Tuesday, December 20, 2011

2011 Comes to a close. What we know about Personalized Medicine

I wanted to write a wrap up of what we know in the last 4 years regarding personalized medicine

1. In regards to DTC Genetics, the FDA won't shut you down if you are google. But you will have to give your test away for free to build your database

2. In regards to Pharmacogenomic testing, most doctors won't use the service despite studies showing utility that have existed for 2 years.

3. In regards to GWAS predisposition testing, it is mostly useless. It doesn't scare or heal you.......most of the time

4. Classical Cancer Genetics, Cardiogenetics, GI Genetics and preconception genetics have growing concerns as I am seeing more and more of these over the last 2 years.

5. When Whole genome or exome testing come out, we will have a mess load of data. This is an opportunity if someone can create subtractive algorithms to the "normal" data. Which may help us out....IFF we have a true "Normal Genome"

6. The Sherpa has been slow in posting, but these points are facts now.

The Sherpa Says: 4 years, a lot of hype, lots of sideways climbing. Next year will show big moves, just like 2007/2008 and we'll still be here.


Truman said...

The future of personalized medicine will likely require a complete recalibration of our notion of PGx. A brilliant new article on the effect of KIF6 on vulnerability to LDL cholesterol in PLoS ONE suggests that instead of using SNPs to predict pharmacologic response to a particular medication, we should focus on using SNPs to predict expected clinical benefit of a treatment by predicting our vulnerability to LDL, BP and other modifiable risk factors for CVD.

Medicalgeneticsservices said...

How do you feel about companies that provide similar personalized genetics services but bundled into more traditional medical practice models, in more of a "full-service direct-to-consumer personalized genetic bundle" rather than simply the DTC testing (such as Existence Health/Existence Genetics)?

Steven Murphy MD said...

I think that if we can ascertain quality and peer collaboration, it is an excellent idea.