|
|
“. . . the identification, verification, and
validation of biomarkers are critical components of every pharmacogenomics, as
well as
toxicogenomics, study of cases in regulatory decision making.”
|
|
Early identification of toxicologic side effects of a drug candidate is critical
to an efficient drug discovery and development process. Toxicogenomics, the
marriage of data-rich genomics approaches with traditional toxicologic end
point evaluation combined with increasingly powerful in silico modeling
approaches, promises to accelerate this process. The advent of parallel experimental
platforms, for example, DNA microarrays, has enabled us to gain insight into
complex biologic responses to drugs. The challenge is to analyze and correctly
interpret these large data sets. Currently, no common standards exist for such
data even though attempts are being made to streamline and standardize the
presentation of the information. These efforts include ArrayExpress infrastructure
for microarray data (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/arrayexpress), Minimum Information
About a Microarray Experiment (http://www.mged.org/Workgroups/MIAME/miame.html),
and MicroArray Gene Expression (MAGE) markup language (http://www.mged.org;
http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/gene_expression.htm).
The creation of vast amounts of genomics and toxicogenomics data has sparked
the development of novel systems to handle this type of information. Ultimately,
the success of a toxicogenomics approach in drug development depends on our
ability to interpret the data in relation to existing information (e.g., screening
of a drug-induced gene expression fingerprint against a database containing
drug-related gene expression toxicity profiles). It is critical that interdisciplinary
information (chemistry, biochemistry, genetic, genomics, clinical) be integrated
into the same data warehouse. Incorporating toxicogenomics data into this approach,
which is often referred to as systems biology, will help us understand in much
more depth how cells maintain homeostasis and how organisms respond to drug
exposure at the molecular level.
The mission of the U.S. Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA) states that the
agency ". . . is responsible for advancing the public health by helping to
speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and
more affordable. . . ." (FDA 2004). Former agency commissioner Mark McClellan
stated that "the FDA priority is facilitating the use of pharmacogenetics-driven
treatments" (Salerno and Lesko 2004). The FDA has recently issued a draft, "Guidance
for Industry: Pharmacogenomic Data Submissions" (FDA 2003), and has held workshops
to discuss issues related to pharmacogenomics data submissions (Salerno and
Lesko 2004a, 2004b; Leighton et al. 2004; Ruaño et al. 2004; Trepicchio
et al. 2004). This guidance is being revised on the basis of public comments,
and a final guidance should be issued later this year. Many principles found
in this guidance apply to toxicogenomics studies. In particular, the identification,
evaluation, and validation of biomarkers are critical components of every pharmacogenomics,
as well as toxicogenomics, study of cases in regulatory decision making. The
guidance is general and includes examples of genetic and genomic biomarkers:
a CYP2D6 (cytochrome P450 2D6) mutation versus an increase in HER2 (human
epidermal growth factor receptor 2) expression can be viewed as genetic and
genomic biomarkers, respectively. However, it is anticipated that future data
submissions will contain many more complex gene expression profiles and large-scale
single nucleotide polymorphism maps (e.g., from whole genome scans), which
will present new challenges to define the analytical and clinical validity
of such new and highly complex biomarker sets. The guidance represents the
FDA's current view on pharmacogenomics and what the agency believes are the
scientific grounds for evaluating such information as it relates to voluntary
versus required submission of data.
What are the next steps? Regulators have been criticized for the lack of
guidance in the new era of genomics-based drug development. In addition to
the guidance on pharmacogenomics data submissions (FDA 2003), the FDA is embarking
on a new guidance initiative for the co-development of pharmacogenomics-based
drugs and biologic products and the diagnostic tests necessary for therapeutic
decision making. Recently, the FDA and the Drug Information Association (DIA)
sponsored a pharmacogenomics workshop (FDA/DIA 2004). The purpose of the workshop
was to identify issues in the development of pharmacogenomics-based combination
products. We hope to see the base of pharmacogenomics knowledge grow and expand,
and we look forward to the use of this information in the drug discovery and
regulatory evaluation processes. We expect that not only the novel scientific
but also the newly created regulatory tools such as voluntary submissions of
genomics data will provide the means by which genomics-based research can excel
in advancing public health and drug development.
Felix W. Frueh
Shiew-Mei Huang
Lawrence J. Lesko
Office of Clinical Pharmacology and Biopharmaceutics
Center
for Drug Evaluation and Research
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Rockville, Maryland
E-mail: huangs@cder.fda.gov
Felix W. Frueh is Associate Director for Genomics, OCPB, CDER, FDA. He
directs the Interdisciplinary Pharmacogenomics Review Group (IPRG) responsible
for the review of genomic data submissions to the FDA. He is a member of
the FDA Pharmacogenomics Working Group and chairs the Pharmacogenomics Focus
Group of the American Association for Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS).
Shiew-Mei Huang is Deputy Office Director for Science, OCPB, CDER,
FDA. She currently chairs an FDA drug interaction working group and an OCPB
good review practices working group and is a member of the FDA Pharmacogenomics,
FDA Ethnicity/Race, and CDER QT Working Groups, and the CDER Research Coordinating
Committee.
Lawrence J. Lesko is director, OCPB, CDER, FDA. He chairs the FDA
Pharmacogenomics Working Group and is a key member of the FDA Critical Path
Initiatives. Note: Photograph for L.J. Lesko was unavailable.
References
FDA. 2003. Draft. Guidance for Industry. Pharmacogenomic Data Submissions.
Draft Guidance. Washington, DC:Food and Drug Administration. Available: www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/5900dft.pdf
[accessed 26 July 2004].
FDA. 2004. FDA Mission Statement. 2004. Washington, DC:U.S. Food and Drug
Administration. Available: http://www.fda.gov/opacom/morechoices/mission.html [accessed 26 July 2004].
FDA/DIA. 2004. Co-Development of Drug, Biological and Device Products,
29 July 2004, Arlington, VA. Washington, DC:U.S. Food and Drug Administration/Horsham,
PA:Drug Information Association. Available: http://www.diahome.org/Content/Events/04040.pdf [accessed 26 July 2004].
Leighton JK, DeGeorge J, Jacobson-Kram D, MacGregor J, Mendrick D, Worobec
A. 2004. Pharmacogenomic data submissions to the FDA: non-clinical case studies
Pharmacogenomics 5(5):507-511.
Ruaño G, Collins JM, Dorner AJ, Wang S-J, Guerciolini R, Huang
S-M. 2004.
Pharmacogenomic data submissions to the FDA: clinical pharmacology case studies.
Pharmacogenomics 5(5):513-517.
Salerno RA, Lesko LJ. 2004a. Pharmacogenomic data: FDA voluntary and required
submission guidance. Pharmacogenomics 5(5):503-505.
Salerno RA, Lesko LJ. 2004b. Pharmacogenomics in drug development and
regulatory decision-making: the Genomic Data Submission (GDS) proposal. Pharmacogenomics
5(1):25-30.
Trepicchio WL, Williams GA, Essayan D, Hall ST, Harty LC, Shaw PM, et
al. 2004. Pharmacogenomic data submissions to the FDA: clinical case studies.
Pharmacogenomics 5(5):519-524.
[Table of Contents]
Last Updated: August 6, 2004
|