Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35137949›Full record

ReviewClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2022

Biomarker Qualification at the European Medicines Agency: A Review of Biomarker Qualification Procedures From 2008 to 2020.

Elisabeth Bakker, Natalie M Hendrikse, Falk Ehmann, Daniëlla S van der Meer, Jordi Llinares Garcia, Thorsten Vetter, Viktoriia Starokozhko, Peter G M Mol

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Deconvoluting drug interactions usingAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Cancer Metastasis: Therapeutic Challenges and Opportunities.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Elisabeth BakkerDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Natalie M HendrikseEuropean Medicines Agency, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Falk EhmannEuropean Medicines Agency, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Daniëlla S van der MeerDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Jordi Llinares GarciaEuropean Medicines Agency, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Thorsten VetterEuropean Medicines Agency, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Viktoriia StarokozhkoDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Peter G M MolDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regulatory qualification of biomarkers facilitates their harmonized use across drug developers, enabling more personalized medicine. This study reviews various aspects of the European Medicines Agency's (EMA's) biomarker qualification procedure, including frequency and outcome, common challenges, and biomarker characteristics. Our findings provide insights into the EMA's biomarker qualification process and will thereby support future applications. All biomarker-related "Qualification of Novel Methodologies for Medicine Development" procedures that started from 2008 to 2020 were included. Procedural data were extracted from relevant documents and analyzed descriptively. In total, 86 biomarker qualification procedures were identified, of which 13 resulted in qualified biomarkers. Whereas initially many biomarker qualification procedures were linked to a single company and specific drug development program, a shift was observed to qualification efforts by consortia. Most biomarkers were proposed (n = 45) and qualified (n = 9) for use in patient selection, stratification, and/or enrichment, followed by efficacy biomarkers (37 proposed, 4 qualified). Overall, many issues were raised during qualification procedures, mostly related to biomarker properties and assay validation (in 79% and 77% of all procedures, respectively). Issues related to the proposed context of use and rationale were least common yet were still raised in 54% of all procedures. While few qualified biomarkers are currently available, procedures focus increasingly on biomarkers for general use instead of those linked to specific drug compounds. The issues raised during qualification procedures illustrate the thorough discussions taking place between applicants and regulators-highlighting aspects that need careful consideration and underlining the importance of an appropriate validation strategy.

Indexed as

Drug DevelopmentPrecision MedicineBiomarkersHumansBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID35137949
PMCPMC9313861

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.