Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Stratified medicine in European Medicines Agency licensing: a systematic review of predictive biomarkers
  1. Kinga Malottki1,
  2. Mousumi Biswas2,
  3. Jonathan J Deeks1,3,
  4. Richard D Riley1,3,
  5. Charles Craddock4,
  6. Philip Johnson5,
  7. Lucinda Billingham1,6
  1. 1MRC Midland Hub for Trials Methodology Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
  2. 2The Discovery Research Programme, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  3. 3Department of Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
  4. 4Centre for Clinical Haematology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK
  5. 5University of Liverpool & Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
  6. 6Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
  1. Correspondence to Ms Kinga Malottki; k.malottki{at}bham.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives Stratified medicine is often heralded as the future of clinical practice. Key part of stratified medicine is the use of predictive biomarkers, which identify patient subgroups most likely to benefit (or least likely to experience harm) from an intervention. We investigated how many and what predictive biomarkers are currently included in European Medicines Agency (EMA) licensing.

Setting EMA licensing.

Participants Indications and contraindications of all drugs considered by the EMA and published in 883 European Public Assessment Reports and Pending Decisions.

Primary and secondary outcome measures Data were collected on: the type of the biomarker, whether it selected a subgroup of patients based on efficacy or toxicity, therapeutic area, marketing status, date of licensing decision, date of inclusion of the biomarker in the indication or contraindication and on orphan designation.

Results 49 biomarker–indication–drug (B-I-D) combinations were identified over 16 years, which included 37 biomarkers and 41 different drugs. All identified biomarkers were molecular. Six drugs (relating to 10 B-I-D combinations) had an orphan designation at the time of licensing. The identified B-I-D combinations were mainly used in cancer and HIV treatment, and also in hepatitis C and three other indications (cystic fibrosis, hyperlipoproteinaemia type I and methemoglobinaemia). In 45 B-I-D combinations, biomarkers were used as predictive of drug efficacy and in four of drug toxicity. It appeared that there was an increase in the number of B-I-D combinations introduced each year; however, the numbers were too small to identify any trends.

Conclusions Given the large body of literature documenting research into potential predictive biomarkers and extensive investment into stratified medicine, we identified relatively few predictive biomarkers included in licensing. These were also limited to a small number of clinical areas. This might suggest a need for improvement in methods of translation from laboratory findings to clinical practice.

  • Therapeutics
  • Molecular aspects < ONCOLOGY

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.