Cargando…

Translatability score revisited: differentiation for distinct disease areas

BACKGROUND: Translational science supports successful transition of early biomedical research into human applications. In 2009 a translatability score to assess risk and identify strengths and weaknesses of a given project has been designed and successfully tested in case studies. The score elements...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wendler, Alexandra, Wehling, Martin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5670516/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29100553
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12967-017-1329-y
_version_ 1783276044920291328
author Wendler, Alexandra
Wehling, Martin
author_facet Wendler, Alexandra
Wehling, Martin
author_sort Wendler, Alexandra
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Translational science supports successful transition of early biomedical research into human applications. In 2009 a translatability score to assess risk and identify strengths and weaknesses of a given project has been designed and successfully tested in case studies. The score elements, in particular the contributing weight factors, are heterogeneous for different disease areas; therefore, the score was individualized for six areas (cardiovascular, oncology, psychiatric, anti-viral, anti-bacterial/fungal and monogenetic diseases). RESULTS: FDA reviews and related literature were used for modifications of the score with emphasis on biomarkers, personalized medicine and animal models. 113 new medical entities approved by FDA from 2012 through 2016 were evaluated and metrics obtained for companion diagnostics and animal models as starting points for author-based individualization of the score. Most drugs approved in this period were related to oncology (46%), while the approvals were lowest for psychiatrics (4%). The evaluation of the FDA package inserts revealed that companion diagnostics play an important role in every field except psychiatrics. Further the analysis of the FDA reviews showed the weakness of animal models in psychiatrics and anti-virals, while useful animal models were present for all other fields. Consequently the scoring system was adapted to the different fields, resulting in increased weights for animal models, biomarker and personalized medicine in oncology. For psychiatrics the weights for animal models, biomarker and personalized medicine were decreased, while the weight for model compounds, clinical trials and surrogate or endpoint strategy were increased. For anti-viral drugs weights for in vitro data and personalized medicine were increased, while the weight for animal models was decreased. Further, for anti-bacterial/fungal drugs weights for animal models and personalized medicine were increased. Weights were increased for genetics and personalized medicine and decreased for model compounds for monogenetic orphans. CONCLUSIONS: Adaptation of the score to different disease areas should help to support a structured and diverse approach to translation and encourage researchers in the private or public sectors to further customize the score. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12967-017-1329-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5670516
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56705162017-11-15 Translatability score revisited: differentiation for distinct disease areas Wendler, Alexandra Wehling, Martin J Transl Med Review BACKGROUND: Translational science supports successful transition of early biomedical research into human applications. In 2009 a translatability score to assess risk and identify strengths and weaknesses of a given project has been designed and successfully tested in case studies. The score elements, in particular the contributing weight factors, are heterogeneous for different disease areas; therefore, the score was individualized for six areas (cardiovascular, oncology, psychiatric, anti-viral, anti-bacterial/fungal and monogenetic diseases). RESULTS: FDA reviews and related literature were used for modifications of the score with emphasis on biomarkers, personalized medicine and animal models. 113 new medical entities approved by FDA from 2012 through 2016 were evaluated and metrics obtained for companion diagnostics and animal models as starting points for author-based individualization of the score. Most drugs approved in this period were related to oncology (46%), while the approvals were lowest for psychiatrics (4%). The evaluation of the FDA package inserts revealed that companion diagnostics play an important role in every field except psychiatrics. Further the analysis of the FDA reviews showed the weakness of animal models in psychiatrics and anti-virals, while useful animal models were present for all other fields. Consequently the scoring system was adapted to the different fields, resulting in increased weights for animal models, biomarker and personalized medicine in oncology. For psychiatrics the weights for animal models, biomarker and personalized medicine were decreased, while the weight for model compounds, clinical trials and surrogate or endpoint strategy were increased. For anti-viral drugs weights for in vitro data and personalized medicine were increased, while the weight for animal models was decreased. Further, for anti-bacterial/fungal drugs weights for animal models and personalized medicine were increased. Weights were increased for genetics and personalized medicine and decreased for model compounds for monogenetic orphans. CONCLUSIONS: Adaptation of the score to different disease areas should help to support a structured and diverse approach to translation and encourage researchers in the private or public sectors to further customize the score. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12967-017-1329-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-11-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5670516/ /pubmed/29100553 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12967-017-1329-y Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Review
Wendler, Alexandra
Wehling, Martin
Translatability score revisited: differentiation for distinct disease areas
title Translatability score revisited: differentiation for distinct disease areas
title_full Translatability score revisited: differentiation for distinct disease areas
title_fullStr Translatability score revisited: differentiation for distinct disease areas
title_full_unstemmed Translatability score revisited: differentiation for distinct disease areas
title_short Translatability score revisited: differentiation for distinct disease areas
title_sort translatability score revisited: differentiation for distinct disease areas
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5670516/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29100553
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12967-017-1329-y
work_keys_str_mv AT wendleralexandra translatabilityscorerevisiteddifferentiationfordistinctdiseaseareas
AT wehlingmartin translatabilityscorerevisiteddifferentiationfordistinctdiseaseareas