In the
August 24th early online issue of Drug Discovery Today (reference),
Michael Nohaile from Novartis Pharma AG discusses the key factors required to
translate a promising biomarkers into an effective companion diagnostic (CDx). Based on a pragmatic staging scheme of drug –
CDx co-development (figure 1), the author dissects the complex cross-functional
interactions between of analytical and clinical validation, regulatory affairs,
and intellectual property management.
Fig.1
On the
analytical validation front, the author stresses the importance of timely assay
platform selection, the need for proper consideration of pre-analytical
parameters (see my earlier post: Biomarker
Research: The Pre-analytical Puzzle), and the critical issue of the synchronization
of the assay validation process to meet clinical development milestones. Failure to complete assay validation before
the initiation of pivotal clinical will require the conduct of complex and
expensive bridging studies to satisfy the regulatory requirement for CDx.
On the
clinical validation front, the author discusses the issue of adequate sample ascertainment
rate from clinical studies in the context of prospective-retrospective (predefined
analysis of samples from a completed study) CDx clinical validation strategies,
and the issue of the statistical power for purely prospective CDx clinical
validation studies. In particular,
serious consideration should be given to the decision of including or excluding
marker negative patients in such studies.
On the one hand, inclusion of marker-negative patients is required to
determine the positive and negative predictive value of the candidate CDx. On the other hand, beyond being less
expensive and potentially faster, studies that exclude marker-negative patients
may also present an ethical advantage in cases where the potential treatment benefit
is expected to be negligible in marker-negative individuals.
From a
regulatory affairs perspective, the fact that CDx are regulated by the Center
for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) implies that specific regulatory
expertise is required for the successful prosecution of CDx (see also my
earlier post about recent FDA guidance:
Companion In Vitro Diagnostics (IVD) Development: some clarity at last). In particular, the fact that the risk /
benefit analysis for CDx is entirely tied to the risk / benefit profile of the
associated drug implies a close collaboration between the drug reviewing
authorities (CDER/ CBER) and the device reviewing authorities (CDRH).
Finally,
from an intellectual property, the author discusses the issue of the timing of patent
filing and the more global issue of patentability of biomarkers.
Thierry
Sornasse for Integrated Biomarker Strategy
No comments:
Post a Comment