Personalized medicine is health care that tailors interventions to individual variation in risk and treatment response. Although medicine has long strived to achieve this goal, advances in genomics promise to facilitate this process. Relevant to present-day practice is the use of genomic information to classify individuals according to disease susceptibility or expected responsiveness to a pharmacologic treatment and to provide targeted interventions. A symposium at the annual meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making on 23 October 2007 highlighted the challenges and opportunities posed in translating advances in molecular medicine into clinical practice. A panel of US experts in medical practice, regulatory policy, technology assessment, and the financing and organization of medical innovation was asked to discuss the current state of practice and research on personalized medicine as it relates to their own field. This article reports on the issues raised, discusses potential approaches to meet these challenges, and proposes directions for future work. The case of genetic testing to inform dosing with warfarin, an anticoagulant, is used to illustrate differing perspectives on evidence and decision making for personalized medicine.
Trusheim MR, Berndt ER, Douglas FLStratified medicine: strategic and economic implications of combining drugs and clinical biomarkers. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2007;6:287-93.
3.
Burke W., Khoury MJ, Stewart A., Zimmern RL; Bellagio Group.The path from genome-based research to population health: development of an international public health genomics network. Genet Med. 2006;8:451-8.
4.
Williams I., Bryan S., McIver S.How should cost-effectiveness analysis be used in health technology coverage decisions? Evidence from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence approach. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12:73-9.
5.
Nelson HD, Huffman LH, Fu R., Harris ELGenetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: systematic evidence review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med.2005;143:362-79.
6.
Janssens AC, Gwinn M., Bradley LA, Oostra BA, van Duijn CM, Khoury MJA critical appraisal of the scientific basis of commercial genomic profiles used to assess health risks and personalize health interventions . Am J Hum Genet. 2008;82:593-9.
7.
Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society (SACGHS).US System of Oversight of Genetic Testing: A Response to the Charge of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. April 2008. Available from: http://www.4.od.nih.gov/oba/sacghs/reports/SACGHS_oversight_report.pdf
8.
Tunis SR, Pearson SDCoverage options for promising technologies: Medicare’s ‘coverage with evidence development’. Health Aff ( Millwood). 2006;25:1218-30.
9.
Khoury MJ, Gwinn M., Yoon PW, Dowling N., Moore CA, Bradley L.The continuum of translation research in genomic medicine: how can we accelerate the appropriate integration of human genome discoveries into health care and disease prevention? Genet Med. 2007;9:665-74.
10.
Burke W., Pinsky LE, Press NACategorizing genetic tests to identify their ethical, legal, and social implications . Am J Med Genet. 2001;106:233-40.
11.
Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP): Implementation and Evaluation of a Model Approach. Available from: http://www.egappreviews.org/about.htm
12.
Teutsch SM, Bradley LA, Palomaki GE, et al. The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group. Genet Med. 2009; 11:3-14.
13.
Haddow JE, Palomaki GEACCE: a model process for evaluating data on emerging genetic tests . In: Khoury MJ, Little J, Burke W, eds. Human Genome Epidemiology: A Scientific Foundation for Using Genetic Information to Improve Health and Prevent Disease. New York: Oxford University Press; 2004. p 217-33.
14.
Grosse SD, Khoury MJWhat is the clinical utility of genetic testing? Genet Med . 2006;8:448-50.
15.
Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group.Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: testing for cytochrome P450 polymorphisms in adults with nonpsychotic depression treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors . Genet Med.2007;9:819-25.
16.
Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group.Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: can UGT1A1 genotyping reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan?Genet Med. 2009;11:15-20.
17.
Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group.Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: genetic testing strategies in newly diagnosed individuals with colorectal cancer aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome in relatives. Genet Med.2009;11:35-41.
18.
Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group.Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: can tumor gene expression profiling improve outcomes in patients with breast cancer?Genet Med. 2009;11: 66-73.
19.
Food and Drug Administration.Guidance for Industry: Providing Clinical Evidence of Effectiveness for Human Drugs and Biological Products. Rockville, MD : US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER); 1998. Available from: www.fda.gov
20.
Budnitz DS, Pollock DA, Weidenbach KN, Mendelsohn AB, Schroeder TJ, Annest JLNational surveillance of emergency department visits for outpatient adverse drug events. JAMA. 2006;296:1858-66.
21.
Diener HC; Executive Steering Committee of the SPORTIFF III and V Investigators.Stroke prevention using the oral direct thrombin inhibitor ximelagatran in patients with non-valvularatrial fibrillation: pooled analysis from the SPORTIF III and V studies. Cerebrovasc Dis.2006;21:279-93.
22.
Schwarz UI, Ritchie MD, Bradford Y., et al. Genetic determinants of response to warfarin during initial anticoagulation. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:999-1008.
23.
Ansell J., Hirsh J., Hylek E., et al. Pharmacology and management of the vitamin K antagonists: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th edition). Chest. 2008;133:160S-98S.
24.
Lesko LJThe critical path of warfarin dosing: finding an optimal dosing strategy using pharmacogenetics. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008 ;84:301-3.
25.
Wadelius M. , Pirmohamed M.Pharmacogenetics of warfarin: current status and future challenges. J Pharmacogenomics. 2007; 7:99-111.
26.
Gage BF, Eby C., Johnson JA, et al. Use of pharmacogenetic and clinical factors to predict the therapeutic dose of warfarin. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008 ;84:326-31.
27.
Limdi NA, McGwin G., Goldstein JA, et al. Influence of CYP2C9 and VKORC1 1173C/T genotype on the risk of hemorrhagic complications in African-American and European-American patients on warfarin. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008;83:312-21.
28.
Flockhart DA , O’Kane D., Williams MS, et al. Pharmacogenetic testing of CYP2C9 and VKORC1 alleles for warfarin. Genet Med.2008;10:139-50.
29.
Garcia DAWarfarin and pharmacogenomic testing: the case for restraint. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008;84:303-5.
30.
Hynicka LM, Cahoon WD Jr, Bukaveckas BLGenetic testing for warfarin therapy initiation. Ann Pharmacother . 2008;42: 1298-303.
Anderson JL , Horne BD, Stevens SM, et al. Randomized trial of genotype-guided versus standard warfarin dosing in patients initiating oral anticoagulation . Circulation. 2007;116:2563-70.
33.
Caraco Y., Blotnick S., Muszkat M.CYP2C9 genotype-guided warfarin prescribing enhances the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation: a prospective randomized controlled study. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008;83:460-70.
34.
Klein TE, Altman RB, Eriksson N., et al. Estimation of the warfarin dose with clinical and pharmacogenetic data. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:753-64.
35.
Clinicaltrials.gov.Clarification of Optimal Anticoagulation Through Genetics (COAG), NCT00839657. Report Number: NCT00839657, 2009. Available from: http://clinicaltrials.gov/NCT00839657
36.
Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.Section 1.3: Evidence for pharmacogenomic tests and drugs. In: The AMCP Format for Formulary Submissions. Version 2.1, April 2005. Available from: http://www.fmcpnet.org/index.cfm?pl=A0EE1897
37.
Kelly C.Medco warfarin, tamoxifen genomic testing finding traction among payers . The Pink Sheet. 2 December 2008. Available from: http://www.biopharmatoday.com/2008/12/medco-warfarin-tamoxifen-genomic-testing-finding-traction-among-payers.html
38.
Pharmacogenomic Testing for Warfarin Response (CAG-00400N). Available from: https://www.cms.hhs.gov/mcd/indexes.asp
39.
Grosse SDAssessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare: history of the USD 50,000 per QALY threshold. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008;8:165-78.
40.
Steinbrook R.Saying no isn’t NICE: the travails of Britain’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1977-81.
41.
Garrison LP Jr, Austin MJLinking pharmacogenetics-based diagnostics and drugs for personalized medicine. Health Aff ( Millwood). 2006;25:1281-90.
Fargher EA, Tricker K., Newman W., et al. Current use of pharmacogenetic testing: a national survey of thiopurinemethyltransferase testing prior to azathioprine prescription. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2007;32:187-95.
44.
Garrison LP Jr, Towse A., Bresnahan BWAssessing a structured, quantitative health outcomes approach to drug risk-benefit analysis. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007;26:684-95.
45.
Hutton J., Trueman P., Henshall C.Coverage with evidence development: an examination of conceptual and policy issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:425-32.
46.
Miller FG, Pearson SDCoverage with evidence development: ethical issues and policy implications . Med Care. 2008;46: 746-51.
47.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.Proposed Decision Memo for Pharmacogenomic Testing for Warfarin. Report Number: CAG-00400N, 2009. Available from: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/mcd
48.
American Cancer Society: Cancer facts and figures 2007, 2007 update. Available from: http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2007PWSecured.pdf
49.
DiMasi JA, Grabowski HGEconomics of new oncology drug development . J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:209-16.
50.
Adams CP, Brantner VVEstimating the cost of new drug development: is it really 802 million dollars ? Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25:420-8.
51.
Yabroff KR, Lamont EB, Mariotto A., et al. Cost of care for elderly cancer patients in the United States . J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:630-41.
52.
Herper M.Cancer’s cost crisis. Forbes 8 June 2004. Available from: www.forbes.com/technology/2004/06/08/cx_mh_0608costs.html
53.
National Cancer Institute.The Nation’s Investment in Cancer Research, Fiscal Year 2007, Fiscal Year 2008 and Fiscal Year 2009. Available from: http://plan.cancer.gov/
54.
Claxton KP, Posnett J.An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority setting . Health Econ. 1996;5: 513-34.
55.
Willan ARClinical decision making and the expected value of information. Clin Trials2007;4:279-85.
56.
Claxton KP, Sculpher MJUsing value of information analysis to prioritize health research: some lessons from recent UK experience. Pharmacoeconomics2006;24:1055-68.
57.
Walton SM, Schumock GT, Lee KV, Alexander GC, Meltzer D., Stafford RSPrioritizing future research on off-label prescribing: results of a quantitative evaluation. Pharmacotherapy. 2008;28: 1443-52.
58.
Basu A., Meltzer D.Value of information on preference heterogeneity and individualized care. Med Decis Making. 2007;27: 112-27.
59.
Henrikson NB , Burke W., Veenstra DLAncillary risk information and pharmacogenetic tests: social and policy implications . Pharmacogenomics J. 2008;8:85-9.
60.
Brandt R., Ali Z., Sabel A., McHugh T., Gilman P.Cancer genetics evaluation: barriers to and improvements for referral . Genet Test. 2008;12:9-12.
61.
Erwin C.Legal update: living with the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Genet Med. 2008;10:869-73.
62.
Huang ES, Shook M., Jin L., Chin MH, Meltzer DOThe impact of patient preferences on the cost-effectiveness of intensive glucose control in older patients with new-onset diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2006;29:259-64.
63.
Grosse SD, Wordsworth S., Payne K.Economic methods for valuing the outcomes of genetic testing: beyond cost-effectiveness analysis. Genet Med. 2008 ;10:648-54.
64.
Lee JT, Bridges JFP, Shockney L.Can pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research contribute to the empowerment of women affected by breast cancer? Exp Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2008;8:73-9.
65.
Grosse SD, McBride CM, Evans J., Khoury MJPersonal utility and genomic information: look before you leap. Genet Med. 2009 Jul 18. [Epub ahead of print].
66.
Rogowski W. , Grosse SD, Khoury MJChallenges of translating genetic tests into clinical and public health practice. Nat Rev Genet. 2009;10:489-95.
