ReviewCambridge prisms. Precision medicine2025
Biomarker understanding first lessons from drug development for IgA-driven autoimmune and fibrotic diseases.
Review in Cambridge prisms. Precision medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The concept of personalized medicine and its significant benefits for patients and society was introduced over three decades ago. The Human Genome Project (initiated in 1990 and completed in 2003) greatly accelerated the development of precision medicine. In many cancers, defined biomarkers are used to select patients for therapy. For example, KRAS mutations are used to guide treatment with Sotorasib, while tumor expression of (wild type) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 and 3 (HER2 and HER3) are used to select patients for trastuzumab and cetuximab, respectively. Nonetheless, the clinical adoption of companion diagnostics to facilitate a patient-centric approach in inflammatory diseases remains disappointing. One key reason why the development of companion diagnostics may be delayed autoimmune and fibrotic diseases can be the timing when clinical development teams inform R&D teams about relevant biomarkers or companion diagnostic to select patients, disease monitoring or treatment termination decisions. For clinical practicality, it is highly preferred to measure a biomarker in the systemic circulation, as blood samples can be obtained relatively easily in most diseases. However, discovering systemic biomarkers during clinical development has proven extremely challenging. Here, we describe an alternative approach, which we have used to select the most appropriate target for IgA driven autoimmune and fibrotic diseases. In this specific context, autoantigen-specific assays to determine autoantibody serum levels are widely available for a variety of indications. A detailed analysis of the biological pathways that affect the biomarker can uncover multiple potential therapeutic targets, allowing selection of the most optimal target from a clinical development perspective. Identification of a relevant biomarker before clinical development is initiated, enabling patient stratification in early clinical studies. Selection of the appropriate patient population based on biomarker presence reduces the number of patients needed and consequently, clinical development costs. Moreover, such a patient stratification approach minimizes the risk of including patients who are unlikely to respond, thereby avoiding unnecessary adverse events. This approach was applied during the selection of an anti-CD89 antagonist monoclonal antibody for IgA-mediated autoimmune and fibrotic diseases, serving as an illustrative example of this novel strategy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.