+1 Recommend
2 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Characterization of renal biomarkers for use in clinical trials: effect of preanalytical processing and qualification using samples from subjects with diabetes

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.



          Identifying the potential for drug-induced kidney injury is essential for the successful research and development of new drugs. Newer and more sensitive preclinical drug-induced kidney injury biomarkers are now qualified for use in rat toxicology studies, but biomarkers for clinical studies are still undergoing qualification. The current studies investigated biomarkers in healthy volunteer (HV) urine samples with and without the addition of stabilizer as well as in urine from patients with normoalbuminuric diabetes mellitus (P-DM).


          Urine samples from 20 male HV with stabilizer, 69 male HV without stabilizer, and 95 male DM without stabilizer (39 type 1 and 56 type 2) were analyzed for the following bio-markers using multiplex assays: α-1-microglobulin (A1M), β-2-microglobulin, calbindin, clus-terin, connective tissue growth factor (CTGF), creatinine, cystatin-C, glutathione S-transferase α (GSTα), kidney injury marker-1 (KIM-1), microalbumin, neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, osteopontin, Tamm–Horsfall urinary glycoprotein (THP), tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 1, trefoil factor 3 (TFF3), and vascular endothelial growth factor.


          CTGF and GSTα assays on nonstabilized urine were deemed nonoptimal (>50% of values below assay lower limits of quantification). “Expected values” were determined for HV with stabilizer, HV without stabilizer, and P-DM without stabilizer. There was a statistically significant difference between HV with stabilizer compared to HV without stabilizer for A1M, CTGF, GSTα, and THP. DM urine samples differed from HV (without stabilizer) for A1M CTGF, GSTα, KIM-1, microalbumin, osteopontin, and TFF3. A1M also correctly identified HV and DM with an accuracy of 89.0%.


          These studies: 1) determined that nonstabilized urine can be used for assays under qualification; and 2) documented that A1M, CTGF, GSTα, KIM-1, microalbumin, osteopontin, and TFF3 were significantly increased in urine from P-DM. In addition, the 89.0% accuracy of A1M in distinguishing P-DM from HV may allow this biomarker to be used to monitor efficacy of potential renal protective agents.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Limitations of creatinine as a filtration marker in glomerulopathic patients.

          To determine the reliability of creatinine as a measure of the glomerular filtration rate (GFR), we compared the simultaneous clearance of creatinine to that of three true filtration markers of graded size in 171 patients with various glomerular diseases. Using inulin (radius [rs] = 15 A) as a reference marker, we found that the fractional clearance of 99mTc-DTPA (rs = 4 A) was 1.02 +/- 0.14, while that of a 19 A rs dextran was 0.98 +/- 0.13, with neither value differing from unity. In contrast, the fractional clearance (relative to inulin) of creatinine (rs = 3 A) exceeded unity, averaging 1.64 +/- 0.05 (P less than 0.001), but could be lowered towards unity by acute blockade of tubular creatinine secretion by IV cimetidine. Cross-sectional analysis of all 171 patients revealed fractional creatinine secretion to vary inversely with GFR. This inverse relationship was confirmed also among individual patients with either deteriorating (N = 28) or remitting (N = 26) glomerular disease, who were studied longitudinally. As a result, changes in creatinine relative to inulin clearance were blunted considerably or even imperceptible. We conclude that true filtration markers with rs less than 20 A, including inulin, are unrestricted in glomerular disease, and that creatinine is hypersecreted progressively by remnant renal tubules as the disease worsens. Accordingly, attempts to use creatinine as a marker with which to evaluate or monitor glomerulopathic patients will result in gross and unpredictable overestimates of the GFR.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effect of candesartan on prevention (DIRECT-Prevent 1) and progression (DIRECT-Protect 1) of retinopathy in type 1 diabetes: randomised, placebo-controlled trials.

             Rudy Bilous,  Ronald Klein,   (2008)
            Results of previous studies suggest that renin-angiotensin system blockers might reduce the burden of diabetic retinopathy. We therefore designed the DIabetic REtinopathy Candesartan Trials (DIRECT) Programme to assess whether candesartan could reduce the incidence and progression of retinopathy in type 1 diabetes. Two randomised, double-blind, parallel-design, placebo-controlled trials were done in 309 centres worldwide. Participants with normotensive, normoalbuminuric type 1 diabetes without retinopathy were recruited to the DIRECT-Prevent 1 trial and those with existing retinopathy were recruited to DIRECT-Protect 1, and were assigned to candesartan 16 mg once a day or matching placebo. After 1 month, the dose was doubled to 32 mg. Investigators and participants were unaware of the treatment allocation status. The primary endpoints were incidence and progression of retinopathy and were defined as at least a two-step and at least a three-step increase on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) scale, respectively. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00252733 for DIRECT-Prevent 1 and NCT00252720 for DIRECT-Protect 1. 1421 participants (aged 18-50 years) were randomly assigned to candesartan (n=711) or to placebo (n=710) in DIRECT-Prevent 1, and 1905 (aged 18-55 years) to candesartan (n=951) or to placebo (n=954) in DIRECT-Protect 1. Incidence of retinopathy was seen in 178 (25%) participants in the candesartan group versus 217 (31%) in the placebo group. Progression of retinopathy occurred in 127 (13%) participants in the candesartan group versus 124 (13%) in the placebo group. Hazard ratio (HR for candesartan vs placebo) was 0.82 (95% CI 0.67-1.00, p=0.0508) for incidence of retinopathy and 1.02 (0.80-1.31, p=0.85) for progression of retinopathy. The post-hoc outcome of at least a three-step increase for incidence yielded an HR of 0.65 (0.48-0.87, p=0.0034), which was attenuated but still significant after adjustment for baseline characteristics (0.71, 0.53-0.95, p=0.046). Final ETDRS level was more likely to have improved with candesartan treatment in both DIRECT-Prevent 1 (odds 1.16, 95% CI 1.05-1.30, p=0.0048) and DIRECT-Protect 1 (1.12, 95% CI 1.01-1.25, p=0.0264). Adverse events did not differ between the treatment groups. Although candesartan reduces the incidence of retinopathy, we did not see a beneficial effect on retinopathy progression.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Renal biomarker qualification submission: a dialog between the FDA-EMEA and Predictive Safety Testing Consortium.

              The first formal qualification of safety biomarkers for regulatory decision making marks a milestone in the application of biomarkers to drug development. Following submission of drug toxicity studies and analyses of biomarker performance to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMEA) by the Predictive Safety Testing Consortium's (PSTC) Nephrotoxicity Working Group, seven renal safety biomarkers have been qualified for limited use in nonclinical and clinical drug development to help guide safety assessments. This was a pilot process, and the experience gained will both facilitate better understanding of how the qualification process will probably evolve and clarify the minimal requirements necessary to evaluate the performance of biomarkers of organ injury within specific contexts.

                Author and article information

                Drug Des Devel Ther
                Drug Des Devel Ther
                Drug Design, Development and Therapy
                Drug Design, Development and Therapy
                Dove Medical Press
                22 June 2015
                : 9
                : 3191-3198
                [1 ]Enabling Safety Sciences, Wilmington, DE, USA
                [2 ]AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Wilmington, DE, USA
                [3 ]Drug Safety and Metabolism, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Alderley Park, UK
                [4 ]Steno Diabetes Center, Gentofte, Denmark
                [5 ]Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
                [6 ]University of Copenhagen, Denmark
                [7 ]Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, University College London, London, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence: David A Brott, Enabling Safety Sciences, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, 1 Medimmune Way, Gaithersburg, MD 20878, USA, Tel +1 301 398 0275, Email david.brott@ 123456astrazeneca.com
                © 2015 Brott et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License

                The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Original Research

                Pharmacology & Pharmaceutical medicine

                healthy volunteers, drug development, kidney


                Comment on this article