ArticleDrug design, development and therapy2020
Are Laboratory Parameter (Biomarker) Values Similar to the Healthy Volunteer Reference Range in Individuals with Diabetes.
Article in Drug design, development and therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIdentification of laboratory parameter clinical safety signals depends on the terminology and scoring criteria. Grade 1 scoring criteria in the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) is typically based on the healthy volunteer reference range (HVRR). The objectives of this study were to determine 1) what laboratory parameters in individuals with diabetes are potentially different from the HVRR and 2) what fold change from baseline should be expected in this population. MATERIALS AND
methodsBaseline data from the individuals with diabetes clinical trial data (TransCelerate dataset) were compared to the HVRR using a 10% threshold above HVRR to classify laboratory parameters as potentially different from the HVRR. These parameters were then evaluated longitudinally to determine the expected x-baseline values for individuals with diabetes for potential use in identifying drug-induced changes.
resultsThe baseline data determined that 28% of the laboratory parameters evaluated were potentially different from the HVRR. Longitudinal data analysis determined 1) thresholds for 13 of these laboratory parameters with the subjects above the threshold having greater variability than those below the threshold, and 2) the expected upper limits (x-baseline) were calculated for the laboratory parameters. For example, a 1.8-2.6 x-baseline value for alanine aminotransferase, depending on how the baseline is calculated, is expected in individuals with diabetes.
conclusionIt is not uncommon for laboratory parameters in individuals with diabetes clinical trials to be potentially different from the HVRR, and the x-baseline criteria for 13 of these laboratory biomarkers was determined for this population. This suggests consideration in modifying the current CTCAE grade 1 criteria of >1.5-3.0 x-baseline should be further investigated as to if the current criteria detects too many false-positive signals in this population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.