DTC Genetic Testing and the FDA: is there an end in sight to the regulatory uncertainty?
Editor’s Note: This was first published at Genomes Unzipped and was co-authored by Daniel MacArthur and Luke Jostins. Genomes Unzipped received 12 free kits from Lumigenix for review purposes, and Dan Vorhaus has provided legal advice to the company. Genomes Unzipped plans to release a full review of the Lumigenix service in early July.
Last month three direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing companies opened their mailboxes to find a slightly ominous but entirely expected letter from the FDA. The three recipients (Lumigenix, American International Biotechnology Services and Precision Quality DNA) received substantively equivalent letters, with the FDA warning each company that its genetic testing service “appears to meet the definition of a device as that term is defined in section 201(h) of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act,” and that the agency would like to meet with company representatives “to discuss whether the service [they] are promoting requires review by FDA and what information [they] would need to submit in order for [their] product to be legally marketed.”
Updating the DTC Debate: Trial by Press Release, More FDA Letters, the Problem of Pleiotropy and New RUO Guidance
Later today I will join several colleagues here in Chicago, IL at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting for a panel discussion on Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing for Cancer: What Physicians Need to Know (pdf). (Daniel MacArthur and Misha Angrist will not be on the panel, although each joined us in authoring the pre-conference paper.)
This will, I believe, mark direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing’s formal debut at ASCO. It should also serve as another reminder that, despite its relatively small numbers (both in terms of dollars and customers), DTC genetic testing continues to exert an outsized influence when it comes to conversations about the future of genomic medicine. This is particularly true when the discussion turns to appropriate policy and regulatory oversight.
In advance of ASCO, here are several items of interest from the past few weeks in DTC genetic testing.
Looking Ahead After the FDA’s DTC Meeting
Day one of the FDA’s two-day public meeting on the future of clinical DTC genetic testing is in the books. Those unable to attend in person were, unfortunately, forced to resort to Twitter coverage of the proceedings as the government declined to provide a live webcast. (I’m told there will not be a recorded webcast either. Perhaps the FDA is engaging in preventative cost-cutting.)
The first day was divided into three roughly equal parts: background presentations from the FDA and invited speakers, a second set of “public presentations” by companies and individuals who requested time to present their views and, finally, public deliberations by the Molecular and Clinical Genetics Panel (“MCGP”). Tomorrow will feature more public presentations, several more sessions of MCGP deliberations and, at the end of the meeting, recommendations from the MCGP to the FDA on the questions presented (pdf) by the FDA.
A Familiar Feeling to Day One. The first two sessions, which featured presentations to the MCGP, followed a fairly familiar script. Opponents of clinical DTC genetic testing worried that incorrect or misinterpreted tests could produce harmful outcomes, and questioned whether there was anything of value to be gained from the tests in the first place. Proponents argued that the DTC model empowered patients to explore their genetic selves without any ill effects. For those who attended or followed last summer’s two-day public meeting to discuss the FDA’s proposal to regulate laboratory developed tests (LDTs), much of the conversation echoed what was said on day two of that meeting during the direct-to-consumer (DTC) session.
Getting Our Act Together for the Second Decade of Human Genomics
[Editor's Note: This post originally appeared at Daniel MacArthur's blog Genetic Future, which is part of Wired Science Blogs.]
We have recently summarized efforts by two state legislatures to design regulatory schemes addressing issues raised by the proliferation of genetic information about individuals. New York’s effort addresses questions of insurance coverage for genetic testing. Massachusetts’ goes much further, calling itself a “Genetic Bill of Rights,”a title that accurately reflects its ambitions. In reviewing both of these proposals we have made the point that state-level legislation is no substitute for a coordinated and long-overdue federal-level approach.
But who will lead that coordinated federal effort? As we wrote recently, since the 2008 publication of a SACGHS report identifying major gaps in the regulation of genetic testing, that committee has been disbanded and no clear successor has emerged to champion these issues at the federal level. Last week, the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), which was originally created by the NIH to support the Human Genome Project, and is today tasked with advancing the understanding and application of human genomics, updated its long-term strategic plan for the first time since 2003 (pdf). Although a “critical part” of the NHGRI’s mission is the “study of the ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI) of genome research,” the Institute’s new roadmap barely touches upon ELSI issues, and dispenses with “legal and public policy issues” in a single sentence by noting the need for “collaborations.”
Personal Genomics Goes to Washington
Next week, the eyes of the personal genomics world will be focused on Washington, D.C., where the FDA and Congress will be meeting separately to consider the industry’s future. First, the FDA will convene a highly-anticipated public meeting (July 19th and 20th) to “discuss how the agency will oversee laboratory-developed tests (LDTs).” The FDA announced last month a proposal to develop a “risk-based” approach to oversight of all LDTs – a broad category that includes the vast majority of genetic tests, including high-complexity diagnostic tests (IVDMIAs) and direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests. Hot on the heels of the FDA meeting, on July 22nd, the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce – which two months ago launched its own investigation into the personal genomics industry – will hold a subcommittee hearing on “Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing and the Consequences to the Public Health.”1
While the genomics and personalized medicine communities anxiously await the upcoming FDA and Congressional meetings, yesterday the future of personal genomics was being debated on the opposite coast, at a policy forum in San Francisco entitled “Genomics and the Consumer: The Present and Future of Personalized Medicine” (pdf). The forum, which was hosted by California State Senator Alex Padilla (sponsor of S.B. 482, the so-called “bioinformatics bill”) and personal genomics company 23andMe, was filled with speculation from personal genomics investors, providers, customers and commentators about what the FDA and Congress might have in store for the field.
Consumer Genetics Needs More Transparency, Not Excessive Regulation
Editor’s Note: Daniel MacArthur, a researcher at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Cambridge, UK, and the author of Genetic Future, co-wrote this post, which originally appeared in Xconomy.
Are you ready for consumer genetics? Is your government?
Recent announcements of federal investigations into the budding direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing industry suggest that authorities are preparing to increase regulation of companies offering consumers access to their own genetic data. However, rather than rushing in to clamp down on the industry, regulators should slow down and focus, first, on understanding this complex field.
An increasing number of individuals are exploring their genetic information using tests purchased directly over the Internet. For between $100 and $1,000 consumers can purchase a saliva collection tube, spit in the tube, and mail it back to the company. A few weeks later the results are available online. One DTC genetics company, 23andMe, recently announced that it had provided its test to over 30,000 customers.
Genetic tests can provide the consumer with personalized information ranging from eye color, to ancestry, to risk of common diseases such as diabetes. Many companies include all of these traits and more in a single product examining hundreds of thousands of genetic markers. For the moment, these tests are available to anybody with a computer and a sense of curiosity. But that could all change.
Read the rest of this entry >>
What Five FDA Letters Mean for the Future of DTC Genetic Testing
The FDA has published online letters sent to five personal genomics companies – 23andMe, Navigenics, deCODE Genetics, Knome and Illumina – informing the companies that they are manufacturing and selling medical devices without appropriate FDA premarket review and approval. No surprise that the news that the FDA has sent out letters to some of the most well-known providers of DTC genetic testing products is already making waves. (Daniel MacArthur was the first to point me to the AP story, and Mary Carmichael of Newsweek and Andrew Pollack of The New York Times were among the first to dive into the substance of the letters.)
Below, we will discuss the immediate and long-term implications of the FDA’s most recent regulatory actions for the five companies receiving letters, as well as for the DTC genetic testing industry. First, however, a review of the letters themselves is required. Each of the five two-page letters is signed by Alberto Gutierrez, Director of the FDA’s Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation and Safety (OIVD), and follows a similar format throughout. To gauge the impact of these letters we will take them paragraph by paragraph.
Why 23andMe’s Sample Swap is Actually an Argument In Favor of DTC Genetic Testing
Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing company 23andMe made news this week thanks to a lab mix-up that left up to 96 customers reviewing genetic data that was not their own. Full details of the mix-up, and analysis of 23andMe’s response, are available from Daniel MacArthur at Genetic Future and Turna Ray at Pharmacogenomics Reporter.
23andMe’s sample swap follows close on the heels of the FDA announcing an investigation into Pathway Genomics and Congress launching an even broader investigation of the three leading DTC genetic testing providers. Not surprisingly, many commentators have pointed to 23andMe’s mix-up as just the latest example of the dangers of DTC genetic testing and further evidence of the need for greater federal regulatory scrutiny.
There are a number of reasons why DTC genetic testing may soon find itself subject to increased federal regulatory oversight. However, 23andMe’s widely publicized data error should not be one of those reasons. In fact, the sample swap, while unfortunately timed, actually presents a compelling argument in favor of the direct-to-consumer model for genetic testing.
Why the State of Personal Genomics is Not as Dire as You Think
Another Tale of the Struggle of Personal Genomics, Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying…What? After a while, the personal genomics news cycle can begin to feel predictable. Recently, and not for the first time, there have been rumblings that personal genomics pioneer 23andMe is struggling. The most recent “news” appears to be a December SEC filing disclosing a $4 million payment to an unidentified 23andMe executive. Gene Expression and BNET have taken the opportunity to recycle some of the company’s previous financial struggles, including co-founder Linda Avey’s departure and a well-publicized round of fall layoffs, and to speculate broadly about the state of morale at the company in addition to the well-being of the personal genomics industry more generally.
Avey herself, perhaps unintentionally, has fueled speculation that something may be afoot with a pair of recent posts (the original post has now been combined with an update) on her own blog. Avey has launched a preemptive strike against what appears to be an upcoming New York Times piece that will “question[] the viability” of the personal genomics industry and “hits too close to home” for Avey not to comment. (Or, as GenomeWeb headlines it, Linda Avey Versus the New York Times.)
Perhaps all of the smoke signifies a smoldering fire at 23andMe. Then again, it may represent nothing more than periodic reverberations from the social media echo chamber, where common memes are repackaged and recycled at regular intervals.
Is There an Obligation to Return Genetic Data to Research Participants? Kaiser Responds to 23andMe’s TEDMED Criticism
Earlier today, in the latest installment of the What ELSI is New? series, Daniel MacArthur asked a question that has cropped up repeatedly in recent weeks and months as part of the broader discourse surrounding genetic research and commerce: what rights should individuals have to gain access to their personal genetic or genomic data?
MacArthur’s position – that research participants should generally be provided with complete access to their own genetic data upon request – is one that continues to remain a minority position. It finds support in research initiatives such as the Personal Genome Project (PGP) and (to a lesser extent) the Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative (CPMC), but returning research results has generally been eschewed by other large-scale genetic research projects, including Kaiser Permanente’s recently announced Research Program on Genes, Environment, & Health (RPGEH).
Last month, the Genomics Law Report examined the RPGEH and its reluctance to return genetic data to a participant population that is expected to quickly grow to 100,000 or more Kaiser patients. RPGEH’s decision not to return data to its participants was under the microscope again last week at TEDMED 2009 when 23andMe co-founder Anne Wojcicki criticized Kaiser for planning to genotype RPGEH participants without offering them the ability to review their data.
Read the rest of this entry »
