Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34841493›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2022

Classification of Companion Diagnostics: A New Framework for Biomarker-Driven Patient Selection.

Cynthia Huber, Tim Friede, Julia Stingl, Norbert Benda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
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

4 authors.

Cynthia HuberDepartment of Medical Statistics, University Medical Center Göttingen, Humboldtallee 32, 37073, Göttingen, Germany. cynthia.huber@med.uni-goettingen.de.ORCID 0000-0003-2035-3682
Tim FriedeDepartment of Medical Statistics, University Medical Center Göttingen, Humboldtallee 32, 37073, Göttingen, Germany.
Julia StinglFaculty of Medicine, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Norbert BendaDepartment of Medical Statistics, University Medical Center Göttingen, Humboldtallee 32, 37073, Göttingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundModern personalized medicine strategies builds on therapy companion diagnostics to stratify patients into subgroups with differential benefit/risk. In general, stratification for drug response implies a treatment-by-subgroup interaction. This interaction is usually suggested by the drug's mechanism of action and investigated in pharmacological research or in clinical studies. In these candidate genes or pathway approaches, either biological reasons for a differential benefit/risk or statistical interaction regarding a pharmacological or clinical endpoint or both may be given. For successful drug approval, demonstration of a positive benefit/risk balance in the intended patient population is required. This also applies to situations with biomarker-selected populations. However, further regulatory considerations relate to the usefulness and plausibility of the selected patients and benefit/risk extrapolations or alternative therapy options in biomarker-negative populations.

methodsTo facilitate the specification of regulatory requirements and support the design of clinical development programmes, a systematic classification of biomarker-drug pairs is needed, in particular with regard to the expected underlying molecular mechanism and the clinical evidence.

resultsA classification of five biomarker-drug categories is proposed related to increasing evidence on the biomarker's predictive value in relation to a specific drug. We classified biomarkers into five ascending categories with increasing evidence on the predictive nature of the biomarker in relation to a specific drug according to the comparative pharmacological and clinical evidence.

conclusionsThe proposed classification will facilitate regulatory decision-making and support drug development with respect to biomarker-related subgrouping, both, during clinical programme and at the time of marketing authorization application, since the grade of evidence on the differential power of the biomarker can be considered as an indicator for the usefulness of a biomarker-related subgrouping.

Indexed as

Drug ApprovalBiomarkersHumansPatient SelectionBiomarkersBiomarkerClassificationCompanion diagnosticPatient selectionPredictivePrognostic

Identifiers

PMID34841493
PMCPMC8854277

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.