of AD therapeutics have been disappointing, it has become increasingly clear that the success of future AD trials will require the incorporation of biomarkers in participant selection, prognostication, monitoring disease progression, and assessing response to treatments. We here review the current state of fluid AD biomarkers, and discuss the advantages and limitations of the updated NIA-AA research framework. Importantly, the integration of biomarker data with clinical, cognitive, and imaging domains through a systems biology approach will be essential to adequately capture the molecular, genetic, and pathological heterogeneity of AD and its spatiotemporal evolution over time.

Over 35% of the adult US population is obese. In turn, excess adiposity increases the risk of multiple complications including type 2 diabetes (T2D), insulin resistance, and cardiovascular disease; yet, obesity also independently heightens risk of Alzheimer's Disease (AD), even after adjusting for other important confounding risk factors including blood pressure, sociodemographics, cholesterol levels, smoking status, and Apolipoprotein E (ApoE) genotype. Among patients over the age of 65 with dementia, 37% have coexisting diabetes, and an estimated 7.3% of cases of AD are directly attributable to midlife obesity. Clusterin, also known as apolipoprotein J (ApoJ), is a multifunctional glycoprotein that acts as a molecular chaperone, assisting folding of secreted proteins. Clusterin has been implicated in several physiological and pathological states, including AD, metabolic disease, and cardiovascular disease. Despite long-standing interest in elucidating clusterin's relationship with amyloid beta (Aβ) aggregation/clearance and toxicity, significant knowledge gaps still exist. Altered clusterin expression and protein levels have been linked with cognitive and memory function, disrupted central nervous system lipid flux, as well as pathogenic brain structure; and its role in cardiometabolic disease suggests that it may be a link between insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, and AD. Here, we briefly highlight clusterin's relevance to AD by presenting existing evidence linking clusterin to AD and cardiometabolic disease, and discussing its potential utility as a biomarker for AD in the presence of obesity-related metabolic disease.

Diagnosis of Parkinson's disease (PD) relies on clinical history and physical examination, but misdiagnosis is common in early stages. Identification of biomarkers for PD may allow for early and more precise diagnosis and provide information about prognosis. Developments in analytical chemistry allow for the detection of a large number of molecules in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), which are known to be associated with the pathogenesis of PD. Given the pathophysiology of PD, CSF α-synuclein species have the strongest rationale for use, also providing encouraging preliminary results in terms of early diagnosis. In the field of classical Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers, low CSF Aβ₄₂ levels have shown a robust prognostic value in terms of development of cognitive impairment. Other CSF biomarkers including lysosomal enzymes, neurofilament light chain, markers of neuroinflammation and oxidative stress, although promising, have not proved to be reliable for diagnostic and prognostic purposes yet. Overall, the implementation of CSF biomarkers may give a substantial contribution to the optimal use of disease-modifying drugs.

Diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) is a common complication of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) characterized by ulcer formation, which can lead to the amputation of lower extremities. However, the metabolic alterations related to this complication are not completely elucidated. Therefore, we carried out a metabolomic analysis of serum samples obtained from T2DM adult patients diagnosed with diabetic foot ulcer in a cross-sectional, observational, and comparative study. Eighty-four volunteers were classified into the following groups: without T2DM (control group, n = 30) and with T2DM and different stages of diabetic foot ulcer according to Wagner-Meggitt classification system: DFU G0 (n = 11), DFU G1 (n = 14), DFU G2 (n = 16), and DFU G3 (n = 13). The non-target metabolomic profile followed by chemometric analysis revealed that lysophosphatidylethanolamine (16:1) could be proposed as key metabolite related to the onset of diabetic foot ulcer; however, this phospholipid was not affected by diabetic foot ulcer progression. Therefore, further studies are necessary to validate these phospholipids as biomarker candidates for the early diagnosis of diabetic foot ulcer in T2DM patients.

We review simple methods for evaluating 4 types of biomarkers. First, we discuss the evaluation of surrogate endpoint biomarkers (to shorten a randomized trial) using 2 statistical and 3 biological criteria. Second, we discuss the evaluation of prognostic biomarkers (to predict the risk of disease) by comparing data collection costs with the anticipated net benefit of risk prediction. Third, we discuss the evaluation of predictive markers (to search for a promising subgroup in a randomized trial) using a multivariate subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot involving a risk difference or responders-only benefit function. Fourth, we discuss the evaluation of cancer screening biomarkers (to predict cancer in asymptomatic persons) using methodology to substantially reduce the sample size with stored specimens.