4.7 Review

Biomarkers in Cardiovascular Clinical Trials: Past, Present, Future

Journal

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 58, Issue 1, Pages 45-53

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2011.165787

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular (CV) clinical trials are instrumental in understanding treatment effects and offer insights into the natural progression of CV disease. Biomarkers are a critical component of patient selection, end point definition, and safety monitoring, and clinical trials provide a platform for the discovery and validation of new biomarkers that may augment the understanding of disease mechanisms, risk stratification, and/or clinical decision-making. CONTENT: We review the roles that biomarkers have played in CV clinical trials and roles that CV clinical trials have played and will continue to play in the discovery and validation of biomarkers and their implementation in clinical practice. Large biobanks containing multiple specimen types are increasingly being created from patients enrolled in clinical trials, and such biobanks, when coupled with advances in molecular techniques and bioinformatics, promise to accelerate our understanding of CV disease mechanisms and to help fuel the discovery and development of novel therapeutic targets and biomarkers of risk and treatment response. SUMMARY: The past, present, and future of biomarkers and clinical trials have been and will remain intertwined. Biomarkers were once the workhorses of patient selection and end point definition in clinical trials; more recently, clinical trials have been the proving ground for individual biomarkers. Attention to biobanking and the application of modern informatics and molecular techniques to samples collected within clinical trials will usher in the era of stratified and personalized medicine. (C) 2011 American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available