A precision medicine framework using artificial intelligence for the identification and confirmation of genomic biomarkers of response to an Alzheimer's disease therapy: Analysis of the blarcamesine (ANAVEX2-73) Phase 2a clinical study.

INTRODUCTION: The search for drugs to treat Alzheimer's disease (AD) has failed to yield effective therapies. Here we report the first genome-wide search for biomarkers associated with therapeutic response in AD. Blarcamesine (ANAVEX2-73), a selective sigma-1 receptor (SIGMAR1) agonist, was studied in a 57-week Phase 2a trial (NCT02244541). The study was extended for a further 208 weeks (NCT02756858) after meeting its primary safety endpoint. METHODS: Safety, clinical features, pharmacokinetic, and efficacy, measured by changes in the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living scale (ADCS-ADL), were recorded. Whole exome and transcriptome sequences were obtained for 21 patients. The relationship between all available patient data and efficacy outcome measures was analyzed with unsupervised formal concept analysis (FCA), integrated in the Knowledge Extraction and Management (KEM) environment. RESULTS: Biomarkers with a significant impact on clinical outcomes were identified at week 57: mean plasma concentration of blarcamesine (slope MMSE:P < .041), genomic variants SIGMAR1 p.Gln2Pro (ΔMMSE:P < .039; ΔADCS-ADL:P < .063) and COMT p.Leu146fs (ΔMMSE:P < .039; ΔADCS-ADL:P < .063), and baseline MMSE score (slope MMSE:P < .015). Their combined impact on drug response was confirmed at week 148 with linear mixed effect models. DISCUSSION: Confirmatory Phase 2b/3 clinical studies of these patient selection markers are ongoing. This FCA/KEM analysis is a template for the identification of patient selection markers in early therapeutic development for neurologic disorders.

The Labyrinth of Product Development and Regulatory Approvals in Liquid Biopsy Diagnostics.

The evolution of chemistries and instrument platforms for next-generation sequencing has led to sequencing of genomic variants in both tumor biopsies as well as in circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and cell-free DNA liquid biopsies. The transition of these analytical platforms into clinical ones has led to challenges in product development as well as regulatory strategies for the approval of diagnostic products with these platforms. Regulatory strategies for liquid biopsy diagnostics depend on a framework that has been developed over the past few years by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This framework includes both guidances that cover enrichment biomarkers and companion diagnostics, as well as regulatory approval precedents, which can be used to design regulatory strategies for new liquid biopsy diagnostic products. However, the regulatory paths for these liquid biopsy diagnostics can also be tortuous, as is the example of CTC-platform liquid biopsies. The ultimate success of regulatory pathways of liquid biopsy diagnostics has been driven by the incremental value of FDA approval for Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment (CLIA)-developed tests and by the inherent complexity of these diagnostics, which are practical barriers for the widespread replication of these tests throughout CLIA laboratories. The framework for FDA approval of sequence information from these liquid biopsies has been focused on single-site approvals of diagnostics where sequencing information is considered at different diagnostic risk levels, ranging from novel or follow-on companion diagnostics to variant calls in genomic targets considered independently valuable for therapeutic decision making.

A robust targeted sequencing approach for low input and variable quality DNA from clinical samples.

Next-generation deep sequencing of gene panels is being adopted as a diagnostic test to identify actionable mutations in cancer patient samples. However, clinical samples, such as formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded specimens, frequently provide low quantities of degraded, poor quality DNA. To overcome these issues, many sequencing assays rely on extensive PCR amplification leading to an accumulation of bias and artifacts. Thus, there is a need for a targeted sequencing assay that performs well with DNA of low quality and quantity without relying on extensive PCR amplification. We evaluate the performance of a targeted sequencing assay based on Oligonucleotide Selective Sequencing, which permits the enrichment of genes and regions of interest and the identification of sequence variants from low amounts of damaged DNA. This assay utilizes a repair process adapted to clinical FFPE samples, followed by adaptor ligation to single stranded DNA and a primer-based capture technique. Our approach generates sequence libraries of high fidelity with reduced reliance on extensive PCR amplification-this facilitates the accurate assessment of copy number alterations in addition to delivering accurate single nucleotide variant and insertion/deletion detection. We apply this method to capture and sequence the exons of a panel of 130 cancer-related genes, from which we obtain high read coverage uniformity across the targeted regions at starting input DNA amounts as low as 10 ng per sample. We demonstrate the performance using a series of reference DNA samples, and by identifying sequence variants in DNA from matched clinical samples originating from different tissue types.

Regulatory landscapes for biomarkers and diagnostic tests: Qualification, approval, and role in clinical practice.

While the term 'biomarker' is relatively new, the concept is millennia old. However, with the introduction of new technologies to discover potential biomarkers comes the need to assess their utility and veracity for any given use. This is particularly true for the use of biomarkers to support regulatory decisions in medical product development. Hence the US Food and Drug Administration has developed processes for the qualification of biomarkers and other medical product development tools, processes that are underscored by recent legislation (i.e. the 21st Century Cures Act). In addition to these qualification processes, diagnostic tests that measure a biomarker may follow a process for regulatory decision through the processes that evaluate companion diagnostics. This mini-review provides an overview of these processes and their role in pharmaceutical development and clinical use. Impact statement This work summarizes very recent developments in the US FDA's biomarker qualification program. Furthermore, it contrasts biomarker qualification with companion diagnostic evaluation. As such, it will be highly informative for researches considering taking a biomarker discovery farther along the road to validation.

Recommendations for the development of rare disease drugs using the accelerated approval pathway and for qualifying biomarkers as primary endpoints.

For rare serious and life-threatening disorders, there is a tremendous challenge of transforming scientific discoveries into new drug treatments. This challenge has been recognized by all stakeholders who endorse the need for flexibility in the regulatory review process for novel therapeutics to treat rare diseases. In the United States, the best expression of this flexibility was the creation of the Accelerated Approval (AA) pathway. The AA pathway is critically important for the development of treatments for diseases with high unmet medical need and has been used extensively for drugs used to treat cancer and infectious diseases like HIV.In 2012, the AA provisions were amended to enhance the application of the AA pathway to expedite the development of drugs for rare disorders under the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA). FDASIA, among many provisions, requires the development of a more relevant FDA guidance on the types of evidence that may be acceptable in support of using a novel surrogate endpoint. The application of AA to rare diseases requires more predictability to drive greater access to appropriate use of AA for more rare disease treatments that might not be developed otherwise.This white paper proposes a scientific framework for assessing biomarker endpoints to enhance the development of novel therapeutics for rare and devastating diseases currently without adequate treatment and is based on the opinions of experts in drug development and rare disease patient groups. Specific recommendations include: 1) Establishing regulatory rationale for increased AA access in rare disease programs; 2) Implementing a Biomarker Qualification Request Process to provide the opportunity for an early determination of biomarker acceptance; and 3) A proposed scientific framework for qualifying biomarkers as primary endpoints. The paper's final section highlights case studies of successful examples that have incorporated biomarker endpoints into FDA approvals for rare disease therapies. The focus of this paper is on the situation in the Unites States, but the recommendations are reasonably applicable to any jurisdiction.

The current status of biomarkers for predicting toxicity.

INTRODUCTION: There are significant rates of attrition in drug development. A number of compounds fail to progress past preclinical development due to limited tools that accurately monitor toxicity in preclinical studies and in the clinic. Research has focused on improving tools for the detection of organ-specific toxicity through the identification and characterization of biomarkers of toxicity. AREAS COVERED: This article reviews what we know about emerging biomarkers in toxicology, with a focus on the 2012 Northeast Society of Toxicology meeting titled 'Translational Biomarkers in Toxicology.' The areas covered in this meeting are summarized and include biomarkers of testicular injury and dysfunction, emerging biomarkers of kidney injury and translation of emerging biomarkers from preclinical species to human populations. The authors also provide a discussion about the biomarker qualification process and possible improvements to this process. EXPERT OPINION: There is currently a gap between the scientific work in the development and qualification of novel biomarkers for nonclinical drug safety assessment and how these biomarkers are actually used in drug safety assessment. A clear and efficient path to regulatory acceptance is needed so that breakthroughs in the biomarker toolkit for nonclinical drug safety assessment can be utilized to aid in the drug development process.

Technical reproducibility of genotyping SNP arrays used in genome-wide association studies.

During the last several years, high-density genotyping SNP arrays have facilitated genome-wide association studies (GWAS) that successfully identified common genetic variants associated with a variety of phenotypes. However, each of the identified genetic variants only explains a very small fraction of the underlying genetic contribution to the studied phenotypic trait. Moreover, discordance observed in results between independent GWAS indicates the potential for Type I and II errors. High reliability of genotyping technology is needed to have confidence in using SNP data and interpreting GWAS results. Therefore, reproducibility of two widely genotyping technology platforms from Affymetrix and Illumina was assessed by analyzing four technical replicates from each of the six individuals in five laboratories. Genotype concordance of 99.40% to 99.87% within a laboratory for the sample platform, 98.59% to 99.86% across laboratories for the same platform, and 98.80% across genotyping platforms was observed. Moreover, arrays with low quality data were detected when comparing genotyping data from technical replicates, but they could not be detected according to venders' quality control (QC) suggestions. Our results demonstrated the technical reliability of currently available genotyping platforms but also indicated the importance of incorporating some technical replicates for genotyping QC in order to improve the reliability of GWAS results. The impact of discordant genotypes on association analysis results was simulated and could explain, at least in part, the irreproducibility of some GWAS findings when the effect size (i.e. the odds ratio) and the minor allele frequencies are low.

Challenges of biomarkers in drug discovery and development.

Biomarker data are essential in the discovery and development of new drugs. However, pathways needed to make sure that biomarker data are accepted by regulatory agencies may be considered an unnecessary burden on the critical path for drug development. There is the need to consider early in discovery and development that these pathways for biomarker acceptance or qualification not only are necessary, but may also enhance the success of novel therapies through regulatory review and clinical use. There also needs to be a focus on the challenge in the application of biomarkers as these approach regulatory evaluation. Regulatory guidance is needed on how a patient population may be defined by the molecular phenotype classification associated with specific mutations in patient genomes. Enzyme replacement therapies have been implicitly approved in the past assuming a molecular phenotype of a defective enzyme, but these and other precedents have not yet been translated into regulatory guidance. A second regulatory pathway for biomarkers is a biomarker qualification process. Biomarker data may be submitted, in the context of a specific NDA, but the biomarker qualification process has added a path through which efficacy and safety biomarkers useful in product development across multiple companies may be qualified through pre-competitive collaboration between these companies.

Quantifying factors for the success of stratified medicine.

Co-developing a drug with a diagnostic to create a stratified medicine - a therapy that is targeted to a specific patient population on the basis of a clinical characteristic such as a biomarker that predicts treatment response - presents challenges for product developers, regulators, payers and physicians. With the aim of developing a shared framework and tools for addressing these challenges, here we present an analysis using data from case studies in oncology and Alzheimer's disease, coupled with integrated computational modelling of clinical outcomes and developer economic value, to quantify the effects of decisions related to key issues such as the design of clinical trials. This illustrates how such analyses can aid the coordination of diagnostic and drug development, and the selection of optimal development and commercialization strategies. It also illustrates the impact of the interplay of these factors on the economic feasibility of stratified medicine, which has important implications for public policy makers.

Translational biomarkers: from preclinical to clinical a report of 2009 AAPS/ACCP Biomarker Workshop.

There have been some successes in qualifying biomarkers and applying them to drug development and clinical treatment of various diseases. A recent success is illustrated by a collaborative effort among the US Food and Drug Administration, the European Medicines Agency, and the pharmaceutical industry to provide a set of seven preclinical kidney toxicity biomarkers for drug development. Other successes include, but are not limited to, clinical biomarkers for cancer treatment and clinical management of heart transplant patients. The value of fully qualified surrogate endpoints in facilitating successful drug development is undisputed, especially for diseases in which the traditional clinical outcome can only be assessed in large, multi-year trials. Emerging biomarkers, including chemical genomic or imaging biomarkers, and measurement of circulating tumor cells hold great promise for early diagnosis of disease and as prognostic tests for managing treatment of chronic diseases such as osteoarthritis, Alzheimer disease, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. To advance the success of treating and managing these diseases, efforts are needed to establish the temporal relationship between changes in inflammatory or imaging biomarkers with the progression of the chronic disease, and in the case of cancer, between the extent of circulating cancer cells and tumor progression or remission.

Qualifying biomarkers for use in drug development: a US Food and Drug Administration overview.

Despite huge investments, there are still difficulties in the development of novel therapies. This has led to a growing interest in the use of new tools, such as biomarkers, that can help overcome development hurdles while providing increased certainty about drug safety and efficacy. Until recently, no formal process has existed for qualifying biomarkers for regulatory decision making. The FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) has initiated such a process, which has led to the recent qualification of two biomarker sets for use in regulatory decisions. This article provides the reader with an overview of the CDER Biomarker Qualification Process and is shaped by the recent regulatory developments in biomarker qualification and the consideration of frequently asked questions in the area. The Biomarker Qualification Process is intended to be a mission-critical, value-added CDER program. The success of this effort will depend on the willingness of pharmaceutical and diagnostic companies, consortia, the FDA and other regulatory agencies to continue to work together, motivated by the benefits that can accrue to public health through the increasing availability of qualified biomarkers for use in drug development.

Translational medicine and the value of biomarker qualification.

The gap between development of exploratory biomarkers and their acceptance in drug development and regulatory review is a hurdle in the development of better therapies. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has developed a regulatory process for biomarker qualification to accelerate the process by which new biomarkers are integrated in the development of therapies.

The MicroArray Quality Control (MAQC)-II study of common practices for the development and validation of microarray-based predictive models.

Gene expression data from microarrays are being applied to predict preclinical and clinical endpoints, but the reliability of these predictions has not been established. In the MAQC-II project, 36 independent teams analyzed six microarray data sets to generate predictive models for classifying a sample with respect to one of 13 endpoints indicative of lung or liver toxicity in rodents, or of breast cancer, multiple myeloma or neuroblastoma in humans. In total, >30,000 models were built using many combinations of analytical methods. The teams generated predictive models without knowing the biological meaning of some of the endpoints and, to mimic clinical reality, tested the models on data that had not been used for training. We found that model performance depended largely on the endpoint and team proficiency and that different approaches generated models of similar performance. The conclusions and recommendations from MAQC-II should be useful for regulatory agencies, study committees and independent investigators that evaluate methods for global gene expression analysis.

Voluntary exploratory data submissions to the US FDA and the EMA: experience and impact.

Heterogeneity in the underlying mechanisms of disease processes and inter-patient variability in drug responses are major challenges in drug development. To address these challenges, biomarker strategies based on a range of platforms, such as microarray gene-expression technologies, are increasingly being applied to elucidate these sources of variability and thereby potentially increase drug development success rates. With the aim of enhancing understanding of the regulatory significance of such biomarker data by regulators and sponsors, the US Food and Drug Administration initiated a programme in 2004 to allow sponsors to submit exploratory genomic data voluntarily, without immediate regulatory impact. In this article, a selection of case studies from the first 5 years of this programme - which is now known as the voluntary exploratory data submission programme, and also involves collaboration with the European Medicines Agency - are discussed, and general lessons are highlighted.

Towards consensus practices to qualify safety biomarkers for use in early drug development.

Application of any new biomarker to support safety-related decisions during regulated phases of drug development requires provision of a substantial data set that critically assesses analytical and biological performance of that biomarker. Such an approach enables stakeholders from industry and regulatory bodies to objectively evaluate whether superior standards of performance have been met and whether specific claims of fit-for-purpose use are supported. It is therefore important during the biomarker evaluation process that stakeholders seek agreement on which critical experiments are needed to test that a biomarker meets specific performance claims, how new biomarker and traditional comparators will be measured and how the resulting data will be merged, analyzed and interpreted.

Renal biomarker qualification submission: a dialog between the FDA-EMEA and Predictive Safety Testing Consortium.

The first formal qualification of safety biomarkers for regulatory decision making marks a milestone in the application of biomarkers to drug development. Following submission of drug toxicity studies and analyses of biomarker performance to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMEA) by the Predictive Safety Testing Consortium's (PSTC) Nephrotoxicity Working Group, seven renal safety biomarkers have been qualified for limited use in nonclinical and clinical drug development to help guide safety assessments. This was a pilot process, and the experience gained will both facilitate better understanding of how the qualification process will probably evolve and clarify the minimal requirements necessary to evaluate the performance of biomarkers of organ injury within specific contexts.

Molecular biomarkers: a US FDA effort.

Molecular biomarkers are used for various purposes, including disease diagnosis and prognosis, prediction and assessment of treatment response, and safety assessment. There has been a significant increase in the number of US FDA-approved drug labels containing information on molecular biomarkers over the last decade. Almost every pharmaceutical company has been developing molecular biomarker programs, either alone, through partnerships or other ventures. More molecular biomarkers are expected to be identified and validated in drug development, and used to support approval of drug products. This article summarizes the current status of molecular biomarkers used for FDA-approved drug products, and discusses the challenges and future perspectives for the identification and qualification of molecular biomarkers. Specific FDA programs and research projects related to molecular biomarkers are also discussed for supporting regulatory review in the future.

Development of an undergraduate pharmacogenomics curriculum.

Pharmacogenomic biomarkers are becoming increasingly common in medicine and drug development. However, there is a genuine concern that the healthcare workforce will be ill-equipped to translate this information to clinical practice. As a result, a major effort is underway to educate future healthcare professionals on pharmacogenomics. This paper describes the development of a year-long course that aims to instill the fundamental concepts of this rapidly growing field into the minds of undergraduate students. This course offers the advantage of exposing students to the concepts of pharmacogenomics prior to their enrollment in PhD, PharmD or MD/DO graduate programs.

Drug-diagnostic codevelopment strategies: FDA and industry dialog at the 4th FDA/DIA/PhRMA/PWG/BIO Pharmacogenomics Workshop.

The 4th US FDA/Industry Workshop on Pharmacogenomics in Drug Development and Regulatory Decision Making, was held in MD, USA, on December 10-12, 2007. One of the breakout sessions of the workshop focused on the regulatory issues around codevelopment of drugs and companion diagnostics. This session used hypothetical case studies as focal points for discussion of current thought and critical issues for both industry and the FDA in this evolving field. The panel and the audience discussed the evolution of the FDA's thinking on the regulatory path for companion diagnostics since the release of the April 2005 draft Drug Test Codevelopment Concept Paper and the issues faced by industry in attempting codevelopment efforts. This session provided an opportunity to allow an exchange of ideas between the FDA and industry and to identify critical issues that need further discussion in this important and evolving field.