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.
The New York Times vs. Personal Genomics: Much Ado About Not Very Much
Earlier this month, there was speculation that The New York Times was preparing a piece “attacking” the “fledgling industry” of personal genomics (see: Linda Avey Versus the New York Times). The article in question, by reporter Andrew Pollack, was published over the weekend and, in retrospect, it’s hard to see what all the hubbub was about.
The title (Consumers Slow to Embrace the Age of Genomics) fairly reflects the tone of the rest of the article, which is a factual assessment of the business of personal genomics. In his piece, Pollack brings forth a standard set of issues confronting 23andMe and its peers (including Navigenics, deCODEme and Pathway Genomics). All are familiar, and most drive at a central challenge for these companies: demonstrating the value of their services and identifying customers willing to pay for them. (In a short, separate article that appears alongside, Pollack raises (but does not attempt to resolve) a much more controversial issue: whether personal genomics products represent medical tests or recreational services.) By and large, Pollack points out these challenges to the business of personal genomics without passing judgment.
The Importance of Balance in Evaluating DTC Genomics
Earlier this week the New York Times published a generally alarmist and one-sided piece (“Buyer Beware of Home DNA Tests”) advising consumers to steer clear of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing and genomic services providers. The Times piece advises consumers to opt instead for a certified medical geneticist or genetic counselor even as it acknowledges, in the next paragraph, “a relative shortage of genetic counselors to clarify the significance of test results, and the fact that most practicing physicians lack the knowledge and training in genetics to interpret them properly.”
There’s no need for me to dissect and evaluate the arguments against DTC genomics made in the article. That task has been ably carried out by Daniel MacArthur, Blaine Bettinger and Jens McCabe. And it’s worth mentioning that the Times’ DTC genomics coverage has been relatively rich and varied (see, e.g., the now infamous “spit party” coverage, 23andMe co-founder Anne Wojicki’s Q&A on the Freakonomics blog or Steven Pinker’s excellent piece in the Times magazine, “My Genome, My Self”).
I do want to weigh in, however, on the potential consequence of the paternalistic medical establishment viewpoint that is advanced in the Times article, which paints DTC genomics as an industry lacking in analytic validity, clinical validity, clinical utility and (in what was a new concept for me) “ethical validity.” In failing to acknowledge any of the benefits provided by DTC genomics (which MacArthur, Bettinger and McCabe all highlight), the Times article invites readers (including legislators) to plausibly conclude that a legitimate solution might be simplyto restrict the business of genomic interpretation to traditional medical professionals. This is, in fact, exactly what Germany is proposing to do on a national level, but this type of genetic paternalism—largely a byproduct of a genetic exceptionalism perspective—is an extreme position, with most legislators taking a more measured approach, at least to date.
Crowd-Sourcing vs. Open-Sourcing in Consumer Genomics
The New York Times yesterday described the emerging phenomenon of utilizing patient and online communities to jumpstart scientific research. In a previous post (Genomic Research Goes DTC) I discussed this trend, as well as a number of the legal uncertainties surrounding this new research model, particularly in the case of genomic research conducted by private companies.
That uncertainty is well covered in the Times article, thanks to Bob Cook-Deegan, Director of Duke University’s IGSP Center for Genome Ethics, Law & Policy, who strikes the proper balance in assessing the exciting but untested model of patient-driven research:
“I’m very suspicious of a company that has tons of private data getting too cozy with the drug or biotech industry,” he said. “But I don’t want to say it’s not going to work, because I can see all kinds of value that could come out of this.”
Where I found the article lacking, however, was in its description and presentation of the patient-driven genomic research model. As the Times describes it:
Supporters of this model—sometimes called crowd-sourcing or open-source research—call it democratization of research and say they are pioneering new models that put patients in control of their data and build bridges between researchers, patients and their doctors. (emphasis added)
It all sounds innovative and patient-friendly, but are “crowd-sourcing” and “open-sourcing” really interchangeable concepts? No, and conflating the two terms obscures one of the key features distinguishing patient-driven research from traditional modes of research.
Read the rest of this entry »
