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.
News Roundup: Biotech Funding and LDT Regulation
With so many developments at the intersection of genomics and the law, there is often a variety of interesting stories that, for one reason or another, don’t find their way into a full-length posting on the Genomics Law Report. In this post we recap several recent key developments and, at bottom, round up all of the recent tweets from @genomicslawyer.
Biotech Funding: No Bubble, New Models and the IPO Option. Despite speculation that a recent rise in venture capital investments is indicative of a bubble, to be followed soon by a plunge in available investment capital, venture capital investments in the life sciences are holding steady, both in total dollars and in the size of an average financing. Thus, says Bruce Booth, a partner at Atlas Venture and author of Life Sci VC, there appears to be no bubble to debate, at least not in the life sciences. Booth observes that overall funding is “down considerably from the recent highs in 2007 and 2008” and, while other industries may be experiencing fewer but larger financings, “the data doesn’t support a frothy market for LS venture financings these days.”
Weekly Roundup: FDA Regulations, Science Funding and Newborn Screening
With so many developments at the intersection of genomics and the law, there is often a variety of interesting stories that, for one reason or another, don’t find their way into a full-length posting on the Genomics Law Report. In this post we recap several recent key developments and, at bottom, round up all of the recent tweets from @genomicslawyer.
Continuing Uncertainty Over FDA’s 510(k) Overhaul. As we have discussed previously, in addition to overhauling the approval process for direct-to-consumer (DTC) and laboratory developed tests (LDTs), the FDA is also in the midst of a comprehensive review of its 510(k) clearance process for medical devices.
Update: FDA Taking Another (Public) Look at DTC Genetic Tests
Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests are back on the FDA’s public radar screen. A month from today, the agency’s Molecular and Clinical Genetics Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee will meet to “discuss and make recommendations on scientific issues concerning [DTC] genetic tests that make medical claims.” Here is the Federal Register notice (pdf).
The two-day meeting, which is open to the public, will investigate the following topics:
- The risks and benefits of making clinical genetic tests available for “direct access by a consumer without the involvement of a clinician (i.e., without a prescription).”
- The different types of DTC or direct access tests (e.g., carrier screening, risk prediction in healthy persons, pharmacogenetics, etc.) that might “support differences in the regulatory approach.”
- The “level and type of scientific evidence appropriate for supporting [DTC] claims, including whether it should be different than” what is required for similar clinical genetic tests (presumably, non-DTC in vitro tests, including laboratory developed tests, or LDTs).
A complete agenda and list of speakers has yet to be published, but the fact that the FDA is singling out DTC genetic tests for specific attention is sure to be a welcome sign to many.
A Thanksgiving Tradition: 23andMe Repackages Product, Raises Prices
Last November, just before Thanksgiving, 23andMe, the most popular provider of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing products, announced a new product and pricing model. The company took its most popular product—a $399 all-in-one genotyping service—and split it into two separate products, an “Ancestry Edition” and a “Health Edition.” It also raised prices, with the complete package jumping from $399 to $499.
This November, just before Thanskgiving, 23andMe announced it was undoing most of last November’s changes, eliminating the separate ancestry and health editions and offering, once again, a single product. Not reversed: the price increase.
A Rationale for Raising Prices. The combined product remains priced at $499, although it now requires a 1 year subscription to 23andMe’s (previously optional) Personal Genome Service (PGS). The PGS, which debuted in September, provides customers with access to regular scientific updates and product features for $5 per month. The changes make the effective list price for 23andMe’s service $559, although the company has run frequent $99 sales, and there are rumors that another one is imminent.
Germany Struggles to Find Balance in Promoting, Regulating Genetic Technologies
Last fall we reported on the passage of the Human Genetic Examination Act by the German Bundestag. We characterized the Gendiagnostikgesetz (GenDG), as the act is known in Germany, as “a clear example of what is known as ‘genetic exceptionalism’—the belief that genetic information is qualitatively different from other forms of personal or medical information—staking out a position near the paternalistic end of genetic regulation.”
The GenDG (pdf) took effect early this year and, until recently, little news of its impact on German law, policy or business has made its way across the Atlantic. Last week, however, several prestigious German scientific academies released a report entitled “Predictive Genetic Diagnostics as an Instrument of Disease Prevention.” The “Academy Group,” as the report’s authors refer to themselves, consists of the Leopoldina, the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities and the German Academy of Science and Engineering Acatech. Astoundingly, according to a recent editorial in the journal Nature, the report is the first from the group in its 350 year existence.
Twitter Roundup: Personalized Medicine Conference Edition
With so many developments at the intersection of genomics and the law, there are often a variety of interesting stories that, for one reason or another, don’t find their way into a full-length posting on the Genomics Law Report. In addition to the regular @genomicslawyer Twitter recap, this week I was also tweeting from the 6th annual Partners Healthcare conference on Personalized Medicine. So this version of the Twitter Roundup comes in two sections: tweets from the Partners conference, as well as a brief recap, followed by the regular Twitter roundup.
Part I: Personalized Medicine Conference. Much like last year’s conference, which I also attended and tweeted, the dominant theme voiced by both speakers and attendees was the need to overhaul the personalized medicine reimbursement model. From increasing up-front R&D costs to slowing patient and participant uptake, both of which depress investor interest, almost everybody agreed that reimbursement for personalized medicine products – and advanced diagnostics in particular – needs work.
A Do-It-Yourself Genomic Challenge to Myriad, the FDA and the Future of Genetic Tests
Over the weekend, Steven L. Salzberg and Mihaela Pertea published a short but significant article in the journal Genome Biology. In “Do-it-yourself genetic testing,” Salzberg and Pertea describe the creation of “a computational screen that tests an individual’s genome for mutations in the BRCA genes, despite the fact that both are currently protected by patents.”
The software-based test can be downloaded from the website of the University of Maryland’s Center for Bioinformatics & Computational Biology, where Salzberg is the director and Pertea is on the faculty. The test purports to test genomic sequence data against a set of known mutations in the BRCA genes. In addition to representing a conceptual alternative for those seeking to evaluate their risk of hereditary breast cancer, the so-called “Salzberg Screen” is also a direct challenge to Myriad Genetics, the FDA and the existing legal, regulatory and policy regimes that continue to struggle to keep pace with the science and technology of genomics and personalized medicine.
Below, we examine how the Salzberg Screen fits—or does not—within the current legal and regulatory landscape, as well as what it signals for the future of do-it-yourself genomics, whole-genome sequencing and the law.
The Business Effects of Regulatory Uncertainty in Genetic Testing
The business of genetic testing has progressed rapidly, if unevenly, over the past several years. Like any business based on new and rapidly developing science, the promise of new products and markets is counter-balanced by the obstacles of developing commercial products from raw science, fostering markets for those products, constructing profitable business models and overcoming novel legal and regulatory hurdles.
The Regulatory Environment Turns Negative. Until May 2010, the regulatory challenges in the genetic testing world seemed relatively benign, with most attention focused on patent and related IP issues (e.g. the Myriad gene patent litigation) and a challenging economic climate which made commercial operations and capital raising difficult for most businesses.
The Cost of Regulating LDTs
Jeffrey N. Gibbs is a director at the law firm of Hyman, Phelps & McNamara and specializes in FDA-related matters.
For many years, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has taken the position that while it has the authority to regulate laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) as devices, the agency would exercise its enforcement discretion and not do so. More recently, FDA has taken a series of steps that backtrack from that approach, and indicated that it intends to regulate at least some LDTs as devices. Whether FDA has the legal authority to regulate LDTs or whether the agency can do so without going through notice-and-comment rulemaking will be hotly debated. The issue of whether FDA regulation is necessary or beneficial will also trigger sharply differing views. What is not debatable is that the regulation of LDTs as devices under the existing device regulatory regime, should it occur, would have a significant effect on the laboratories offering the tests that are regulated as devices, and will increase the regulatory costs for assays.
