Tuesday, March 25, 2008

500 Hospitals want to know....

Lots of stuff happening online today. I just left a conference call where I was the invited guest panelist along with Robert Resta CGC. The Advisory Board Company and The Innovations Center presented an Issue Brief entitled-The Genetic Testing Frontier: Impact on Clinical Care, Market Opportunities. Hundreds of hospitals were online wondering how they too can get a piece of the action.....

Also....did anyone read the Washington Post today? Genetic Testing Gets Personal again another article on this "revolution" non subscription link here

"We call it consumer-enabled research," said Linda Avey, co-founder of 23andMe, based in Mountain View, Calif. "It's about changing the paradigm of how research is done."

Well Said.......You could also call it uninformed cohort analysis...."Free Kits?" Come-On....nothing is free. Davos, you sold your DNA for some fancy flash animation and trinkets....I am guessing the Belmont Report is not required reading in MBA schools...Hey guys don't worry, here are the Cliff Notes
The Belmont Report explains the unifying ethical principles that form the basis for the National Commission’s topic-specific reports and the regulations that incorporate its recommendations.

The three fundamental ethical principles for using any human subjects for research are:

(1) respect for persons: protecting the autonomy of all people and treating them with courtesy and respect and allowing for informed consent;

(2) beneficence: maximizing benefits for the research project while minimizing risks to the research subjects; and

(3) justice: ensuring reasonable, non-exploitative, and well-considered procedures are administered fairly (the fair distribution of costs and benefits.)

These principles remain the basis for the HHS human subject protection regulations.

Paradigm of how research is done???? Isn't that why we developed IRBs? To protect from those who want to change the paradigm and injure the patients? IMHO these companies need to immediately develop research protocols and IRBs. End of story....nothing less. The consumer should be allowed to at least ask questions to another person.

It can be entertaining, Venter said, to learn one has a gene for soggy earwax. "But if you're on the receiving end of one of these tests and are told your probability of having a serious problem is 62 percent, what the hell does that mean?"

And that is assuming the results are correct. As it turns out, many gene tests today search for DNA patterns that have been linked to a disease or trait in only one or two studies. Such findings are often overturned by later research.

Enter the trained professional.....This is precisely why we need more Sherpas!!!

Dr Venter is completely correct....the brick and mortar where professionals exist is the transition point. Even 500 hospitals online today acknowledged that. Now where do we get these individuals?

Exacerbating the problem is that virtually no one is watching over the industry. The Food and Drug Administration does not regulate most gene-based tests, and there is no federal proficiency-testing system for companies offering them.

Enter the SACGHS and EGAPP...2 organizations devoted to helping best practices....In addition, the ICOB at the Delaware Valley Personalize Medicine Project will also help shape this future.

"It creates an air of charlatanism that doesn't help the field," Venter said.
All told, concluded a study in this month's issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics, "There is insufficient scientific evidence to conclude that genomic profiles are useful in measuring genetic risk for common diseases or in developing personalized diet and lifestyle recommendations for disease prevention."

That is my number one concern. Here's why...geneticists and genetic counselors require referrals from physicians who don't speak genetics, but watch the national news and read the New York Times...If they link Medical Geneticists with Scientific Match.....There Ain't no way in hell any self-respecting, butt-covering, good physician will refer patients to such "Qwacks" simply due because of the confusion. All press is good press? Don't think so...especially when the NEJM posts such a confusing article failing to clarify the difference.

"I very much worry that all this emphasis on a 'gene for this' and 'gene for that' raises the risk that people will conclude that that's the whole story," Collins said. Instead of empowering people to make healthful changes in their lives, that could simply make them "more fatalistic," he said, "in which case, what's the point?"

Me too Francis...Me Too....

The Sherpa Says:

To climb the mountain we need unreasonable people that won't quit....Corporate and Academic can exist together...provided they do the right thing. Do it yourself surgery is probably just as "Revolutionary" so why isn't anyone on that money train? BTW the pic is of do it yourself LASIK.....I bet that is a best seller.

No comments: