Upload
volien
View
216
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Public
Copyright © 2016 Covance. All Rights Reserved
PRINCIPLES OF BIOMARKER DEVELOPMENT
Margery A. Connelly, PhD, MBA
1st International Workshop on NASH Biomarkers
April 29, 2016
Public
Types of Biomarkers
Pathological Process or
Disease State
EfficacySafety
Pharmacologic response
Mechanism-of-action
Normal Biological Process
DiagnosisRisk Prediction
Prognosis
Causal toversus
Reflective ofDisease
2 Principles of Biomarker Development - 1st International Workshop on NASH Biomarkers - April 2016
Public
Biomarker Development
Payers and
Healthcare Costs
Physician Use in Patient
Care
Biological Plausibility
Analytical Development
Performance Evaluation
Clinical Validation
Intended Use
Clinical Utility
Regulatory Agency
Biomarker Use in Clinical Trials
3 Principles of Biomarker Development - 1st International Workshop on NASH Biomarkers - April 2016
Public
Development of Biomarker Assays
► Biological or pathological association
► Analytical validation (CLSI guidance1) Within-run and within-lab precision
Biological or intra-individual variability
Limit of detection, quantitation
Linearity and reportable range
Reference interval in normal healthy population
Specimen stability (temperature, storage, freeze-thaw)
► Assay interference Endogenous; lipemia or hemolysis
Exogenous; common drug substances
CLSI, Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; STARD, Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. 1. www.clsi.org 2. Boursier et al, J Hepatology 2015; 62(4):807-15.
4 Principles of Biomarker Development - 1st International Workshop on NASH Biomarkers - April 2016
Public
Evaluating Biomarker Performance
► Study population including subjects with and without disease
► Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves Determination of sensitivity and specificity Area under the curve (AUC), 95% confidence intervals (CI)
– TP = true positives, subjects correctly identified diseased (+,+)– TN = true negatives, subjects correctly identified healthy (-,-)– FP = false positives, subjects incorrectly identified diseased (+,-)– FN = false negatives, subjects incorrectly identified healthy (-,+)– Predictive values (NPV and PPV)
Xia et al., Metabolomics 2013;9:280-299.
Area of High Sensitivity
= TP/(TP +FN)
Area of High Specificity
= TN/(TN +FP)
True
pos
itive
rate
(TP
R)
False positive rate(FPR)
5 Principles of Biomarker Development - 1st International Workshop on NASH Biomarkers - April 2016
AUROC curve of ELF test predicting stages 0,1 (none or mild) vs. 2-6 (significant fibrosis) in NAFLD cohort (Ishak classification)
Public
Evaluating Biomarker Performance
► Determination of cut-points/medical decision limits using ROC curves Point where sensitivity = specificity
Youden index J; maximal vertical distance to diagonal
Choose higher specificity or sensitivity depending on clinical use
– Cost/benefit ratio
– For NASH screening test, high sensitivity and specificity to avoid liver biopsies (FP)
– A test with high NPV to rule out disease; subjects who don’t need liver biopsy (TN)
► Evaluate medical decision limits using clinical data sets Compare outcomes in subjects above and below the cut point
► The smaller the cohort used for “training set” the larger the uncertainty (confidence limits)
► Need to validate findings in multiple independent populations
Pepe et al., Clin Chem 2016;62(5):in press.
Youden J
6 Principles of Biomarker Development - 1st International Workshop on NASH Biomarkers - April 2016
Public
Clinical Validation► Clinical validation (STARD checklist1)
Careful choice of study population(s)
– Based on clinical question, intended use
– Age, gender, ethnicity considerations
– Avoid spectrum bias cohort with more of one stage of liver disease missing a stage, e.g. healthy or hepatic steatosis
Standardized, quality-controlled data collection
Assay performance
Liver-FibroSTARD standards2
► FDA guidance for biomarker qualification and clinical trial use► Clinical utility and use in clinical practice
Is biomarker test actionable? Can a physician use it to guide patient care?
Prospective studies addressing intended use
Impact of testing on clinical practice (clinical guidelines, cost effectiveness)
STARD, Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. 1. Boursier J. et al, J Hepatology 2015; 62(4):807-15. 2. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DrugDevelopmentToolsQualificationProgram/ucm284076.htm
7 Principles of Biomarker Development - 1st International Workshop on NASH Biomarkers - April 2016
Public
Challenges for Development of NASH Biomarkers
► Outcome of interest is liver biopsy evaluation Procedure-related risk of bleeding and mortality Sampling error; if only a portion of the liver is affected by inflammation,
may be missed by liver biopsy Intra- and inter- observer variability in pathology interpretation Invasive, unpleasant for the patient Relatively high cost
► ~10% progress from hepatic steatosis to NASH
► Asymptomatic transition from simple steatosis to NASH
► Hard to distinguish individuals that will progress quickly vs. slowly
► Biomarkers for hepatic steatosis are good for detecting NASH
Sanyal et al, Hepatology, 2015; 61(4):1392–1405.
8 Principles of Biomarker Development - 1st International Workshop on NASH Biomarkers - April 2016
Public
Challenges for Development of NASH Biomarkers
► Spectrum bias may cause the AUROC to look better in one population but not others
► Single biomarkers are not likely to achieve high sensitivity and specificity
► Panels of biomarkers exhibit better performance Reasonable number of biomarkers in the panel Easy to measure or easily obtained data Raise specificity (liver-specific) or sensitivity (detection)
Sanyal et al, Hepatology, 2015; 61(4):1392–1405.
With the development of genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, lipidomics, glycomics, there are many potential biomarkers that may be useful for NASH;further validation needs to occur and tests need to be developed on clinical
instruments to test clinical utility
9 Principles of Biomarker Development - 1st International Workshop on NASH Biomarkers - April 2016
Public
FibronectinHyaluronic acid (HA)Type IV collagen S
Procollagen type III N-terminal Peptide (PIIINP)Tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 1 (TIMP-1)
Cytokines: TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8, IFNγ, TGFβAdipokines: Adiponectin, Leptin, Resistin
Acute phase reactants: hsCRP, GlycAChemoattractants: MCP-1
Ferritin, Soluble CD14
Biomarkers of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD)
Alanine aminotransferase (ALT)Aspartate aminotransferase (AST)
Alkaline phosphatase (ALP)Gamma-glutamyl-transpeptidase (GGT)Acute phase reactants: α1-antitrypsin,
ceruloplasmin, haptoglobin, GlycA, albumin Lipid panel, NMR lipoprotein parameters
Measures of insulin resistance
Malondialdehyde, TBARS, Oxidized LDLCytokeratin-18 (CK-18) fragments
Ferritin
1. Adapted from Fitzpatrick et al., J Gastroenterol 2014;20(31):10851-10863.2. Armutcu et al., Adv in Clin Chem 2013;61:67-125.
Oxidative Stress and Apoptosis
Fibrosis
Inflammation
Hepatocyte Function
Coagulation
Platelet countProthrombin time (PT)
International normalized ratio (INR)
10 Principles of Biomarker Development - 1st International Workshop on NASH Biomarkers - April 2016
Public
Single versus Panels of Biomarkers for NASHSingle Biomarkers► Liver function tests: ALT, AST, GGT, albumin
► Measures of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR, adiponectin)
Biomarker Panels► NAS or NASH activity score: steatosis (0–3), hepatocellular ballooning (0–2), lobular
inflammation (0–3) based on liver biopsy; NASH = NAS ≥5 (COMPARATOR)
► NASH diagnostic: cleaved and intact CK-18, adiponectin, resistin (AUROC 0.70-0.85)
► NASH diagnostic panel: gender, BMI, diabetes, triglycerides, cleaved and intact CK-18 (AUROC 0.81)
► ION: Index of NASH >55 (AUROC 0.88)
Limitations ► Need more rigorous clinical validation (e.g. multiple, larger,
more clearly defined study populations without spectrum bias)
1. Buzzetti et al., Int J Endocrinol 2015; 343828. 2. Otgonsuren et al., Hepatol 2014;29:2006-2013.3. Armutcu et al., Adv in Clin Chem 2013;61:67-125. 4. Yilmaz et al., Curr Drug Targets 2013;14:1357-1366.5. Pearce et al., Biomarker Res 2013:1:7-17. 6. Image adapted from Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, www.mayoclinic.org.
11 Principles of Biomarker Development - 1st International Workshop on NASH Biomarkers - April 2016
Public
NASH FibroSure Test► Includes 10 biomarkers in combination with age, gender, BMI
SteatoTest: Marker of hepatic steatosis grade S0-S3 (0.00-1.00) Steatosis score >0.5, sensitivity= 71%, specificity= 72% for identification of steatosis 1
NASHTest: Diagnostic assessment of the presence of NASH N0 = No NASH, N1 = Borderline NASH, N2 = NASH per the Kleiner classification2
Prediction of NASH, sensitivity = 88%, specificity = 50% (AUROC 0.69-0.83)3,4
FibroTest: Quantitative surrogate fibrosis marker (0.00-1.00) Corresponds to Metavir F0-F4 fibrosis staging Fibrosis score of >0.3, sensitivity = 83%, specificity = 78% for ≥F3 (AUROC 0.88)4,5
FibroSure ContentAlpha-2-macroglobulin Alanine transaminase (ALT)
Haptoglobin (HA) Aspartate aminotransferase (AST)
Apolipoprotein A1 Total cholesterol
γ-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT) Triglycerides
Total bilirubin Fasting glucose
Widely used by physicians ~100,000 FibroSure Tests were performed at LabCorp in 2014
1. Poynard et al., Comp Hepatol 2005;4:10. 2. Kleiner et al., Hepatol 2005;41(6):1313-1321. 3. Poynard et al., 41st Annual EASLD Meeting 2006;Abs86. 4. Buzzetti et al., Int J Endocrinol 2015;343828. 5. Ratziu et al., BMC Gastroenterol 2006;6:6.
12 Principles of Biomarker Development - 1st International Workshop on NASH Biomarkers - April 2016
Public
Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) Test
► 3 direct biomarkers of fibrosis combined into one score: Hyaluronic acid (HA) Procollagen III N terminal peptide (PIIINP) Tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 1 (TIMP1)
► Good at diagnosing severe fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B, C, HIV ► Not much validation in subjects with NAFLD► Significant overlap with normal ranges, which may confound interpretation of
results in mild to moderate fibrosis range► Used in NASH trials as surrogate marker for fibrosis with encouraging results
1. ELF Test is trademarked by Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc. Licensed for use outside of US. 2. Yoo et al., Liver Int 2013;33:706-713.
ELF Score Severity of Liver Fibrosis Fibrosis Stage AUROC
< 7.7 None to mild ≥F2 0.82
≥ 7.7 - < 9.8 Moderate ≥F3 0.90
≥ 9.8 Severe ≥F4 0.87
≥ 11.3 Cirrhosis
13 Principles of Biomarker Development - 1st International Workshop on NASH Biomarkers - April 2016
AUROC curve of ELF predicting stages 0,1 Vs 2-6 in NAFLD cohort (none or mild fibrosis from significant fibrosis Ishak classification)
Public
NMR LipoProfile® Analysis
14 Principles of Biomarker Development - 1st International Workshop on NASH Biomarkers - April 2016
► For ease of use and interpretation, 73 subclass signals are grouped into 9 common subclass categories
Public
1. Frazier-Wood et al., Metab Syndr Relat Disord 2012;10:244-251. 2. Shalaurova et al., Metab Syndr Relat Disord 2014;12(8):422-9. 3. Mackey et al., Diabetes Care 2015;38(4):628-636. 4. Dugani et al., JAMA Cardiol 2016;in press.
LP-IR, lipoprotein insulin resistance.
Confidential
► Characteristic lipoprotein changes occur in patients who become insulin resistant1,2
► The “LP-IR score” is a multivariable algorithm, 6 lipoprotein parameters related to insulin resistance2
► Validated in hyperinsulinemic-euglycemicclamp studies; associated with Si and HOMA-IR in multiple clinical cohorts2
► LP-IR is associated with type 2 diabetes risk3,4
► Simple, inexpensive way to assess insulin resistance in large clinical trials
VLDLparticlenumber(VLDL-P)
Large VLDL
Medium VLDL
Small VLDL
IDL
Medium LDL
Small LDL
Large HDL
Medium HDL
Small HDL
LIPOPROTEIN SUBCLASS PARTICLE NUMBERS
Positive Association Negative Association
LDLparticlenumber(LDL-P)
HDLparticlenumber(HDL-P)
VLDL Size
LDL Size
HDL Size
NMR Measured Insulin Resistance Score, LP-IR
15 Principles of Biomarker Development - 1st International Workshop on NASH Biomarkers - April 2016
Public
BIDMC NAFLD Registry (n=128)
16 Principles of Biomarker Development - 1st International Workshop on NASH Biomarkers - April 2016
Jiang et al., Liver Int 2016; doi: 10.1111/liv.13076.
Age 50.4 ± 12.2 % Female 39.7% BMI 35 ± 7 Hypertension 48.4% Hyperlipidemia 50.8% Diabetes 30.2% Statin use 32.5% ALT (IU/dL) 78 ± 56 AST (IU/dL) 51 ± 35 Conventional lipid panel Total cholesterol (mg/dL) 193 ± 46 Triglyceride (mg/dL) 199 ± 126 LDL-C (mg/dL) 111 ± 40 HDL-C (mg/dL) 45 ± 14 Comprehensive VLDL profiles VLDL particle concentrations (nmol/L) Total VLDL particles 80.2 ± 50.2 VLDL subclasses Large VLDL 10.1 ± 9.5 Medium VLDL 40.7 ± 24.9 Small VLDL 29.3 ± 26.1 Mean VLDL size (nm) 55.3 ± 7.6
( ) PNPLA3 I148M genotype (n, %) CC 46 (36.5%) GC 54 (42.9%) GG 26 (20.6%) NAS (n, %) 0-3 (simple steatosis) 27 (21%) 4-8 (NASH) 100 (89%) Fibrosis Stage (n, %) 0 40 (31.5%) 1 28 (22.1%) 2 38 (29.9%) 3 11 (8.6%) 4 10 (7.9%)
BIDMC, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.
Public
Mean VLDL Size is Significantly Larger in NASH
17 Principles of Biomarker Development - 1st International Workshop on NASH Biomarkers - April 2016
Simple steatosis (n = 25)
NASH(n = 103)
P value 1
Background48.5 ± 11.2 50.8 ± 12.3 0.4Age
Gender % Female 36.0% 40.8% 0.7BMI 32.6 ± 4.8 34.9 ± 7.0 0.1%Diabetes 12.0% 34.0% 0.03CK18 (U/L) 283 ± 182 414 ± 415 0.1PNPLA3 I148M 44.0% 67.0% 0.03TM6SF2 E167K 22.6% 19.9% 0.7Conventional lipid panel
199 ± 52 191 ± 45 0.4Total cholesterol (mg/dL)Triglycerides (mg/dL) 178 ± 106 202 ± 131 0.4LDL-C (mg/dL) 118 ± 41 109 ± 39 0.3HDL-C (mg/dL) 46 ± 14 45 ± 14 0.9
Comprehensive lipoprotein profileVLDL particle concentrations (nmol/L)
Total VLDL particlesVLDL subclasses
Large VLDL Medium VLDLSmall VLDL
Mean VLDL size (nm)
84 ± 64
8.5 ± 8.541 ± 3335 ± 31
52.2 ± 8.4
79 ± 47
10.4 ± 9.740 ± 23
28 ± 25.056.1 ± 7.2
0.6
0.40.90.20.02
1P value calculated by two-tailed student T test or Chi-square test
Jiang et al., Liver Int 2016; doi: 10.1111/liv.13076.
Public
18 Principles of Biomarker Development - 1st International Workshop on NASH Biomarkers - April 2016
VLDL size is Associated with NASH
Adjusted β 95% CI P value
Age -0.02 -0.04 - 0.01 0.1Gender (%female) 0.20 -0.27 - 0.67 0.4BMI 0.03 -0.01- 0.06 0.2Diabetes 0.42 -0.15 - 0.99 0.1Statin use 0.31 -0.25 - 0.86 0.3PNPLA3 I148M 0.98 0.51 - 1.45 <0.001TM6SF2 E167K 0.60 0.03 - 1.18 0.04Mean VLDL size (nm) 0.06 0.03 - 0.09 <0.001
Jiang et al., Liver Int 2016; doi: 10.1111/liv.13076.
1Model adjusted with all variables in table
Steatosis Score (0-4) Lobular inflammation Ballooning degeneration
β Coefficient1 P value Risk ratio2 P value Risk ratio2 P value
Mean VLDL Size (nm) 0.03 (0.02 - 0.05) <0.001 1.05 (1.00 – 1.11) 0.06 1.02 (1.00 – 1.03) 0.02
CK18 (X102 U/L) 0.03 (-0.001 - 0.06) 0.003 1.02 (0.94 – 1.11) 0.6 1.01 (0.98 – 1.04) 0.6
1Adj β coeff. calc for steatosis score (0-4) as cont. dep. variable using VLDL size or CK18. Adj for age, gender, BMI, diabetes, statin use, PNPLA3 I148M2Adj risk ratio for presence of moderate to severe (score 2-3) vs. mild lobular inflammation (score 0-1) using VLDL size or CK183Adj risk ratio for presence of ballooning degeneration vs. no ballooning using VLDL size or CK18
Each nm increase in mean VLDL size was associated with 1.2% increase in the relative risk of NASH
Public
Small VLDL Particles Reduced in Liver Fibrosis
19 Principles of Biomarker Development - 1st International Workshop on NASH Biomarkers - April 2016
1P value calculated by two-tailed student T test or Chi-square test
FibrosisStage 0-1(n = 69)
FibrosisStage 2-4(n = 59)
P value 1
Background48.9 ±12.6 52.1 ± 11.6 0.1Age
% Female 42.0% 37.3% 0.6BMI 33.1 ± 5.6 36.1 ± 7.4 0.01%Diabetes 13.0% 49.2% <0.001CK18 (U/L) 299 ± 270 493 ± 465 0.004PNPLA3 I148M 56.8% 69.5% 0.1TM6SF2 E167K 21.2% 19.3% 0.7Conventional Lipid panel
202 ± 40 181 ± 51 0.01Total cholesterol (mg/dL)Triglyceride (mg/dL) 204 ± 131 192 ± 121 0.6LDL-C (mg/dL) 118 ± 37 102 ± 41 0.02HDL-C (mg/dL) 47 ± 15 44 ±14 0.3
Comprehensive lipoprotein profileVLDL particle concentrations (nmol/L)
Total VLDL particlesVLDL subclasses
Large VLDL Medium VLDLSmall VLDL
Mean VLDL size (nm)
86 ± 59
10.5 ± 10.441 ± 4034 ± 31
54.3 ± 8.3
73 ± 38
9.6 ± 8.440 ± 2123 ± 17
56.5 ± 6.6
0.2
0.60.8
0.020.1
Jiang et al., Liver Int 2016; doi: 10.1111/liv.13076.
Public
20 Principles of Biomarker Development - 1st International Workshop on NASH Biomarkers - April 2016
Small VLDL are Associated with Liver Fibrosis
Jiang et al., Liver Int 2016; doi: 10.1111/liv.13076.
1Risk ratio calculated for significant liver fibrosis (stage 2 or above) compared to minimal fibrosis (stage 0-1) 2Model adjusted with all variables in table
AdjustedRisk Ratio2 95% CI P value
Age 1.00 0.98 - 1.03 0.9
Gender (%female) 0.67 0.36 - 1.26 0.2
BMI 1.02 0.98 - 1.06 0.4
Diabetes 3.49 1.39 - 8.79 0.008
Statin use 1.41 0.66 - 3.03 0.4
PNPLA3 I148M 2.07 1.01 - 4.03 0.03
TM6SF2 E167K 0.58 0.24 - 1.43 0.2
Large VLDL (nmol/L) 1.00 0.96 - 1.03 0.8
Medium VLDL (nmol/L) 1.00 0.98 - 1.02 0.9
Small VLDL (nmol/L) 0.98 0.96 - 1.00 0.03
Public
Performance Characteristics
21 Principles of Biomarker Development - 1st International Workshop on NASH Biomarkers - April 2016
Jiang et al., Liver Int 2016; doi: 10.1111/liv.13076.
Public
VLDL Profile Changes with NAFLD Progression
22 Principles of Biomarker Development - 1st International Workshop on NASH Biomarkers - April 2016
Jiang et al., Liver Int 2016; doi: 10.1111/liv.13076.
VLDL LDL HDL
Concentration Size Concentration Size Concentration Size
PNPLA3 I148M - ↓↓ - ↑↑ - ↑↑
TM6SF2 E167K ↓ - ↓ ↑↑ - ↑↑
Liver fibrosis ↓ - - - ↓ ↑
NASH activity - ↑↑ ↑ ↓↓ - ↓
Public
Future Panels May Include NMR Biomarkers
► LP-IR Index1,2
► NASH specific analytes3-5
VLDL size positively associated with NASH Small LDL particle number; related to cardiovascular disease risk
► Liver fibrosis specific analytes3,6
Small VLDL particle number inversely associated with liver fibrosis and adds to NFS Branched chain amino acid (BCAA) concentrations affected by reduced liver function
► GlycA, glycoprotein marker of inflammation7-10
Reduced with later stage liver fibrosis and cirrhosis
► NMR parameters, quantified from the same spectrum, may enhance sensitivity and selectivity of existing panels and may aid with staging of NAFLD
1. Shalaurova et al., Met Syn Rel Dis 2014;12(8):422-429. 2. Mackey et al., Diab Care 2015;38(4):628-636. 3. Jiang et al., Liver Int 2016; doi: 10.1111/liv.13076. 4. Sanyal et al., Hepatol 2015;61(4):1392–1405. 5. Garcia et al., PLoS One 2015;10(11);e014676. 6. Cheng et al., PLoS One 2015;10(10);e0138889. 7. Otvos et al., Clin Chem 2015;61(5):714-23. 8. Akinkuolie et al., JAHA 2014;3(5):e001221. 9. Akinkuolie et al., ATVB 2015;35(6):1544-50. 10. Sands et al., Amer J Gastroenterol 2015;110:159-169.
BCAA
23 Principles of Biomarker Development - 1st International Workshop on NASH Biomarkers - April 2016
NMR spectrum
Public
Biomarker Development
Payers and
Healthcare Costs
Physician Use in Patient Care
Biological Plausibility
Analytical Development
Performance Evaluation
Clinical Validation
Intended Use
Clinical Utility
Regulatory Agency
Biomarker Use in Clinical Trials
24 Principles of Biomarker Development - 1st International Workshop on NASH Biomarkers - April 2016
Collaborative efforts between academia, pharma and diagnostic labs, along with regulatory input (FDA) may be the best way to develop new
biomarkers or scores that will substitute for liver biopsy as the gold standard end point for clinical trials and clinical care
Public
Covance Inc., headquartered in Princeton, NJ, USA, is the drug development business of Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (LabCorp). COVANCE is a registered trademark and the marketing name for Covance Inc. and its subsidiaries around the world.
25 Principles of Biomarker Development - 1st International Workshop on NASH Biomarkers - April 2016