domingo, 21 de diciembre de 2014

Guidance for pharmacogenomic biomarker testing in labels of FDA-approved drugs : Genetics in Medicine : Nature Publishing Group

Guidance for pharmacogenomic biomarker testing in labels of FDA-approved drugs : Genetics in Medicine : Nature Publishing Group

Guidance for pharmacogenomic biomarker testing in labels of FDA-approved drugs

Genetics in Medicine
Published online 



The aim of this study was to compare guidance for genetic testing in US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drug labels in oncology to those of drugs for other therapeutic areas.


We reviewed labels of all the FDA-approved drugs with labels containing pharmacogenomic information. We assessed whether genetic testing was required or recommended before prescription and, if not, the reason for pharmacogenomic labeling.


We included 140 drugs corresponding to 158 drug–biomarker pairs. Overall, 46 (29%) of 158 pairs stated a requirement or recommendation for genetic biomarker testing in the label. This proportion was higher in oncology than in other areas (62 vs. 12%; P < 0.001). For the 112 drug–biomarker pairs (including 20 in oncology) without recommendation or requirement for genetic testing, the main reasons for pharmacogenomic labeling were change in pharmacologic end points (32%) and higher risk of toxicity (30%). For 11 (10%) pairs (including 1 in oncology), a genetic biomarker was mentioned only to inform that it was not relevant. In oncology, the main reasons for pharmacogenomic labeling were higher risk of toxicity (55%) and definition of the mechanism of action (25%).


Inclusion of biomarkers in drug labels does not always correspond to required or recommended genetic testing, especially outside oncology.
Genet Med advance online publication 18 December 2014


biomarkers; Food and Drug Administration; genetic testing; personalized medicine; pharmacogenetics


  1. Wang LMcLeod HLWeinshilboum RMGenomics and drug responseN Engl J Med2011;364:11441153.
  2. Scott SAPersonalizing medicine with clinical pharmacogeneticsGenet Med2011;13:987995.
  3. Mallal SPhillips ECarosi G, et al.; PREDICT-1 Study TeamHLA-B*5701 screening for hypersensitivity to abacavirN Engl J Med 2008;358:568579.
  4. Palomaki GEBradley LADouglas MPKolor KDotson WDCan UGT1A1 genotyping reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan? An evidence-based reviewGenet Med 2009;11:2134.
  5. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group.Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: can tumor gene expression profiling improve outcomes in patients with breast cancer? Genet Med 2009;11:6673.
  6. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group.Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: testing for cytochrome P450 polymorphisms in adults with nonpsychotic depression treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitorsGenet Med 2007;9:819825.
  7. US Food and Drug AdministrationGenomics - Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling. Accessed 20 June 2014.
  8. Abrahams ESilver MThe case for personalized medicineJ Diabetes Sci Technol2009;3:680684.
  9. Tutton RPharmacogenomic biomarkers in drug labels: what do they tell us?Pharmacogenomics 2014;15:297304.
  10. Ioannidis JPKhoury MJAre randomized trials obsolete or more important than ever in the genomic era? Genome Med 2013;5:32.
  11. US Food and Drug AdministrationGuidance for industry: warnings and precautions, contraindications, and boxed warning sections of labeling for human prescription drug and biological products—content and format. Accessed 20 June 2014.
  12. Cooper DYLevin SNarasimhulu SRosenthal OPhotochemical action spectrum of the terminal oxidase of mixed function oxidase systemsScience 1965;147:400402.
  13. Carson PEFlanagan CLIckes CEAlving ASEnzymatic deficiency in primaquine-sensitive erythrocytesScience 1956;124:484485.
  14. PharmGKBDrug Label Legend Accessed 20 June 2014.
  15. World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Center for Drug Statistics Methodology.ATC classification index with DDDs, 20142014 Accessed 24 March, 2014.
  16. R Core TeamR: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2013 Accessed 21 March, 2014.
  17. Haga SMills RMoaddeb JPharmacogenetic information for patients on drug labels.Pharmgenomics Pers Med 2014;7:297305.
  18. Sadée WDai ZPharmacogenetics/genomics and personalized medicineHum Mol Genet2005;14 Spec No. 2:R207R214.
  19. Preskorn SHKane CPLobello K, et al. Cytochrome P450 2D6 phenoconversion is common in patients being treated for depression: implications for personalized medicineJ Clin Psychiatry 2013;74:614621.
  20. Stergiopoulos KBrown DLGenotype-guided vs clinical dosing of warfarin and its analogues: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trialsJAMA Intern Med2014;174:13301338.
  21. Osnabrugge RLHead SJZijlstra F, et al. A systematic review and critical assessment of 11 discordant meta-analyses on reduced-function CYP2C19 genotype and risk of adverse clinical outcomes in clopidogrel usersGenet Med 2014; e-pub ahead of print 19 June 2014.
  22. Malottki KBiswas MDeeks JJ, et al. Stratified medicine in European Medicines Agency licensing: a systematic review of predictive biomarkersBMJ Open 2014;4:e004188.
  23. Shimazawa RIkeda MDifferences in pharmacogenomic biomarker information in package inserts from the United States, the United Kingdom and JapanJ Clin Pharm Ther2013;38:468475.
  24. Shimazawa RIkeda MApproval gap of pharmacogenomic biomarkers and in vitrocompanion diagnostics between the United States and JapanJ Clin Pharm Ther2014;39:210214.
  25. Trotta FLeufkens HGSchellens JHLaing RTafuri GEvaluation of oncology drugs at the European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration: when differences have an impact on clinical practiceJ Clin Oncol 2011;29:22662272.
  26. Lesko LJZineh IHuang SMWhat is clinical utility and why should we care? Clin Pharmacol Ther 2010;88:729733.
  27. Wang BCanestaro WJChoudhry NKClinical evidence supporting pharmacogenomic biomarker testing provided in US Food and Drug Administration drug labelsJAMA Intern Med 2014; e-pub ahead of print 13 October 2014.
  28. Tajik PZwinderman AHMol BWBossuyt PMTrial designs for personalizing cancer care: a systematic review and classificationClin Cancer Res 2013;19:45784588.
  29. Mandrekar SJSargent DJClinical trial designs for predictive biomarker validation: theoretical considerations and practical challengesJ Clin Oncol 2009;27:40274034.
  30. Janes HPepe MSBossuyt PMBarlow WEMeasuring the performance of markers for guiding treatment decisionsAnn Intern Med 2011;154:253259.
  31. Simon RMPaik SHayes DFUse of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkersJ Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:14461452.
  32. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group.The EGAPP initiative: lessons learnedGenet Med 2014;16:217224.
  33. Le Tourneau CPaoletti XServant N, et al. Randomised proof-of-concept phase II trial comparing targeted therapy based on tumour molecular profiling vs conventional therapy in patients with refractory cancer: results of the feasibility part of the SHIVA trialBr J Cancer2014;111:1724.
  34. Le Tourneau CKamal MTrédan O, et al. Designs and challenges for personalized medicine studies in oncology: focus on the SHIVA trialTarget Oncol 2012;7:253265.
  35. Kummar SWilliams MLih C-J, et al. NCI MPACT: National Cancer Institute molecular profiling-based assignment of cancer therapy [abstract]J Clin Oncol 2014;32:5s.

Author information


  1. Centre d’Épidémiologie Clinique, Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France

    • Alexandre Vivot,
    • Isabelle Boutron,
    • Philippe Ravaud &
    • Raphaël Porcher
  2. METHODS Team, Unit 1153, INSERM, Paris, France

    • Alexandre Vivot,
    • Isabelle Boutron,
    • Philippe Ravaud &
    • Raphaël Porcher
  3. Faculté de Médecine, University of Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France

    • Isabelle Boutron,
    • Philippe Ravaud &
    • Raphaël Porcher
  4. Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA

    • Philippe Ravaud

Corresponding author

Correspondence to: 

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario