Required Reading: August 2014

Great stories are published daily about the impact personalized medicine is having on individual patients, and the medical community as a whole, but it can be a challenge to stay on top of the news. With that in mind, we bring to you a monthly roundup of the three to five most thought-provoking articles we are reading, sharing and discussing with our colleagues.

This is the August 2014 installment of Required Reading.

---

The Price of Personalization by Timothy Gower, Proto Magazine

This article explores the growing debate over the cost and value of personalized medicines and identifies ways that the healthcare system may need to adapt to accommodate the development and use of increasingly more targeted therapies that work for smaller patient populations.

FDA to Regulate Thousands Of Cancer, Genetic, and Other Diagnostics by Matthew Herper, Forbes

Earlier this month, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced plans to regulate laboratory developed tests, many of which are diagnostics developed as result of the exploding field of genetics. The new regulatory framework proposes that any test used to diagnose a disease or to decide on a course of treatment will need to be cleared by FDA before it can be utilized.

It’s Time for Us to Think About Cancer Differently by Paul Mejia, Newsweek

A recent genomic study published in the journal Cell suggests that 1 in 10 cancer patients could be more accurately diagnosed if cancer were defined by molecular and genetic characteristics, rather than by where it is located. Researchers believe that reclassifying cancer by identifying the type of cell that caused the disease, instead of the tissue type, could ultimately lead to better treatment in the future.

RNA Combination Therapy for Lung Cancer Offers Promise for Personalized Medicine by Kevin Leonardi, MIT News

Early research at the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at MIT offers promise for personalized cancer treatments using RNA combination therapies to improve therapeutic response. The development of an efficient delivery system of individual or combined small RNAs to solid tumors could help regulate genetic mutations underlying a given patient’s cancer.

Survey Reveals Insights About Awareness, Understanding of Personalized Medicine, Part 1

Earlier this year, the Personalized Medicine Coalition (PMC) commissioned U.S. Public Opinion About Personalized Medicine, a nationally representative survey of 1,024 adults gauging consumer awareness, knowledge and attitudes about personalized medicine.

The key findings of the survey were positive. Although less than 4 in 10 Americans had heard of it prior to being surveyed, respondents are interested in learning more about personalized medicine and are supportive of the concept. For those who had heard of personalized medicine, their knowledge was shallow and did not associate the term with diagnostic testing or targeted treatments. This highlights the need for education to a willing public.

When the surveyed individuals were given a definition of personalized medicine, approximately two-thirds were receptive and expressed positive opinions about its prospects.

Respondents easily pointed out the major benefits of personalized medicine, noting that it could give them more knowledge to prevent or treat their illness, help them choose the most effective treatments with their doctors, and lead to a decline in unnecessary treatments, side effects, invasive procedures and trial and error medicine.

Many of the individuals who were surveyed even raised questions, specifically regarding the efficacy, potential risks, cost, access and affordability. A majority agreed that insurance should cover personalized medicine if it is recommended by a doctor.

We’re at the beginning of the golden age of personalized medicine. Armed now with a clear picture of the public’s opinion, we have an opportunity to raise awareness and increase understanding of what personalized medicine is, and how it can transform approaches to healthcare delivery.

Stay tuned for part two of this blog post series as we hear from leading experts, and the researcher who conducted the survey, on what key benefits of personalized medicine they think the public needs to know about in order to embrace this approach to healthcare.

In the meantime, learn more about U.S. Public Opinion About Personalized Medicine and review the survey findings by viewing the slideshow below or visiting the PMC website.

FDA Outlines Personalized Medicine Policy with Publication of LDT Draft Guidance Document, Final Guidance on Companion Diagnostics

On July 31, FDA announced drastic changes to regulation for personalized medicine products and services when it coupled the release of the long-awaited final guidance document on the regulation of companion diagnostic devices with a proposed framework for regulating laboratory developed tests (LDTs), which was also long-awaited or long-feared, depending on your perspective.

The final guidance on In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Devices was welcomed by the personalized medicine community because in the document, FDA clarified the path for co-developed drug-diagnostic products, and finalized their assertion that new targeted therapeutics will not be kept from the market if the diagnostic kit is not ready at the same time. This enables promising new drugs to come to market while also allowing the laboratory community to fill testing needs in cases where an FDA-approved kit is not available for therapeutic selection, dosing and avoidance decisions.

However, many issues remain to be addressed.

To address concerns that FDA regulation will pose obstacles to an already challenged laboratory industry, there is a rather long transition phase — nine years — and an initial focus on high-risk. FDA defines high-risk LDTs as those with the same intended use as cleared or approved companion diagnostics, LDTs with the same intended use as an FDA-approved Class III medical device, and certain LDTs for determining the safety and efficacy of blood or blood products. This focus and transition period will allow clinical laboratories and FDA time to adjust. By focusing initial regulation on high-risk LDTs, FDA makes a strong argument for the framework, and slices off a rather small segment of the LDT market.

Many have argued that FDA does not have the bandwidth to regulate LDTs. FDA responded to this claim by reiterating enforcement discretion for the vast majority of LDTs and outlining a process for LDT regulation, which might be less onerous than traditional regulatory pathways for medical devices.

Although FDA made great efforts to address concerns about the Agency’s new regulatory enforcement, it did not address perceived conflicts between laboratory regulation under Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) and this new framework. Furthermore, FDA intends to use an expert advisory panel to provide recommendations to the Agency on LDTs risks and classification on certain categories of LDTs, as appropriate. I suspect that defining those categories will be contentious and, at times, difficult.

Investors have long argued that clarity is necessary in both regulation and reimbursement for continued advancement of personalized medicine. We now have clarity on FDA’s current thinking although many issues remain unresolved. The community has time to consider this framework and may soon have a chance to provide public comments. And finally, the pharmaceutical industry has the FDA’s assurance that targeted treatments will not be held up by co-development challenges.

Required Reading: July 2014

Great stories are published daily about the impact personalized medicine is having on individual patients, and the medical community as a whole, but it can be a challenge to stay on top of the news. With that in mind, we bring to you a monthly roundup of the three to five most thought-provoking articles we are reading, sharing and discussing with our colleagues.

This is the July 2014 installment of Required Reading.

---

Nobody is Average but What to Do About It? The Challenge of Individualized Disease Prevention Based on Genomics by Muin J. Khoury, CDC Genomics and Health Impact Blog

When it comes to individual health risks, there is no such thing as average, yet most health guidelines and recommendations are tailored to “average” individuals in the population. This blog post by Muin J. Khoury, director of the Office of Public Health Genomics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention highlights some of the challenges to actualizing the concept of individualized disease prevention and best utilizing each individual’s biological uniqueness.

The Emotional Side of Personalized Medicine by Ide Mills, Genome

For more than 30 years, Ide Mills worked as an oncology social worker, health educator, and communication strategist. Now as a woman living with advanced, ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer, Mills tells Genome magazine about her experience transitioning from intravenous chemotherapy to a twice-daily pill regimen to help treat her disease. Her story details the challenges – and improvements – she experienced adjusting to the concept of oral cancer therapy and taking an active role in her healthcare.

23andMe Co-founder Anne Wojcicki’s Washington Charm Offensive by Ariana Eunjung Cha, The Washington Post

When she founded genetic company 23andMe more than six years ago, Anne Wojcicki’s ultimate goal was for people to be in control of their own healthcare. Wojcicki is still determined to change the way traditional healthcare works in the United States by shifting the focus to individuals instead of institutions. 23andMe is currently working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to get approval for its direct-to-consumer personal health reports that analyze an individual’s DNA.

As Sequencing Moves into Clinical Use, Insurers Balk by Julie Steenhuysen, Reuters 

A number of major insurers are beginning to address the increasing availability and usage of gene-sequencing tests by seeking proof that the results will lead to meaningful treatments among the estimated 2 million Americans with a serious, undiagnosed disease. Genetic experts have responded saying that gene-sequencing tests, such as exome sequencing, are bringing hope to families by more than doubling the chances they will get a diagnosis and saving them money by not spending it on multiple tests of a single gene. 

Developing New Tools to Support Regulatory Use of “Next Gen Sequencing” Data by Carolyn A. Wilson, Ph.D., FDAVoice blog

In last month’s Required Reading, we shared an article from The New York Times about next-generation sequencing (NGS). Learn more about the private cloud-based environment called the High-Performance Integrated Virtual Environment (HIVE) that the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research supported the development of to help prepare the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to review and understand the interpretation and significance of data in regulatory submissions that include NGS.