Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts2Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle.
JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Dec;174(12):1938-44. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.5266.
Genetic biomarkers that predict a drug's efficacy or likelihood of toxicity are assuming increasingly important roles in the personalization of pharmacotherapy, but concern exists that evidence that links use of some biomarkers to clinical benefit is insufficient. Nevertheless, information about the use of biomarkers appears in the labels of many prescription drugs, which may add confusion to the clinical decision-making process.
To evaluate the evidence that supports pharmacogenomic biomarker testing in drug labels and how frequently testing is recommended.
Publicly available US Food and Drug Administration databases.
We identified drug labels that described the use of a biomarker and evaluated whether the label contained or referenced convincing evidence of its clinical validity (ie, the ability to predict phenotype) and clinical utility (ie, the ability to improve clinical outcomes) using guidelines published by the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Working Group. We graded the completeness of the citation of supporting studies and determined whether the label recommended incorporation of biomarker test results in therapeutic decision making.
Of the 119 drug-biomarker combinations, only 43 (36.1%) had labels that provided convincing clinical validity evidence, whereas 18 (15.1%) provided convincing evidence of clinical utility. Sixty-one labels (51.3%) made recommendations about how clinical decisions should be based on the results of a biomarker test; 36 (30.3%) of these contained convincing clinical utility data. A full description of supporting studies was included in 13 labels (10.9%).
Fewer than one-sixth of drug labels contained or referenced convincing evidence of clinical utility of biomarker testing, whereas more than half made recommendations based on biomarker test results. It may be premature to include biomarker testing recommendations in drug labels when convincing data that link testing to patient outcomes do not exist.
预测药物疗效或毒性可能性的遗传生物标志物在药物治疗个体化中发挥着越来越重要的作用,但人们担心将某些生物标志物与临床获益联系起来的证据不足。尽管如此,有关生物标志物使用的信息出现在许多处方药的标签上,这可能会使临床决策过程更加混乱。
评估支持药物标签中药物基因组生物标志物检测的证据,以及推荐检测的频率。
美国食品和药物管理局公开数据库。
我们确定了描述生物标志物使用的药物标签,并使用实践和预防基因组应用评估工作组发布的指南评估标签是否包含或参考了其临床有效性(即预测表型的能力)和临床实用性(即改善临床结果的能力)的令人信服的证据。我们对支持研究引用的完整性进行分级,并确定标签是否推荐将生物标志物检测结果纳入治疗决策。
在 119 种药物-生物标志物组合中,只有 43 种(36.1%)的标签提供了令人信服的临床有效性证据,而 18 种(15.1%)提供了令人信服的临床实用性证据。61 个标签(51.3%)就如何根据生物标志物检测结果做出临床决策提出了建议;其中 36 个(30.3%)包含令人信服的临床实用性数据。有 13 个标签(10.9%)完整描述了支持性研究。
不到六分之一的药物标签包含或参考了生物标志物检测临床实用性的令人信服的证据,而超过一半的标签根据生物标志物检测结果提出了建议。当不存在将检测与患者结果联系起来的令人信服的数据时,在药物标签中包含生物标志物检测建议可能还为时过早。