4th US FDA-Drug Information Association pharmacogenomics workshop, held 10-12 December, 2007.

Medco Health Solutions Inc., 14401 Falling Leaf Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20878, USA.
Pharmacogenomics (Impact Factor: 3.43). 02/2009; 10(1):111-5. DOI: 10.2217/14622416.10.1.111
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The 4th US FDA/Industry workshop, in a series on Pharmacogenomics, was on 'Biomarkers and Pharmacogenomics in Drug Development and Regulatory Decision Making' and was held on December 10-12, 2007 in Bethesda, MD, USA, with clear objectives to continue the dialogue that began in 2002 for enabling the use of biomarkers and pharmacogenomics in drug development and regulatory decision-making. This brief commentary will highlight the major topics and outcomes discussed at this meeting that was jointly sponsored by the FDA, The Pharmacogenomics Working Group (PWG), The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) and The Drug Information Association (DIA).

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Sipoglitazar is a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α, δ, and γ agonist. During phase I, a wide distribution of clearance between individuals was observed. Hypothesized to result from a polymorphism in the uridine 5'-diphospate-glucuronosyltransferase (UGT)2B15 enzyme, pharmacogenetic samples were collected from each individual for genotyping UGT2B15 in a subsequent phase I trial in healthy subjects (n = 524) and in 2 phase II trials in type 2 diabetes subjects (n = 627), total genotype frequency was as follows: *1/*1 (22%), *1/*2 (51%), and *2/*2 (27%). The impact of genotype on exposure was assessed using a pharmacokinetic modeling approach; the influence of genotype on efficacy was evaluated using 12-week HbA1c change from baseline. Model analysis demonstrated UGT2B15 genotype accounted significantly for the variability in sipoglitazar clearance; however, a small fraction of subjects had a clearance that could not be explained entirely by genotype. HbA1c drop increased with daily drug dose. When stratified by both dose and genotype, HbA1c drop was larger in the UGT2B15*2/*2 compared with UGT2B15*1/*1 and UGT2B15*1/*2 genotypes (P < .05). In summary, UGT2B15 genotype is a strong predictor for sipoglitazar clearance; a greater clinical response observed in the UGT2B15*2/*2 genotype appears to confirm this. However, overlap in individual rates of clearance across genotypes remains after accounting for genotype.
    The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 03/2013; 53(3):256-63. · 2.47 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The past decade of pharmacogenomics was driven by the sequencing of the human genome to create ever denser maps of genetic variations for studying the diversity across individuals. Today, genotyping technology is available at a fraction of the cost of what it was 10 years ago and many pharmacogenomic variations have been studied in detail. Still, we are only starting to gain an understanding of how pharmacogenomic-guided drug therapy affects clinical outcomes: real-world studies that demonstrate the clinical effectiveness and address the economic implications of pharmacogenomics are needed to help decide when and how to implement pharmacogenomics in clinical practice, how to regulate pharmacogenomic testing and how the healthcare system will integrate this new science into an environment of rapidly increasing cost.
    Pharmacogenomics 05/2010; 11(5):657-60. · 3.43 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Heterogeneity of treatment effects in unselected patient populations has stimulated various strategic approaches to reduce variability and uncertainty and improve individualization of drug selection and dosing. The rapid growth of DNA sequencing and related technologies has ramped up progress in interpreting germline and somatic mutations and has begun to re-shape medicine especially in oncology. Over the past decade regulatory agencies realized that they have to be proactive and not reactive if personalized medicine was to become a reality. FDA, in particular, took steps to nurture the field through peer-reviewed publications, co-sponsoring public workshops and issuing guidance for industry. Two major approaches to personalized medicine were taken: 1(st) , encouragement of de novo co-development of drug/genetic test combinations by industry and 2(nd) , retrospective assessment of legacy genetic data for the purpose of updating drug labels. The former has been more successful in getting new targeted therapies to the marketplace with successful adoption, while the latter, as evidenced by low adoption rate of pharmacogenetic testing, has been less successful. This reflection piece makes clear that several important things need to happen to make personalized medicine more diffuse in more geographic areas and among more therapeutic specialties. The debate over clinical utility of genetic tests needs to be resolved with consensus on evidentiary standards. Physicians, as gatekeepers of prescribing medicines, need to increase their knowledge of genetics and the application of the information to patient care. An infrastructure needs to be further built to make access to genetic tests and decision-support tools available to primary practitioners and specialists outside major medical centers and metropolitan areas.
    British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 11/2013; · 3.69 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Aug 22, 2014