Personalized diagnostics: The struggle for position

Personalized Medicine

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 263-273

  Quinn, Bruce ^a  

^a Foley Hoag LLP   (United States)

Author keywords

Biomarkers; Business model; Drug development; Drug test codevelopment; Payer

Indexed keywords

RNA;

CLINICAL PATHWAY; COST CONTROL; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH INSURANCE; LABORATORY TEST; MEDICARE; PERSONALIZED DIAGNOSTIC; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; RNA EXTRACTION; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE;

EID: 77951854309     PISSN: 17410541     EISSN: 1744828X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2217/pme.10.19     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Burken MI, Wilson KS, Heller K, Pratt VM, Schoonmaker MM, Seifter E: The interface of medicare coverage decisionmaking and emerging molecular-based laboratory testing. Genet. Med. 11 (4), 225-231 (2009).
2. Mckinnon RA, Ward MB, Sorich MJ: A critical analysis of barriers to the clinical implementation of pharmacogenomics. Ther. Clin. Risk Manag. 3 (5), 751-759 (2007). (Pubitemid 350162075)
3. Goodman M: Pharmaceutical industry financial performance. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 8 (12), 927-928 (2009).
4. Chackalamannil S, Desai MC: Personalized medicine: a paradigm for a sustainable pharmaceutical industry? Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Devel. 12 (4), 443-445 (2009).
5. Gold ER, Carbone J: Myriad Genetics: in the eye of the policy storm. Genet. Med. 12 (4), S39-S70 (2010).
6. Striking discussion of how different countries have developed diverse policy approaches to genetic patents.
7. Deverka PA: Pharmacogenomics, evidence, and the role of payers. Public Health Genomics 12 (3), 149-157 (2009).
8. Djulbegovic B: The paradox of equipoise: the principle that drives and limits discoveries in clinical research. Cancer Control 16 (4), 342-347 (2009).
9. Expands on this article's discussion of clinical equipoise and contains an excellent bibliography.
10. Kornai J: Overcentralization in Economic Administration (2nd Edition). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (1994).
11. Grossman J, MacKenzie FJ: The randomized controlled trial: gold standard, or merely standard? Perspect. Biol. Med. 48 (4), 516-534 (2005). (Pubitemid 41464107)
12. Kristiansen IS, Mooney G: Evidence-Based Medicine in Its Place. Routledge, London, UK (2004).
13. Best comprehensive book on the potential pitfalls that are found among the advantages of the evidence-based medicine approach.
14. Ho PM, Peterson PN, Masoudi FA: Evaluating the evidence: is there a rigid hierarchy? Circulation 118 (16), 1675-1684 (2008).
15. Good presentation of reasons why the evidence hierarchy should not be taken as an automatic good.
16. Siena S, Sartore-Bianchi A, Di Nicolantonio F, Balfour J, Bardelli A: Biomarkers predicting clinical outcome of epidermal growth factor receptor-targeted therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 101 (19), 1308-1324 (2009).
17. 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. 9 (10), 665-674 (2007). (Pubitemid 350287151)
18. Luce BR, Kramer JM, Goodman SN et al.: Rethinking randomized clinical trials for comparative effectiveness research: the need for transformational change. Ann. Intern. Med. 151 (3), 206-209 (2009).
19. Garber AM, Tunis SR: Does comparativeeffectiveness research threaten personalized medicine? N. Engl. J. Med. 360 (19), 1925-1927 (2009).
20. Rawlins M: De testimonio: on the evidence for decisions about the use of therapeutic interventions. Lancet 372 (9656), 2152-2161 (2008).
21. Outstanding article discussing the gaps between evidence review and the ultimate decisions of payment agencies.
22. Mercer SL, Devinney BJ, Fine LJ, Green LW, Dougherty D: Study designs for effectiveness and translation research: identifying trade-offs. Am. J. Prev. Med. 33 (2), 139-154 (2007). (Pubitemid 47161054)
23. Example of the increasingly academic and intellectually rigorous approach to extrapolating from clinical trials to clinical practice. This will be increasingly important when the evidence is from retrospective genomic trials.
24. Dekkers OM, von Elm E, Algra A, Romijn JA, Vandenbroucke JP: How to assess the external validity of therapeutic trials: a conceptual approach. Int. J. Epidemiol. 39 (1), 89-94 (2010).
25. Example of the increasingly academic and intellectually rigorous approach to extrapolating from clinical trials to clinical practice. This will be increasingly important when the evidence is from retrospective genomic trials.
26. Rothwell PM: Factors that can affect the external validity of randomised controlled trials. PLoS Clin. Trials 1 (1), E9 (2006).
27. Example of the increasingly academic and intellectually rigorous approach to extrapolating from clinical trials to clinical practice. This will be increasingly important when the evidence is from retrospective genomic trials.
28. Anderson GL, Mcintosh M, Wu L et al.: Assessing lead time of selected ovarian cancer biomarkers: a nested case-control study. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 102 (1), 26-38 (2010).
29. Simon RM, Paik S, Hayes DF: Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 101 (21), 1446-1452 (2009).
30. Riegelman RK: Studying a Study and Testing a Test (5th Edition). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, PA, USA (2005).
31. Excellent textbook on evaluating the medical literature, and distinctive in its segregation of therapeutic trials from diagnostic test trials.