January 7, 2010
Posted by on
Late last year, a PwC report made the rounds with a big headline number — $232 billion — as the size of the personalized medicine market. FierceBiotech called it a “tipping point,” for personalized medicine. George Church called us “the first genomic generation” in Newsweek, and Francis Collins’ new book “offers practical advice on how to utilize these discoveries for you and your family’s current and future health and well-being” (at least according to its publisher).
And this isn’t just idle speculation, it’s being reflected in real investments. Cancer Research UK, the Medical Research Council, University College London, and the Wellcome Trust are developing a £500 million new home for their partnership, called the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI), where “genomic technologies will play a key role in the array of research its partners plan to pursue there.”
However, there are real challenges to realizing the 11% annual growth rate PwC predicts.
- Health care providers need to learn a whole new language and a whole new set of tools and approaches. A new year-long project at Valparaiso University aims to meet the new criteria of the nursing curriculum essentials in genetics that are set by the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN), but this is just the tip of the iceberg. (h/t @mikesgene)
- Even when health care providers are educated, it doesn’t mean that the market will grow. For example, there is high awareness (80-90%) of a new genetic test designed to reveal a breast cancer patient’s sensitivity to tamoxifen. However, according to research from Duke University Medical Center, “[a] greater awareness of the emerging data for this new test corresponded to less likelihood of ordering the test and lower likelihood of changing practice based on test results.” (emphasis added) (h/t @DukeIGSP)
- The Genetic Information Nondiscrimiation Act loopholes are still intimidating. GINA does not expressly cover long-term care and other types of insurance and is focused to some extent on prohibitions on requiring genetic tests (which will be moot when everyone’s full genome is sequenced). Some efforts to remedy or mitigate GINA loopholes are underway, including:
However, many patients (and, anecdotally, everyone in the insurance industry) are vociferously refusing genetic testing and sequencing.
- FierceBiotech notes that the PwC report itself identifies another caveat: “Big Pharma will have to bury its blockbuster business model in favor of a more “collaborative model.”
My bottom line: Those who are counting on seeing the growth predicted by PwC will have to make an unprecedented investment in educational and regulatory changes to sychronize with the unquestionably giant strides in product innovation that are occuring daily.
For more on personalized medicine, check out the Biotech Trends in 2010 page.
August 19, 2009
Posted by on
Yesterday’s NOVA ScienceNOW program included a segment on direct-to-consumer genomics (H/T to GenomeWeb’s Daily Scan Blog). The program was bullish on George Church’s Personal Genome Project; but it took a pretty dim view of the predictive value of current consumer technology.
The program was accessible and interesting, but it went overboard in making a cautionary point about current DTC genomics offerings. It transitions directly from Neal deGrasse Tyson’s 23andMe results for heart disease and diabetes to Steven Pinker’s genomic scan, which showed that Pinker had “double the risk of baldness,” whereas Steven is anything but bald. Well, sure, and the weather report yesterday said there was an 80% chance of rain but it didn’t rain. That doesn’t mean I should stop checking weather reports, or even that I was stupid to pack an umbrella. It’s just probabilities. I guess I agree with the program in the sense that anyone who can’t spot that flaw shouldn’t be interpreting their own genomic data, but it seems like an oddly condescending way for them to make the point.
Kudos, though, for pointing out:
- the gaps in the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act; and
- the low risk to tenured Harvard profs of revealing their sequence data, as they are likely shielded from many of the risks to other participants.