The intersection of biotechnology and pharmacogenomics: health policy implications

Stakeholders' views on the value of outcomes from clinical genetic and genomic interventions

PURPOSE

Robust evidence about the value of clinical genomic interventions (CGIs), such as genetic/genomic testing or clinical genetic evaluation, is limited. We obtained stakeholders' perspectives on outcomes from CGIs to help inform their value.

METHODS

We used an adapted Delphi expert panel process. Two anonymous survey rounds assessed the value of 44 CGI outcomes and whether a third party should pay for them, with discussion in between rounds.

RESULTS

Sixty-six panelists responded to the first-round survey and 60 to the second. Policy-makers/payers gave the lowest ratings for value and researchers gave the highest. Patients/consumers had the most uncertainty about value and payment by a third party. Uncertainty about value was observed when evidence of proven health benefit was lacking, potential harms outweighed benefits for reproductive outcomes, and outcomes had only personal utility for individuals or family members. Agreement about outcomes for which a third party should not pay included prevention through surgery with unproven health benefits, establishing ancestry, parental consanguinity, and paternity.

CONCLUSION

Research is needed to understand factors contributing to uncertainty and stakeholder differences about the value of CGI outcomes. Reaching consensus will accelerate the creation of metrics to generate the evidence needed to inform value and guide policies that promote availability, uptake, and coverage of CGIs.

Review of core-multishell nanostructured models for nano-biomedical and nano-biopharmaceutical application

The main advantage of a theoretical approach is essential knowledge of the mechanisms that allow us to comprehend the experimental conditions that we have to fulfill to be able to get the desired results. Based on our research in ultrathin crystal structures performed so far, superlattices, Q-wires and Q-dots, we will consider the materials that can act as carriers for medicines and tagged substances. For this purpose we established a shell-model of ultrathin crystals and investigated their fundamental characteristics. This could be considered as a form of nano-engineering. In this paper we will analyze application of nanomaterials in biomedicine, that is to say we will present the recent accomplishments in basic and clinical nanomedicine. Achieving full potential of nanomedicine may be years or even decades away, however, potential advances in drug delivery, diagnosis, and development of nanotechnology-related drugs start to change the landscape of medicine. Site-specific targeted drug delivery (made possible by the availability of unique delivery platforms, such as dendrimers, nanoparticles and nanoliposomes) and personalized medicines (result of the advance in pharmacogenetics) are just a few concepts on the horizon of research. In this paper, especially, we have analyzed the changes in basic physical properties of spherical-shaped nanoparticles that can be made in several (nano)layers and have, at the same time, multiple applications in medicine. This paper presents a review of our current achievement in the field of theoretical physics of ultrathin films and possible ways to materialize the same in the field of nanopharmacy.

R&D in Vaccines Targeting Neglected Diseases: An Exploratory Case Study Considering Funding for Preventive Tuberculosis Vaccine Development from 2007 to 2014

Based on an exploratory case study regarding the types of institutions funding the research and development to obtain new tuberculosis vaccines, this article intends to provoke discussion regarding the provision of new vaccines targeting neglected disease. Although our findings and discussion are mainly relevant to the case presented here, some aspects are more generally applicable, especially regarding the dynamics of development in vaccines to prevent neglected diseases. Taking into account the dynamics of innovation currently seen at work in the vaccine sector, a highly concentrated market dominated by few multinational pharmaceutical companies, we feel that global PDP models can play an important role throughout the vaccine development cycle. In addition, the authors call attention to issues surrounding the coordination of actors and resources in the research, development, manufacturing, and distribution processes of vaccine products arising from PDP involvement.

Incorporating Pharmacogenomics into Practice

The goal for this issue of the Journal of Pharmacy Practice is to provide an overview of pharmacogenomics and highlight research done in select therapeutic areas such as oncology, psychiatry, cardiology, and HIV, although pharmacogenomics is taking center stage in other therapeutic areas as well. At the root of all pharmacogenomic investigations is pharmacy, which is why it is so important for pharmacists to gain an understanding of this field and clinical applications of this science, particularly as it relates to their practice and their patients. Pharmacists are experts in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and they therefore represent ideal health care professionals for incorporating pharmacogenomics into therapeutic drug monitoring. We are currently in a critical period of time in which pharmacists need to become engaged in the decision-making process regarding how best to implement pharmacogenomics into clinical practice. As part of this chapter, we will outline the role of the Human Genome Project and the Food and Drug Administration, both of which are instrumental to the advancement of pharmacogenomics. Lastly, we will be summarizing some of the barriers we still face regarding clinical applicability of this science and the potential role of genetic counselors in the incorporation of this science into clinical practice.

Multilevel factors affecting quality: examples from the cancer care continuum

The complex environmental context must be considered as we move forward to improve cancer care and, ultimately, patient and population outcomes. The cancer care continuum represents several care types, each of which includes multiple technical and communication steps and interfaces among patients, providers, and organizations. We use two case scenarios to 1) illustrate the variability, diversity, and interaction of factors from multiple levels that affect care quality and 2) discuss research implications and provide hypothetical examples of multilevel interventions. Each scenario includes a targeted literature review to illustrate contextual influences upon care and sets the stage for theory-informed interventions. The screening case highlights access issues in older women, and the survivorship case illustrates the multiple transition challenges faced by patients, families, and organizations. Example interventions show the potential gains of implementing intervention strategies that work synergistically at multiple levels. While research examining multilevel intervention is a priority, it presents numerous study design, measurement, and analytic challenges.

Overcoming regulatory and economic challenges facing pharmacogenomics

The number of personalized medicines and companion diagnostics in use in the United States has gradually increased over the past decade, from a handful of medicines and tests in 2001 to several dozen in 2011. However, the numbers have not reached the potential hoped for when the human genome project was completed in 2001. Significant clinical, regulatory, and economic barriers exist and persist. From a regulatory perspective, therapeutics and companion diagnostics are ideally developed simultaneously, with the clinical significance of the diagnostic established using data from the clinical development program of the corresponding therapeutic. Nevertheless, this is not (yet) happening. Most personalized medicines are personalized post hoc, that is, a companion diagnostic is developed separately and approved after the therapeutic. This is due in part to a separate and more complex regulatory process for diagnostics coupled with a lack of clear regulatory guidance. More importantly, payers have placed restrictions on reimbursement of personalized medicines and their companion diagnostics, given the lack of evidence on the clinical utility of many tests. To achieve increased clinical adoption of diagnostics and targeted therapies through more favorable reimbursement and incorporation in clinical practice guidelines, regulators will need to provide unambiguous guidance and manufacturers will need to bring more and better clinical evidence to the market place.

Clinical and economic challenges facing pharmacogenomics

In this paper, we examine the clinical and economic challenges that face developers of and payers for personalized drugs and companion diagnostics. We review and summarize clinical, regulatory and reimbursement issues with respect to eight, high profile personalized medicines and their companion diagnostics. Subsequently, we determine Medicare parts B and D reimbursement of the eight drugs from publicly available databases. Finally, we utilize surveys-each tailored to three key stakeholders; payers, drug and diagnostic developers, and pharmacogenomic expert analysts-to assess reimbursement of diagnostics, analyze the role that different kinds of evidence have in informing prescribing and reimbursement decisions, as well as the specific clinical, regulatory and economic challenges that confront pharmacogenomics as it moves forward. We found that Medicare beneficiary access to physician-administered (Medicare part B) drugs is relatively unfettered, with a fixed patient co-insurance percentage of 20%. More reimbursement restrictions are placed on self-administered (Medicare part D) drugs, which translates into higher and more variable cost sharing, more use of prior authorization and quantity limits. There is a lack of comprehensive reimbursement of companion diagnostics, even in cases in which the diagnostic is on the label and recommended or required by the Food and Drug Administration. Lack of evidence linking diagnostic tests to health outcomes has caused payers to be skeptical about the clinical usefulness of tests. Expert analysts foresee moderate growth in post-hoc development of companion diagnostics to personalize already approved drugs, and limited growth in the concurrent co-development of companion diagnostics and personalized medicines. Lack of clinically useful diagnostics as well as an evidence gap in terms of knowledge of drug and diagnostic clinical effectiveness appear to be hindering growth in personalized medicine. An increase in comparative effectiveness research may help to close the evidence gap.

Pharmacogenomics, evidence, and the role of payers

Initial enthusiasm for the potential of pharmacogenomics (PGx) to transform medical practice has been tempered by the reality that the process of biomarker discovery, validation, and clinical qualification has been disappointingly slow, with a limited number of PGx tests entering the marketplace since the initial publication of the human genome sequence. Reasons for the delays include the complexity of the underlying science as well as clinical, economic, and organizational barriers to the effective delivery of personalized health care. Nevertheless, payers are interested in using PGx services to ensure that drug use is safer and more effective, particularly in the settings of medications that are widely used, have significant risks of serious adverse events, have poor or highly variable drug response, or are very expensive. However, public and private payers have specific evidence requirements for new health care technologies that must be met prior to obtaining favorable coverage and reimbursement status. These evaluation criteria are frequently more rigorous than the current level of evidence required for regulatory approval of new PGx tests or PGx-related drug labeling. To support payer decision-making, researchers will need to measure the impact of PGx testing on clinical and economic outcomes and demonstrate the net benefit of PGx testing as compared to usual care. By linking payer information needs with the current PGx research agenda, there is the opportunity to develop the data required for informed decision-making. This strategy will increase the likelihood that PGx services will be both reimbursed and used appropriately in clinical practice.

Financial risk of the biotech industry versus the pharmaceutical industry

The biotech industry now accounts for a substantial and growing proportion of total R&D spending on new medicines. However, compared with the pharmaceutical industry, the biotech industry is financially fragile. This article illustrates the financial fragility of the biotech and pharmaceutical industries in the US and the implications of this fragility for the effects that government regulation could have on biotech firms. Graphical analysis and statistical tests were used to show how the biotech industry differs from the pharmaceutical industry. The two industries' characteristics were measured and compared, along with various measures of firms' financial risk and sensitivity to government regulation. Data from firms' financial statements provided accounting-based measures and firms' stock returns applied to a multifactor asset pricing model provided financial market measures. The biotech industry was by far the most research-intensive industry in the US, averaging 38% R&D intensity (ratio of R&D spending to total firm assets) over the past 25 years, compared with an average of 25% for the pharmaceutical industry and 3% for all other industries. Biotech firms exhibited lower and more volatile profits and higher market-related and size-related risk, and they suffered more negative stock returns in response to threatened government price regulation. Biotech firms' financial risks increase their costs of capital and make them more sensitive to government regulations that affect their financial prospects. As biotech products grow to represent a larger share of new medicines, general stock market conditions and government regulations could have a greater impact on the level of innovation of new medicines.

Innovation and motivation in public health professionals

OBJECTIVES

Innovations in public health services promote increases in the health status of the population. Therefore, it is a major concern for health policy makers to understand the drivers of innovation processes. This paper focuses on the differences in behaviour of managers and front-line employees in the pro-innovative provision of public health services.

METHODS

We utilize a survey conducted on front-line employees and managers in public health institutions across six European countries. The survey covers topics related to satisfaction, or attitude towards innovation or their institution. We undertake principal components analysis and analysis of variance, and estimate a multinomial ordered probit model to analyse the existence of different behaviour in managers and front-line employees with respect to innovation.

RESULTS

Perception of innovation is different for managers and front-line employees in public health institutions. While front-line employees' attitude depends mostly on the overall performance of the institution, managers feel more involved and motivated, and their behaviour depends more on individual and organisational innovative profiles.

CONCLUSION

It becomes crucial to make both managers and front-line employees at public health institutions feel participative and motivated in order to maximise the benefits of technical or organisational innovative process in the health services provision.

The power and limitations of pharmacogenetic epidemiology

Ovid and many physicians in the thousands of years since have been stymied by the large interindividual variability in drug response and toxicity. That all patients do not reap the same benefits from the same drugs is well established. In the case of statins, estimates of effectiveness range from 30 to 70% of users (Spear et al., 2001). Disentangling why this occurs is complex, and two new disciplines are likely to make headway in furthering our understanding of these phenomena.