Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28950720›Full record

ReviewExperimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.)2018

Biomarkers of adverse drug reactions.

Daniel F Carr, Munir Pirmohamed

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Drug hypersensitivity reactions: review of the state of the science for prediction and diagnosis.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Germline variants in cancer therapy.Cancer drug resistance (Alhambra, Calif.) · 2019
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniel F Carr1 Department of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, Wolfson Centre for Personalised Medicine, Institute of Translational Medicine, 4591 University of Liverpool , Liverpool L69 3GL, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8028-4282
Munir Pirmohamed1 Department of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, Wolfson Centre for Personalised Medicine, Institute of Translational Medicine, 4591 University of Liverpool , Liverpool L69 3GL, UK.
University of Liverpool · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/L006758/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adverse drug reactions can be caused by a wide range of therapeutics. Adverse drug reactions affect many bodily organ systems and vary widely in severity. Milder adverse drug reactions often resolve quickly following withdrawal of the casual drug or sometimes after dose reduction. Some adverse drug reactions are severe and lead to significant organ/tissue injury which can be fatal. Adverse drug reactions also represent a financial burden to both healthcare providers and the pharmaceutical industry. Thus, a number of stakeholders would benefit from development of new, robust biomarkers for the prediction, diagnosis, and prognostication of adverse drug reactions. There has been significant recent progress in identifying predictive genomic biomarkers with the potential to be used in clinical settings to reduce the burden of adverse drug reactions. These have included biomarkers that can be used to alter drug dose (for example, Thiopurine methyltransferase (TPMT) and azathioprine dose) and drug choice. The latter have in particular included human leukocyte antigen (HLA) biomarkers which identify susceptibility to immune-mediated injuries to major organs such as skin, liver, and bone marrow from a variety of drugs. This review covers both the current state of the art with regard to genomic adverse drug reaction biomarkers. We also review circulating biomarkers that have the potential to be used for both diagnosis and prognosis, and have the added advantage of providing mechanistic information. In the future, we will not be relying on single biomarkers (genomic/non-genomic), but on multiple biomarker panels, integrated through the application of different omics technologies, which will provide information on predisposition, early diagnosis, prognosis, and mechanisms. Impact statement • Genetic and circulating biomarkers present significant opportunities to personalize patient therapy to minimize the risk of adverse drug reactions. ADRs are a significant heath issue and represent a significant burden to patients, healthcare providers, and the pharmaceutical industry. • This review details the current state of the art in biomarkers of ADRs (both genetic and circulating). There is still significant variability in patient response which cannot be explained by current knowledge of genetic risk factors for ADRs; however, we discussed how specific advances in genomics have the potential to yield better and more predictive models. • Many current clinically utilized circulating biomarkers of tissue injury are valid biomarkers for a number of ADRs. However, they often give little insight into the specific cell or tissue subtype which may be affected. Emerging circulating biomarkers with potential to provide greater information on the etiology/pathophysiology of ADRs are described.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, PharmacologicalDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsGenetic MarkersHumansPrognosisBiomarkers, PharmacologicalGenetic MarkersAdverse drug reactionsbiomarkersdrug safetypharmacogenomics

Identifiers

PMID28950720
PMCPMC5813863
OpenAlexW2758666424

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.