The hole for genetic testing market entry

Technology Assessment on Genetic Testing or Molecular Pathology Testing of Cancers with Unknown Primary Site to Determine Origin
Update on Emerging Genetic Tests Currently Available for Clinical Use in Common Cancers

AHRQ has just published two reports of interest. The first is devoted  to assess the evidence on the analytical validity, clinical validity, and clinical utility of commercially available genetic tests for identifying the tissue of origin (TOO) of the cancer in patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP) site. The second describes genetic tests that have applications in the common solid tumors (breast, lung, colorectal, pancreas, etc.) as well as tests that are used in hematologic cancers (leukemia, lymphoma) and are already available in clinical practice.While the first is an assessment, the second is informative.
There is still a third report to be released and meanwhile NRD explains its conclusions. Having selected 11 prognostic tests, only around half had evidence supporting their prognostic accuracy or clinical validity. Therefore the question is always the same: why these tests without evidence are on the market? Why have they been approved by the FDA?. There is a big regulatory hole to fill in.

Where is the regulator?

Understanding the Economic Value of Molecular Diagnostic Tests: Case Studies and Lessons Learned

Maybe we have just arrived at the expected moment, when the cost of one whole genome sequencing is below $1000. (mapping up to 25.000 genes). At the same time, one test for 21 genes may cost you $4.500. This is our crazy world. In the first case you will only know your genome, in the second there will be a probability of success from a certain therapy.
There's only one question: Does anybody know any information about the reliability of such probabilities beyond the firm that is selling the test?. Where is the regulator?
After reading a recent article on the value of molecular diagnostic tests, I'm convinced that we still remain in an uncertain world in need of transparency. Given such uncertainty, better keep calm until the regulator confirms the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of molecular diagnostic tests.

Parov Stelar Band - Jimmy's Gang (Unplugged in Moscow)

PS. You may avoid watching "The wolf of Wall Street" if you read this article.

For another day

The Actress, the Court, and What Needs to Be Done to Guarantee the Future of Clinical Genomics

The introduction of new technologies and benefits in health care is always a perfect chaotic process. It starts with the creation of great expectations that have to be fulfilled (and publicly funded!). In some sense it could be understood as a remake of the Nintendo story of undersupply and artificial scarcity creation. Some genome based biomarkers fits partly with this paradigm.
The case of Angeline Jolie -double mastectomy after BRCA testing positive- was broadcasted worldwide in the weeks before the ruling against gene patenting. Creating uncertainty and scarcity artificially is a heavier combination. And in this situations is when common good has to be protected, and government has the key role.
Two selected messages from this week in PLOS Biology:

If clinical genomics is about to move forward at a more rapid pace due to broader public awareness and a more favorable legal climate then there is still work to be done on the ethical, regulatory, and legal fronts.

Celebrities are now drawing public attention to the utility of genetic testing. With the Supreme Court decision opening the door to more and perhaps cheaper entry into the testing market, the requisite infrastructure for managing risk and the rules for handling risk information must be strengthened. Making testing more widely available will only be morally acceptable if there are rules of the road in place.

 Meanwhile, our regulator is just waiting for another day, then it may be too late.

Music video by Nikki Yanofsky performing For Another Day. 

(C) 2010 Decca Label Group

Validesa i utilitat de l'òmica

Evolution of Translational Omics: Lessons Learned and the Path Forward

 L'"Òmica" és un terme que abasta múltiples disciplines moleculars, que impliquen la caracterització dels conjunts globals de molècules biològiques, com ara ADN, ARN, proteïnes, i metabòlits. Per exemple, la genòmica investiga milers de seqüències d'ADN, la  transcriptòmica investiga totes o moltes transcripcions de gens, la proteòmica investiga un gran nombre de proteïnes, i metabolòmica investiga grans conjunts de metabòlits.

Així comença el llibre de l'IOM sobre una qüestió fonamental de la medicina dels nostres dies.  I el més interessant és com explica la diferència entre l'òmica translacional i els biomarcadors. Malgrat la dificultat que presenta l'avaluació d'un biomarcador, els reptes al que s'enfronta l'òmica són molt superiors. Diu clarament a l'inici:

The complexity of omics research also makes data provenance more challenging and makes sharing of the complex data sets and computational models difficult, which limits the ability of other scientists to replicate and verify the findings and conclusions of omics research studies. Database repositories for genomic data sets are available, but data sharing is not routine, and  without access to the data sets or a precisely defined computational model, replication and  verification are more difficult than for single biomarker tests. While independent confirmation studies are expensive, the need for replication is beneficial in the omics field given the data  complexities that can lead to errors, from simple data management errors to incorrectly  designed computational models. This level of complexity does not exist for single-biomarker  test research, development, and validation.

Massa sovint es vol fer passar aquesta complexitat com inadvertida. I afegeix:

Many hope that the promise that omics science holds for medicine and public health will be realized. With the creation of high-throughput measurement technologies, it is now feasible to take a snapshot of a patient’s molecular profile at specific stages in the progression of disease pathology or at a given location in the body. However, the complexity of these technologies and of the resulting high-dimensional data introduces major challenges for the scientific community, as rigorous statistical, bioinformatics, laboratory, and clinical procedures are required to develop and validate these tests and evaluate their clinical usefulness.

Sobre el tipus de dades òmiques heu d'anar a la pàgina 40 i llegir-ho amb deteniment. Quan un acaba de comprendre el que s'explica de forma planera, aleshores s'adona que els que venen genoma i prou s'han quedat curts, la complexitat és notòria. I en especial la referent a l'epigenoma, del que ja n'he parlat repetidament en aquest blog. El capítol sobre avaluació de les proves esdevé clau. Només fa referència a validesa analítica i clínica, però és el principi sense el qual tots aquells que es plantegin fer cost-efectivitat no podran treballar. I cap al final trobo aquesta conclusió:

 A well-designed test development plan addresses a clinically meaningful question and employs rigorous test discovery, development, and validation procedures. This includes locking down all aspects of an omicsbased test prior to evaluation for clinical utility and use and avoiding overlap between discovery and validation specimens. Choosing an appropriate clinical/biological validation strategy and interacting with FDA prior to initiation of validation studies also reflect a well-designed test development plan. Making data and code available are critical aspects of test development because it enables external verification of the results and generation of additional insights that can advance science and patient care.

El rigor s'imposa i traduir la recerca en aplicacions obliga a comprendre el valor que aporten a la societat. El camí és llarg malgrat sovint apareix als diaris com que és bufar i fer ampolles.

PS. Es poden patentar les proves genòmiques? Avui un tribunal decideix, ho trobareu a WSJ.

PS. Ekaizer a 8TV, fonamental. I també a RAC1

PS. Al Diccionario RAE queda més clar encara: macarra. 1. adj. Dicho de una persona: Agresiva, achulada.

Eliseu Meifren, podeu veure'l a Sant Feliu de Guixols, paga la pena.

Validesa i utilitat de les proves genòmiques

Genome-Based Diagnostics: Clarifying Pathways to Clinical Use: Workshop Summary

En teoria de jocs es diu que tenim un punt focal quan trobem una solució que la gent tendeix a utilitzar per coordinar-se quan falta comunicació, perquè sembla que satisfà tothom. El concepte va ser introduït per l'economista guanyador del Premi Nobel Thomas Schelling en el llibre The Strategy of Conflict (1960). El que aquest punt focal o equilibri sigui eficient o no ho sigui ja són figues d'un altre paner..
Tot d'una, quan llegia un l'informe de l'IOM sobre tests genètics, m'ha vingut a la memòria Schelling i els seus punts focals. Resulta que s'explica com davant dels biomarcadors s'ha encetat un cercle viciós (punt focal) que només es pot trencar mitjançant un canvi regulatori i d'incentius. Afegeixo un paràgraf d'interès:

The basic problem is that there has been relatively little consistency regarding which biomarkers have been introduced into clinical practice. Very few cancer biomarkers with demonstrated clinical utility have been introduced over the past 30 years. Even among those tests that have been integrated into practice, their use in certain settings has not always been supported by evidence of benefit, such as the use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as a screening test (Andriole et al., 2009), said Hayes. This has helped to create what Hayes has termed a “vicious cycle” in which tumor biomarkers are systematically undervalued (Figure 2-1). This undervaluation has led to limited use of these diagnostics by health care providers and poor reimbursement when a marker has been able to navigate the regulatory environment to be brought to market. Lack of use and reimbursement in turn leads to limited funding for biomarker research because the return on investment is low. The perception that markers have little utility has also led to an environment of lower academic  recognition for developing biomarker-based tests. The overall result is reduced ability and incentive to conduct properly designed clinical trials to generate high-quality evidence of clinical utility. In return, there is reduced data certainty, higher skepticism, and few recommendations for clinical use, said Hayes, which completes the cycle by contributing to the poor valuation of marker utility. Hayes focused his recommendations for breaking the “vicious cycle” of undervalued tumor biomarkers on two areas: the regulatory environment and marker reimbursement.

Actualment als USA (i aquí encara menys) no hi ha un procés de revisió de la FDA per a les proves diagnòstiques de laboratori del tipus Laboratory Developed Tests LDT on s'avaluï la validesa analítica, validesa clínica i utilitat clínica. Es regula per la llei CLIA tal com s'explica al text. La proposta és doncs que la FDA prengui part del procés de revisió i es reformuli la regulació existent. I des de la vessant dels incentius, se suggereix que s'estableixin anàlisis cost-efectivitat de les proves que permetin situar el seu preu en funció del valor que aporten.
Ens trobem doncs en un llibre clau per a un moment clau. I qui tingui ulls i vulgui que el llegeixi, són tant sols 105 pàgines fonamentals per entendre una de les qüestions determinants de la medicina del futur.
Em costa admetre que el punt focal per aquí aprop es redueixi a veure passar els dies inexorablement i la innovació tecnològica resti sense avaluar, un equilibri ineficient. En Schelling diria que cal comprometre's de forma creïble per sortir-ne, però per ara i pel que fa al regulador, no ho sé veure per enlloc.

PS. Miss-selling drugs, a The Economist.

PS. La sindicatura emet informe sobre l'Hospital Clínic. Enmig del desori observo que s'han deixat de cobrar 40 milions d'euros amb trasplantaments a forasters!

PS. A DM trobareu alguns detalls sobre el nou sistema de pagament.  Esperem més informació en el futur.

PS. Les autopistes sense cotxes ens constaran 290 milions el 2012, l'any passat van costar 80 milions.

Ara toca (prioritzar) (2)

La decisió d'ahir del NICE suposa tot un repte per a d'altres governs europeus. Va considerar que el fingolimod per a esclerosi múltiple no havia de ser finançat pel NHS. Destaco dos paràgrafs clau de la resolució:

In summary, the Committee believed that the manufacturer’s base case ICER for fingolimod of £55,600 per QALY gained compared with Avonex for population 1b was subject to considerable uncertainty and an underestimation of the most plausible ICER for the following reasons:

• Avonex is not an appropriate comparator for population 1b. Using more appropriate comparators such as best supportive care or Rebif-44 for population 1b increased the ICERs substantially. To establish the most plausible ICERs for population 2, a comparison with natalizumab would need to be considered.
• More plausible assumptions regarding the long term treatment effectiveness increased the ICERs.
• Inaccuracies in the administration costs employed in the model are likely to have led to an underestimation of the ICERs.
• Data chosen to model the natural history of disease progression were derived from a population that was unrepresentative of the current UK population with multiple sclerosis. This led to uncertainty in the model results.
• Utility data from the clinical trials should have been used in the model and supplemented by published sources only for estimates for higher EDSS scores not represented by the populations in the trials. This led to uncertainty in the model results.

The Committee concluded that an analysis that relied on a combined set of plausible assumptions (see section 4.17) would be certain to produce ICERs that substantially exceed the range it could consider to represent a cost-effective use of NHS resources. The most plausible ICERs for fingolimod for the treatment of relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis in the base case population (population 1b) is likely to be above £94,000 per QALY gained compared with best supportive care and above £79,000 per QALY gained in the subgroup of population 1b in which people with rapidly evolving severe disease were excluded. Therefore fingolimod cannot be recommended as a cost-effective use of NHS resources.

Cal llegir el document sencer perquè esdevé més interessant comprendre l'avaluació de l'efectivitat abans que el cost-efectivitat. Les notícies que en sorgiran poden contenir biaixos interessats. Observo una preocupació per l'efectivitat que aporta i en canvi les notícies se centraran en el cost-efectivitat. Ara hi ha unes setmanes per avaluar aquesta decisió i després hi haurà la resolució definitiva.
El medicament ja està aprovat al mercat tant a UK com aquí i podria suposar un nou serial com va succeir amb Tysabri, si bé en aquell cas centrat en qüestions de seguretat.
L'esclerosi múltiple és una malaltia que demana noves teràpies però que hi ha dificultats fonamentals per l'abordatge. El NICE va mantenir un conflicte important amb els interferons ja fa uns anys. Ara amb aquesta decisió pot ser un pròleg de nova controvèrsia. Aquest conflicte es podria resoldre en primer lloc aportant dades sobre efectivitat o també canviant el preu, de fet el preu britànic és un terç inferior al dels USA, però no n'hi hauria prou. Podria ser que aquí la propera reunió de la comissió interministerial de preus ho aprovés sense cap anàlisi similar (preu aprox. tractament anual 22.000 euros). En definitiva, ara tocaria prioritzar sobre bases fonamentades i tinc la impressió que ho deixarem per un altre moment. Crec que per al regulador d'aquí tant li fa la decisió del NICE. Ara bé, i als ciutadans?.

Veure-les passar

El tema segueix sobre la taula. El debat sobre les proves genètiques i com regular-les preocupa a la FDA i encara que ja ha dit que cal aplicar els mateixos criteris que als subministraments mèdics (medical devices), hi ha molts dubtes sobre els detalls.

Els de Genomics Law Report expliquen el que ha passat a les compareixences recents. Si n'esteu interessats feu-hi una ullada.
Les preguntes clau:

Should the agency require proof of analytical validity, clinical validity and/or clinical utility prior to approving a particular test and, if so, what standards of proof should be required?
Should the agency regulate tests SNP-by-SNP, claim-by-claim or test-by-test, and what should be done to prepare for the inevitable arrival of tests based on whole-genome sequence data?
Should the agency oversee the labeling and advertising claims offered by companies in association with such tests?
Should the agency require companies to collect and submit data regarding the post-test benefits and harms and the actual (as compared to intended) uses of their tests?
Should the agency impose requirements on companies to prevent unauthorized testing, protect data privacy and limit companies’ ability to share genetic information without their customers’ consent?

While these questions, and countless more, will be critical to the development of sensible genetic testing regulation, one question clearly generates more and more emotional responses than any other:

Should regulators require some or all genetic tests to be routed through a clinician, or should tests be made available directly to consumers who desire them?

I mentrestant per aquí, les veiem passar...i ens costen una pasta...

PD. El gran Ferran Torrent representa una alenada d'aire fresc els diumenges, tant en directe a Rac1 com els comentaris a ARA. Cita Josep Renau: "Quan arribes a València i et menges una paella o una sípia t'oblides de la lluita de classes". I mentrestant els de FT ens recorden que "Valencia is burning"