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.”
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.
The Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act Returns to Congress
Meggan Bushee is a student at the Wake Forest University School of Law.
This past May, Congressman Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) and Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D-CA) re-introduced a personalized medicine bill to the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill was originally introduced in 2006 by then-Senator from Illinois Barack Obama. While HR 5440, also known as the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2010 (GPMA 2010), has retained the name of the bill originally introduced by Senator Obama, its approach to the regulation of personalized medicine has taken a new direction.
GPMA 2010 is the fourth version of the GPMA since the original bill of 2006, and includes the most ambitious initiatives of all of its predecessors. Why has the GPMA re-surfaced after three prior versions failed to make it out of committee? According to Representative Kennedy, the bill has been re-introduced in response to increased public awareness and use of genomic tests. At present, GPMA 2010 is before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. This is the same committee that recently conducted high-profile hearings to review the current state of the direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing registry.
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.
Follow-on Biologics: How Much Incentive Do We Need?
After almost a full year of debate, a pathway for approving “follow-on biologics” or “biosimilars” continues to be a hot topic in Congress. We are all familiar with generic versions of brand-name drugs, and the federal regulatory scheme sets out well-defined shortcut procedures for approval of generics. Congress is now grappling with designing procedures for approval of generic versions of biological drugs. Although follow-on biologics are in some ways similar to generic drugs, the differences are crucial, and in fact the regulatory scheme for generic drugs does not work at all for biologics. Congress has its work cut out for it.
Biologics 101. In short, here is the problem: typical pharmaceutical drugs (“small molecule drugs”) are chemically synthesized, and once the brand-name manufacturer’s exclusive patent rights expire, generic manufacturers are free to obtain approvals under abbreviated procedures, Generic manufacturers are generally not required to submit preclinical (animal) and clinical (human) data along with these Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs), thereby avoiding the huge expenses associated with developing new pharmaceuticals. But this route is only open to the generic manufacturer if it can prove that the generic version of the drug contains an identical replica of the drug’s active ingredient. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may approve a generic version of a drug if the generic contains the same active ingredient as the original, shows bioequivalence to the original, and is demonstrated to be manufactured according to appropriate practices. Once these are shown, the generic is allowed to piggyback on the designation of the original drug as safe and effective.
