Key result
Novel serum chemical biomarkers for cardiac injury assessment in nonclinical safety testing offer advantages over traditional tests but require adequate species-specific assay validation.
Novel cardiac injury biomarkers require adequate assay validation for cross-reactivity in nonclinical safety testing across different laboratory species.
Novel biomarkers require species-specific validation before nonclinical use; leaves open routine adoption in safety testing.
There has been a substantial increase in the number and efficacy of laboratory biomarkers for the evaluation of human cardiac injury over the last decade. The advantages of these over traditional laboratory tests have encouraged adoption of comparable markers in nonclinical studies for cardiac injury assessment. Of particular interest are markers that are not only more sensitive and/or specific than traditional parameters for cardiac injury, but also those that may directly bridge human and laboratory animal safety testing. However, a majority of recently developed markers are quantified through antibody-based assays, and cross-reactivity with the comparable analyte in nonhuman samples is difficult to predict and often species-variable. The utility of these novel biomarkers thus, depends upon adequate assay validation with each laboratory species of interest. In contrast, traditional laboratory parameters of cardiac injury lack the properties of an ideal biomarker, but are well established and have an extensive database in nonclinical safety assessment. The current status and utility of both recently developed and traditional biomarkers of cardiac injury in nonclinical testing, and considerations for validation of novel biomarkers of cardiac injury are reviewed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dana B. Walker (2006) conducted a review in Cardiac injury. Serum chemical biomarkers vs. Traditional laboratory parameters was evaluated. Novel serum chemical biomarkers for cardiac injury assessment in nonclinical safety testing offer advantages over traditional tests but require adequate species-specific assay validation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: