Answer to GenomicsLawyer's Question. What the FDA will do with DTCG.

Dan Vorhaus JD on his blog says "The path of least resistance may be to simply agree with the FDA....The viability will depend on how the FDA intends to categorize the specific product...."

I agree, these companies have big choices to make. If it is any indication, Counsyl (full of smart people) and now, Pathway Genomics (full of smart people) have both decided to go the route of Medical test.

Perhaps it is because they think the burden will cost less to investors than fighting the "Man"

Well, in guessing what the FDA will do, it is always best to see what they have done to a "similar" product. In this case, they have a great product that is very similar. That would be the FDA's approval of AmpliChip.

A friend of mine in Canada argues about the holes in this platform, but unfortunately it is the only FDA approved platform.

You can read the letter for the FDA approval here

This was cleared in 2005! I wonder if the DTCG companies ever looked at AmpliChip as a model before?

In the letter it is clear, microarray technology used for drug metabolism prediction is considered a Class II medical device. The letter indicated that this applied not only to AmpliChip, but also to similar devices.

It also does not waive premarket submission.

Both of these are very important points in how the DTCG groups evaluate their future business models and potential market.

The Sherpa Says: Why Conjecture? Just look at what the FDA decided for AmpliChip. It will be a similar template.

I am glad we can all put this behind us. FDA rules on DTCG.

As you now may be aware. DTCG is considered a medical diagnostic according to the FDA. I look forward working with companies who may now allow me to use their tests for medicine.

The Sherpa Says: If we work together, we can deliver the best preventative and personalized care in the world!

Cellulite On Your Bod? Blame your genes! Or market 'em!

Could I go on a huge rant about 23andMes mess up and how it was discovered by a customer rather than LabCorp or 23andMe?

Yes. Would it be useful?

No.

Why?

I need to save my rants, and any doctor will tell you, labs screw up all the time.
It is something we are used to thinking.

So much so, that a knee jerk answer for a lot of doctors is to repeat a test if the results are so far out there.......

So, my rant today will be directly placed at the rocket scientists who dreamed up CelluliteDX

"The CelluliteDX Genetic Test is only available for sale through participating physicians' offices. If you would like to learn more about the CelluliteDX Genetic Test and receive a Welcome Package to establish your office as a CelluliteDX Genetic Test provider, please contact us Monday through Friday between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Pacific Standard Time or e-mail anytime"

Ok, this is the problem that the DTCG community has and I do too.

Doctors may be using crappy tests as a marketing ploy to drive patients through the door. Well, some DTCG does market crappy tests to drive customers through their portal too. But this one takes the freaking cake.....today

This test which BTW is the ACE genetic variant testing has a full page called "Science" where you can read about this brain trust.

200 patients, 200 controls, the offering......

"A physician using the CelluliteDX Genetic Test for Moderate to Severe Cellulite, can predict that a patient who tests positive has approximately a 70% chance of developing Nurnberger-Muller grade 2 (or greater) cellulite."

The science: Is there a paper on this? Seriously? A gene for cottage cheese butt? Awesome! You've gotta love Italians and there passion for the A$$

"the multivariable-adjusted odds ratios for cellulite were 1.19 (95% CI: 1.10-1.51; P <> 1.19 huh?

How is that 70% increased risk? Would love to see that please. No, seriously, tell me how. This is why Congress jumped. What Doctor in their right mind would offer this test?

The Sherpa Says: This is why we need education of physicians and the public here. Hullo? FDA, maybe they should get a letter too?

Breaking 23andMe's Terms of Service: Not just the patient's problem.

A blogger over at 5Am Solutions Blog is about to break 23andMe's Terms of Service.

"So I called my primary care physician's office and told the appointment-taker I wanted to discuss my 23andMe results with my doctor. She said 'ok' and scheduled an appointment for next week."

May I just add. It is not the doctor breaking the Terms of Service here. It is the customer by bringing it in to their doctor.

From Andrew Yates Blog at ThinkGene

"BOOM! That patient coerced that doctor into malpractice liability.Section 3 of 23andMe Terms of Service: “The Services Content is not to be used, and is not intended to be used, by you or any other person to diagnose, cure, treat, mitigate, or prevent a disease or other impairment or condition, or to ascertain your health.”

The worst of this is that 23andMe ACTIVELY INSTRUCTS its users to violate this clause —not only personally, but to also implicate their medical doctors in crime.

And the doctor is trapped: he can respect the law and alienate the patient, or ignore the law and appease the patient."

Oh, wait. Maybe by using 23andMe I am now involved in their legal mess? Crap!

That being said, I just received the Counsyl results from one of my patients yesterday. Unlike being put in a risky position by the good folks at 23andMe, Counsyl is straight up clinical and useful.

I will be notifying the patient via secure email of his results and spending an hour going over it with him.

The Sherpa Says: 23andMe, just like others in the space have demonstrated a general disrespect of the precarious position they have put physicians in by using such crazy and convoluted Terms of Service to avoid regulations. But heck, why should they care about the hot water they put us in.

Hey DTC genomics, Stay Private, Stay Alive, Go Public and Die

Today's lesson in start up business in the field of DTC Genomics is this.....

Stay Private and Stay Alive. IPO and doom yourself to a painful and public death.

Huh? Ah, yes our first DTC Genomics venture is going to be restructured to someone else and the thought experiment will become a reality.

"When a DTC Genomics bust, what happens to the data?"

Well, someone else can buy it, at a rock bottom price. Hell, the selling company can even violate YOUR TERMS OF AGREEMENT!

Daniel, posts a great email from some sucker who bought DeCodeMe......or maybe just an "Early Adopter"

" there has also been filed with the court an offer by Saga Investments LLC to purchase deCODE's Icelandic subsidiary, Islensk Erfdagreining (IE). IE, which is not declaring bankruptcy, carries out all of deCODE's human genetics work and and provides deCODEme."

So, Saga Investments, a private firm will be taking over in Iceland and likely will be handed the keys to a bunch of genotypes.....

"For this reason, we do not expect this to have any impact on your deCODEme account. As ever, our commitment at deCODEme is to keep you in the forefront of progress in understanding the human genome and what it means for you and your health."

What did this achieve? Well, it took the DTC DeCodeme out of the publicly owned realm. Which is probably a good thing. Let me tell you why.

Publicly owned companies shares are extremely liquid and can be crushed pretty easily, where as rich ol' moneybags (SergeandMe) can keep throwing money into the kitty and outlast this economic downturn and premature launch of these companies, hoping to innovate his way out of this money pit.

This reason is probably why DeCodeme went private and will likely give up control of their data. They need some sucker to keep pouring money into a boondoggle that has no exit for at LEAST the next 15 years if at all.

The moral of the story for start ups is "Stay Private, Lose Investor's Money, Live, Innovate (gulp)"

The Sherpa Says: Now I want to know how many people will file a class action against DeCode for selling the data? Any ideas? Because that could really make the genetic data an unwanted commodity.

An argument 23andSerge can't win...23andme but not medicine

"As I had postulated before, in order to move towards a profitable direction the DTC companies would have to choose "Medically Relevant" or "Novelty Testing" From this recent email sent to me by a reader it is clear, 23andME is Choosing to become a clinical service, without accepting the clinical responsibility."

This from my post February 14 2009

That was the day the announced that they were doing BRCA testing. Since then we have created a little video that may now be running through the silicon valley.........

Why?

Because, at the Spittoon (brrrrrrr-ding) they have announced that they will be splitting their service into 2 different types of tests

The first "A Novelty Test" which will be solely for ancestry.
23andMe Ancestry Edition – $399

The second "A health test" which will be solely for medicine while still disclaiming it is not. 23andMe Health Edition – $429

"With the launch of the 23andMe Health Edition we are releasing 13 new carrier status reports. These reports will help you know more about what may be in store for the next generation. We are expanding our cystic fibrosis panel report to cover the full panel of mutations recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics, as well as several additional mutations. We will also be providing data for most of the mutations routinely screened for in the Ashkenazi Jewish population, including those associated with Tay-Sachs disease, Canavan disease and Bloom’s syndrome.

We are also continuing to expand our drug response offerings. The next report to come out, Pseudocholinesterase Deficiency, contains information for anyone who will be undergoing surgery."

Ok, a couple of things.

First-This health test IS a MEDICAL test. I have sent off CF carrier screening medically, I have also sent off for Malignant Hyperthermia testing as well.........

Each has their own limitations which I have had to counsel patients about........For an hour a piece.

Second and more importantly, this appears to be another price change for the 23andME service.

If it turns out this company gets eaten up by Google, I am certain google will then own your genome scan data.....So I have one thing to say to the consumer

"If you want google to own your genome data, then by all means buy a 23andMe test"

Buyer beware here, please. I only ask and beg the proper authorities to uphold the current laws and regulate appropriately to protect the public health and welfare.

Why do I say this? Because a BRCA test or a CF carrier screen which was inappropriate that has been performed already on the public, without medical regulation, or without proper medical guidance could cause harm.

Lastly, this is likely a salvage play to keep the ancestry service before the feds come sweeping in......shut the medical service down.

I am certain.

Well, at least they (Feds and 23andSerge) have heard us........we only grow stronger because we are correct and hold to the theory that "What's Important IS What Is Important"

The Sherpa Says: Democratization is important, but so is not dying.......Why mix hair color with BRCA testing? I am glad Serge sees that too.......But now that leaves the health test as "Not for Fun" Looks like quite a change in defense of Mountain View's medical practice without doctors.....

Good Enough Science? Apparently so at 23andme

"A total of 61 individuals involved in five norovirus outbreaks in Denmark were genotyped at nucleotides 428 and 571 of the FUT2 gene, determining secretor status, i.e., the presence of ABH antigens in secretions and on mucosa. A strong correlation (P 0.003) was found between the secretor phenotype and symptomatic disease, extending previous knowledge and confirming that nonsense mutations in the FUT2 gene provide protection against symptomatic norovirus (GGII.4) infections."

This from a report at 23andSerge's "Norovirus Resistance" report.

I don't know what I would do with a Norovirus resistance report........Go on more cruises? Work in a daycare? Have more kids?

I bring this up because I begin to wonder what level of science is good science.

Is highlighting every article as useful as highlighting important and valid articles?

It seems to me that the best thing these companies can do is focus on good things and play a role in dispelling the not so good studies.

Heck, this is something I wanted to do on the Sherpa, but lack the resources....i.e the 13 million to burn on curators. So I select only the most relevant studies for PM and review.

I wonder if they (DTC Genomics) are just pulling up every study possible or if they are actively curating the data.

Because if they are curating, I wonder who is at the helm.

These are the studies they chose for the Norovirus report

Le Pendu et al. (2006) . “Mendelian resistance to human norovirus infections.” Semin Immunol 18(6):375-86.

Lindesmith et al. (2003) . “Human susceptibility and resistance to Norwalk virus infection.” Nat Med 9(5):548-53.

Hutson et al. (2005) . “Norwalk virus infection associates with secretor status genotyped from sera.” J Med Virol 77(1):116-20.

Kindberg et al. (2007) . “Host genetic resistance to symptomatic norovirus (GGII.4) infections in Denmark.” J Clin Microbiol 45(8):2720-2.

Thorven et al. (2005) . “A homozygous nonsense mutation (428G-->A) in the human secretor (FUT2) gene provides resistance to symptomatic norovirus (GGII) infections.” J Virol 79(24):15351-5.

Just from reading the abstracts not a single study had any number greater than 63 symptomatic patients.

Not a single study in my mind had statistical significance required for an association or a linkage study.

What in the hell is going on with the science?

If an apomediary is to be given free reign (Which I argue they should not in medicine), they better prove they are

1. An expert
2. Knowledgeable about the statistics required for the information presented
3. Not given false information, in science, non statistically valid information
4. Not a harm to the people they provide information to.

I think this is an example of a Big Fail here.

Yet they put it out from the rooftops, yelling on twitter, facebook, their blog, ALL OVER.

What in the hell is this information to be used for?

Even if for fun, it doesn't help if scientifically it is suspect. Isn't this what we bashed DNA Dynasty for? If this company wants to do right by people, they shouldn't boost the unimportant to the level of importance......

The biggest problem about this and other examples is the fact that the studies are not being vetted properly and the rushing to make a big deal out of suspect studies. This is analogous to the press publishing some crap study on the news. Which BTW, I have managed to tune out, because most of what they report is wrong. If they were a news organization, I would not be as pissed here, but they are not clearly just a reporting service, despite what SB 482 said.

23andSerge tests human biologic samples and gives diagnoses. As well as promotes unimpressive studies in an attempt to sell more tests......GREAT BIG FAIL!

The Sherpa Says: If this is the example of expert information that patients/customers can use to empower themselves, I would say they (Both 23andSerge and Customers) could do better reading the National Enquirer for health tips...

Away and now back, What did I miss???? 23andme layoffs? Selling Genomes for cheap up next!

23andSerge has layoffs, big surprise.

When Linda left, she had a tribe that left too. I am working on hiring one or 2 and will see what exactly was going on over there......Likely a huge cash bleed

GAPPNet has their first meeting, which I missed.

I will email Dr. Khoury and find out how it went.

Daniel MacArthur pointing out that 23andSerge could have bashed bad science, yet instead promoted it......No surprise there either.

It looks like 23andSerge fired the engineers and scientists.....and kept the PR and marketing wonks.......

Well, in the end it is crystal clear

It turns out the lawyers questioned this as well as Misha.....Turns out, if you took the genome, then you probably can sell it.......better yet, if you "acquired it via firesale" you also can probably sell it and break all kinds of "terms of service"

What's important? Not having your genome sold off? What's important? Being able to be certain the person who has your information won't sell it to the highest bidder......Now do you see why it is important to have a doctor involved in this? We CAN'T sell it off. Even if we wanted to. It would be against the law......10 years in Folsom or 250,000 USD......OR BOTH!

The main problem is that a lot of people are confusing things.

What is important IS "What is important" not cocktail parties, blimps or CEO's from insurance companies

(hmmm, I wonder what Navigenics is thinking about doing with it's company?) Maybe Humana wants Navi, to profile their patients?

The Sherpa Says: Companies are most dangerous to their customers and the public when the chips are down. They often do unthinkable and crazy things........for cheap. Anything to survive, that is the motto of the startup. Do or should they have any loyalty to you, AFTER they already have your money? No, unless legally bound.....This is yet another reason why a doctor should be involved here.

Excuse Me? Harvard and Navigenics? WTF?

Ok,
So I was blown away when I read this juicy little tid bit from Genome Web.

NEW YORK (GenomeWeb News) – Navigenics and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston announced today that they will collaborate on training physicians in personal genomic testing.

Amazing! I had spoken with Mike Murray up there a while ago and have neen involved in his training curriculum with CMEs for providers. I have always interpreted his opinion on the DTC companies to be suspect of what the hell the companies are doing.

In fact when we, Mike and I presented together at the Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine meeting in 2008 in New Orleans I assumed that their department as well as he didn't much support DTC genomic testing.

Which is why the BID move had me puzzled, so I emailed him. But I also read further.....

As part of the program, residents will be given the opportunity to have their own genomes analyzed through Navigenics' consumer genomics services.

"We believe that genetics and genomics will be critical to the future of health care," Mark Boguski, of BIDMC's Department of Pathology and the Center for Biomedical Informatics at Harvard Medical School, said in a statement. "Training our residents on the leading genetic services and technologies will be essential to this future."

Ahh, I see. It is not the Genetics department who is involved with this. It is the pathologists, you know, the physicians who look at microscopic slides and run the clinical laboratories who are behind this.........

This Makes all the sense in the world now, non clinical geneticists teaching doctors about clinical genetics and how to use a self-avowed NONCLINICAL, NONMEDICAL test to learn medical genomics.....

What the hell is Harvard thinking? I wonder if they received a nice endowment gift from the VCs who fund Navi????

So let me get this straight, Harvard Medical School sponsored Medical Residency at Beth Israel Deaconess is using a NONCLINICALLY validated test, from a company who states that the test should NOT BE USED FOR MEDICINE, to teach MEDICAL residents. To quote the plan

"Among the specific goals of the program are fostering an understanding of issues related to the evaluation of direct-to-consumer genotyping services and familiarizing physicians with the interpretation of genomic information and its correlation with personal medical and health information."

Have they lost their minds???? Shouldn't this be something that the clinical genetics department should be teaching? I wonder if Vance received a faculty position for this horse$h!t?

The Sherpa Says: I knew that this wouldn't come from the clinical genetics side. I hope they don't have any fingerprints on this one.....But my guess is Raju is involved in this one some how.....Now Harvard is confusing what is Important.

Some Confusion Exists

I have a great comment string going on with Daniel MacArthur over at his blog Genetic Future

I think there is some confusion going on here and I place blame on just about everyone in this space who has a mouthpiece.......

But mainly I lay blame on the marketing teams for the Direct to Consumer Genomics companies.

These companies have an interest in making you "think" that their products have some particular health relevance.

Otherwise, no one in their right mind would waste their time with these tests.......Other than the HUGE field of ancestry buffs like Blaine Bettinger J.D. (woohoo) We need clarity here.

From Daniel- "The American College of Medical Genetics is saying "Genetic tests of individuals or families for the presence of or susceptibility to disease are medical tests."

The fine print says:

"This guideline should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of other procedures and tests that are reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, the geneticist should apply his or her own professional judgment to the specific clinical circumstances presented by the individual patient or specimen"

Meaning

"The judgement of what constitutes an inclusive test is left up to the physician"

In my opinion, there are Green tests, Yellow Tests and Red Tests. I think Ryan Phelan sized this up pretty eloquently in 2007 at a conference I spoke at with her.

Red means - Stop, does this test need analytic/clinical utility/validity? Yes, Go ahead and regulate, these are clinically validated/used clinically for a long time, tests which have a use in medicine. If this test is claiming to do so but does not, then this too should be a cause of regulation.

Yellow means - Well, this could be used but maybe hasn't yet. I think of Age Related Macular Degeneration testing. They could have clinical applicability and haven't been put to use yet. This category may also include low odds ratio common SNPs here which indicate risk FOR disease.

You should have some caution when selling/regulating these tests. The biggest problem is that with evidence evolving over time the low ORs may actually be overturned or fall into the Red category.

They key point is what the test claims to do here.

Does it claim to tell you a risk for a disease via algorithm etc.?

If yes, then it becomes a Red test.

If it says in huge disclaimers, this test DOES NOT PREDICT DISEASE RISK, in plain and clear writing on every piece of its marketing then Yellow tests stay Yellow.

Green Tests - Have absolutely nothing to do with a person's health. These tests do not need medical regulations. Ancestry could be here. Eye color/ear wax/height.

But the moment it is used for medicine or medical procedures (PGD for these things, scary but possible) it then becomes a Red test.

ACMG is talking about Red tests. It is also saying, if you as a clinician think a Yellow test is actually a Red test, then it is a Red test.

Which I agree is confusing. But ACMG is not the US or State Governments. Nor is it the UK or anywhere else's government......It is a professional organization.

My take is simple. If there is a risk for public harm, the government should protect its citizens from that harm in a reasonable manner. I emphasize, reasonable manner. What Techies in the Silicon Valley view as unreasonable regulation may very well be extremely reasonable in the view of physicians and hospitals......

There is no reason to get all crazy here. The New York Times is right, until the government or state governments step in to protect the citizens of risk, it IS Buyer Beware when it comes to genetic tests.....

In my mind, genetic tests need to prove their worth in the field of medicine. They do this by medical science and clinical science studies.

Without these, they are useless noise.

So, should you be able to buy useless noise?

Go ahead.

But the moment the noise whispers in your ear "PSSST, I can tell you your risk for diabetes for 50 dollars" Its A$$ should be regulated.

I hope that clears things up. The problem here is that you have a company selling you noise mixed with clinically valid tests. They are the first company whose A$$ should be told to hold up and split the products.

Then you have a company selling you noise all the while "inferring" it is actually predictive and useful in medicine by getting Doctors to use it in medicine should also be regulated.

Blame Marketers and Spin Men, just like "Thank You for Smoking"

The Sherpa Says: If you apply the Red, Yellow, Green interpretation scale you will soon understand why all the confusion exists. And how that confusion can be cleared up.

IOM not webcast today. Why Not?

The IOM conference "Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: A Cross-Academies Workshop" will not be webcast today? I wonder why not? Was it supposed to be and then submarined after Muin Khoury quoted an email I wrote him while he was presenting?

Why is there no webcast for this important conference today?

Maybe I am just a conspiracy theorist.

But I would like IOM and the National Academies to explain why the cover one day but not the second.

The second day by the way has some great topics


From the Agenda

Session 5: The Impact of DTC Genetic Tests on the Medical System

"If the medical system is no longer required to mediate genetic testing, how will the system cope with losing oversight (and reimbursement) of these services while retaining the full responsibility of caring for patients the services affect?"

Here is a little hint. Currently there is no mediation of this DTC testing, therefore you can see what is happening. Marketing hype, misinformation, inaccurate results, improper provision of the results, lack of follow up, no post services offered to BRCA mutation carriers.

Here's a mind bender, can you bill insurance legally for a ICD9 of Genetic Susceptibility to Breast Cancer from a 23andMx test for a 99245 on a HCFA form? Or is that insurance fraud?

To let these types of tests out in the wild, which we have, is only to introduce a lot of chaos which is not for the "Better" it is actually dangerous to the patient.

Now Back to the Agenda:

"Issues to Address:

Can we model the cost to the medical system of DTC genetic testing?

Reimbursement and DTC genetic testing – are insurance companies involved?
Do they have a role?

How can providers navigate DTC testing and results for patients in the clinic?

How do consumers react to DTC testing information, and what is the impact on their health behavior?"

Well, I would love to hear the explanations, but alas there is no webcast today!

Back to the Agenda

"Knowledge of DTC Genetic Testing Among the Public and Health Professionals"

I wonder if the public read the NY Times article yesterday ?

"It’s important to separate hope from hype,” Dr. Jennifer House, president of the March of Dimes, said at a recent meeting of its national communications advisory council. “Direct-to-consumer genetic testing is a buyer-beware market. Consumers need to be very, very cautious.”

Uh......haven't I been saying that for 2 years now? A little late to the sh!t party huh Dr House?

"At the moment, the reliability of most gene tests on all four criteria is questionable, Dr. Dolan said, adding that the “broad landscape of direct-to-consumer genetic testing is a slippery slope.”

You go Siobhan! Yet another one of Dr Marion's prodigies!

Yet, what Dr Khoury et.al. found is that 75% of doctors who were presented in the office with one of these DTC tests ALTERED care in some way.

What do Healthcare practitioners know about genetics? Very Little. What does the public know? Even Less. Which is why they are such an easy target to market to.

Back to the Agenda

"Cooperation or Competition – How Do Health Care and DTC Genetic Testing Coexist?"

They don't. Someone asked the guy from Pathway Genomics yesterday

"Do you think you are practicing medicine? If not, why not?"

That is the question here. Tell me Navi, 23andSergey, Pathway.........why aren't you practicing medicine?

You take a human biological sample, perform a test, run an algorithm and give a risk for disease. In what world is that not medicine?

Let me guess. "Uh we do those things, but what makes us NOT medicine is that we.....uh......
We uh...........we uh....DON'T CLAIM LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR ANSWERS"

The Sherpa Says: The IOM conference is going to be predictable, unless Google has dumped money into the Academies or the IOM......

PHG Foundation and my point.

A long time ago I had a post entitled "Beware Doctors Bearing Genetic Tests" back in April of 2007. It was an interesting post where I point out that this wonderful GI doctor who was IVY league trained completely hashed genetic testing for HNPCC.

I went on to explain the shortcomings with Internists in interpreting APC testing for familial adenomatoid polyposis coli. 1 in 3 misinterpret tests.....Wait till you see the DTC interpretation!

Everyone who gets all in a huff when I say that these DTC genetic tests should be regulated. But I am here to say there is a good reason for it, and it has nothing to do with the people getting the tests.......There is now threat of public harm.....

But first let me explain my frustration. Saturday I was on Twitter and Daniel MacArthur and I had a conversation, which he lead off by saying:

"@helixhealthct Just shows how arbitrary most medical care is anyway; not like it'll change the outcomes much.2:46 AM Aug 22nd from TweetDeck in reply to helixhealthct"

Which was in response to a PHG report on an article published in Genetic In Medicine [Kolor K et al. (2009) Genet Med 11(8):595].

Among the 1880 physicians sampled, 42% were aware of the tests(DTC Genetic tests) and, over the past year, 15% had at least one patient bring the results of such a test to them for discussion. Interestingly, of this latter group, 75% (212 physicians) indicated that the results had changed some aspect of their patient’s care.

Holy Crap! Really? 75% changed the care?

So it had me begging several questions.

1. Did the physician read the Terms of Service for the DTC test? "Not to be used to make medical decisions"

2. Did the patient read the Terms of Service when they brought this test to the physician.

3. How is the physician supposed to know that this is not a clinically validated genetic test?

4. How is the busy clinician to differentiate this test from other clinically valid tests?

5. Why did the patient bring the test to the doctor? Was it due to DTC marketing efforts?

I was pissed at Daniel. How dare he say what we as physicians do changes no health outcomes!

In some instances he may be right. In others I wondered how complaints may actually be neglected based on this "genetic test"

Did these 212 doctors know something I don't about the utility of this DTC testing?

I doubt it.

I am seriously concerned that the 3/4ths of the 18% had actually changed care based on a non-clinical based test. That, to me is Scary AS HELL!!!!!

Think on this for a second.....How many of these doctors will ignore chest pain complaints based on a low genetic risk?

Now think on this. How many doctors will unnecessarily order stress tests for patients who have no complaints and are "High Risk"?????

Either way you slice it, 3/4 of these doctors are acting incorrectly, or at least not according to evidence base.

This survey proved one thing to me. Doctors have no F^CK!n& Clue what they are doing with genomics!

Why should these tests be regulated?

1. Patients aren't following the terms of service, likely due to deceptive advertising

2. Doctors can pose a threat based on inaccurately using these tests

3. Over use of resources could end up being a big problem because of these tests.

4. The potential for public harm has now gone from silly consumer, to trained medical professional inflicting damage.......

The Sherpa Says: Like I said, beware doctors bearing genetic tests........and patients too.

Pharmacogenetic Indication for a Medication?

That's one way to market the newest medication to prevent stroke, heart attack or stent thrombosis.

Wha? Yes, I mean, Prasugrel otherwise known as Effient is FDA approved for use in these patients.

But one thing I was thinking is that, since the FDA put on the insert of Plavix that 2C19 testing may be useful to identify people who will not respond to Plavix (generic Clopidogrel)

Perhaps, the marketing geniuses over at Eli Lilly could use this as an FDA suggestion that these 2C19 people may be better off with Prasugrel.

Yes, it would be one of the most brilliant ways to market pharmacogenomics. I can only imagine the DTC genomics companies salivating over this "We offer the 2C19, test. Act now, save your life." Technically, It actually could. Yes, all the stops would be pulled out and it could potentially save the DTC genomics companies.

You may be asking yourself, "The DTC companies need saving?"

Yes, they do. Face facts, Research revolution is a flop, nowhere near 1000 people per study. Funny how people don't trust google or anyone without proper research accreditation.

Navi is slashing costs and they have a CEO who is the master of running wastelands (i.e. companies where all the bad assets of a VC firm go)
DeCodeMe.....huh?
Pathway and Tru have no marketing budgets and no real scientific staff.......... Seriously here. WTF?

But, if they could get one big hit from Lilly shoving billions into this PGx marketing campaign, they could be ok. Otherwise, I am afraid, they are lost.

For Lilly it would be a huge win too. Why? Imagine being able to pull a full 1/3rd of all patients taking Plavix off and switching them to Effient/Prasugrel. They could, they really, really could.

So now that I have you attention. The big question is , when will Eli Lilly do this? My guess, in the fall.

Mark my words, they WILL DO THIS and it WILL SAVE companies like 23andSergey and Navi. If of course they offer the test. LabCorp, Genelex and Quest all offer the test now.

But here's the rub, if they offer this and say it is used to make a clinical decision, then they will be a part of the healthcare industry......... Oops, forgot to mention that before. Survive and take regulations or Die..........

The Sherpa Says: This would be the most brilliant marketing campaign in the world, Personalized Medicine awareness would be worldwide, and Pharmacogenomics would hit the stage in a major, major way....Thanks Lilly, call me to orchestrate your campaign.....

TruValue is coming. Valuation of GMG......

Valuation, it is a fickle beast. I love this post from AskTheVC.com

Valuation – especially for early stage companies – falls in the category of “more art than science.” While buyout investors who are acquiring companies with meaningful cash flow streams love their multi-sheet Excel models with 37 pivot tables, most early stage VCs can do valuations on a napkin (or – if they are good at simple math (e.g. addition and subtraction) – in their head.) In the early stages three things drive valuation: (a) ownership dynamics, (b) market terms, and (c) competitive deal dynamics.

Remember Again - this is art - there is no scientific way to really value three guys and a powerpoint slide or a web service with 10,000 subscribers of which 250 are active (although no one can prove that only 250 are active.)

Which brings me to my next point. How do you value a service which has an undisclosed amount of users, immense governmental regulation, and a company who is moving to offer the service for free?

The Art would say, unless you are going to sell the data to someone AND have that contract in hand......it is pretty much B.S.

I am surprised Pathway launched simply because of this reason.

Which makes me wonder, do these companies have contracts to sell YOUR genetic data? Did they disclose to you who they have contracts with?

Which also makes me wonder about this whole research revolution. What's so revolutionary about it? Maybe how they don't use independent reviewers to approve the research and monitor the safety of the participants? Aside from Nazi Germany and Tuskegee, that is pretty much a revolutionary concept....

One thing is for certain, the company which says takes us seriously as we charge you 2500 USD for Gornish has seen the light.

Take their recent Twitter posts

"Navigenics Health Compass: $499 until August 31st. Take control of your health. Use promotion code COMPASS-LTO-26225 http://bit.ly/11FvS2

and

New price on genetic testing http://bit.ly/oRsLF

So one has to be asking yourself, when market segmentation doesn't work and Big Blimps don't work and Celebrity endorsement doesn't work and super cool bubble conferences don't work what is the value of this and how does the public view it? The value or perceived value must be on the users themselves OR their data..........

I personally wouldn't pay any amount of money to give a single drop of spit to these companies UNLESS I could profit from their companies and the data they sell. Maybe after the companies offer free testing, they will next try to give you dividends for the investment of DNA?

It could happen. Why? 1 year ago asked attorneys about doing this grand Genome Phenome Metabolome study and if we could give people who participate shares in the company....... The lawyers freaked out. Which is precisely why it sounds just like the thing 23andSergey would do.....and in the end Navi would follow in their footsteps........ Just like they are doing now.

I have been asked why I dislike these companies and distrust them.

1. They give geneticists and genomics a bad name by hyping inaccuracy
2. They are screwing with the public perception of genetics and personalized medicine
3. The infer clinical value and don't offer it
4. They purposely avoid regulations put in place to protect people
5. They have given absolutely NOTHING back to the field of genetics or medicine
6. They are doing "research" on human subjects without protecting them

I could go on and on here, but I will save it for now.....

I like to close with a great quote, edited for Genomics purposes.

"The Silicon Valley is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, Marketers, Hyped Scientists, Programmers. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it."

Have an idea, hype it, put it on Oprah, and hope the hell the sheep buy it........ I have a bad feeling about this. The public is awakening from the slumber here and it is likely that the usual VC stunts are not working......... Uh....Oh........Genomics for free, at a price.

The Sherpa Says: All the tricks the matrix pulls, all of the bamboozling, Ahh Gornish Helfn.

Hooray! Invited to GAPPNet!!!!

In what turns out to be a brilliant decision on part of the CDC, they have created this network of collaborators called GAPPNet.

Which stands for Genomics Applications in Practice and Prevention Network..... I think I had mentioned the great work of the CDC on this for quite some time.

I first noticed their work while trolling through webcasts of the SACGHS meetings. The first which caught my eye was when Dr. Muin Khoury breifed the committee on the public health initiatives in this space.

This was back in 2005 when we were trying to think about how best to expand access to genetic testing. My partner and I at the time were wet behind the ears in this space, in fact our initial feelings were very similar to Anne Wojcicki and Linda Avey......until we began to ask for advice and watch these meetings......

That's when I became convinced that the best way to bring this to the masses was not through some disruptive Web App selling genetic tests without any care for regulation.......it was through tested and proven methods which were not being used, as well as through deliberation on which genomic applications needed further study and which were ready from prime time..... Which is why I am so excited to let you know that I have been invited to the GAPPNet meeting in October!!!

You can read a little bit more about GAPPNet in this article, or you can browse the website.

GAPPNet will be comprised of stakeholders, which include researchers, practitioners, policy makers, educators, and representatives from academia, government, health care, public health, industry, and community and consumer groups. Over the next 2 years, CDC and NIH will convene GAPPNet stakeholders to provide greater support for the following functions:

• knowledge synthesis and dissemination
• evidence-based recommendation development and dissemination
• translation research, and
• translation programs.

So you can imagine my excitement regarding this group.

We have developed an educational curriculum for residents in Internal Medicine. I have been serving the on ICOB of Coriell's Personalized Medicine Collaborative, evaluating the science of each GWAS study. Helix Health of Connecticut is also involved in the CPMC.

We also are actively looking for great research to involve our patients.......research that is ethically conducted and involves institutional review boards.....

So a lot has changed since 2005 when we wanted to "Democratize Genetics"......... I am certainly glad we will have GAPPNet to help guide the way on these things........

Lastly, I want to point out an article in the ACP Internist. On the front cover was an article about, you guessed it.......DTC genomics scans......Titled "A Brave New World of consumer gene tests" The article misses the point and lets Dr. Topol, an adviser for one of the DTC companies issue talking points........ It does point out Navi's early gaffes, but it then downplays 23andSergey

"23andMe is the cheapest test at $399, and includes more of what Dr. Topol calls “recreational information,” such as whether one is disposed to have hard or soft ear wax. All told, it gives feedback on a whopping 114 traits and diseases.

“23andMe is a little more for fun. It does include some serious medical conditions, but the proof or evidence doesn’t appear to be quite as rigorous,” Dr. Topol said. “It makes for good cocktail party chatter.”

23andSergey is for fun????? WTF? Did you forget that they are testing pharmacogenomics and BRCA variants Dr. Topol? Hardly Party Chatter.....

"Yeah, so I have this deleterious mutation which increases my risk of ovarian cancer 16 fold......could you pass those little cocktail weenies please???"

Jessica Berthold's editor should have picked that one up? Even in the clinical medicine media we get this parroting of 23andSergey's talking points. What in the hell is going on here?

Thank God they asked Greg Feero a question or 2 on this.....Otherwise, this could have been a love fest!

I repeat, 23andMx AKA 23andSergey are testing for variants in the BRCA genes and also pharmacogenomics......2 things which aren't EVER "Just for Fun"!!!!

Hopefully, EGAPP and GAPPNet can clear up that little confusion.......

The Sherpa Says: "The greatest thing the devil did was convince the world he didn't exist!"

Sergey wants to be Coriell and Navi didn't read AHRQ

I have begin to think, Charlie Rose is compromised by the people in Mountain View......

He has 23withoutSergey on the TV and here's Anne, blabbing about how amazing and important Factor V Leiden testing is and how "Wouldn't You Like to Know you were at risk Charlie?"

This just days after AHRQ released there report saying that when it comes to blood clots, this test is basically not indicated and not useful......

In addition, and what I may have failed to mention is Anne blabbing about how we need a good way to cohort patients, give them test results and follow up surveys online.

She basically was reading from the informed consent methods section of Coriell's Personalized Medicine Collaborative............

Which leads me to believe that Mike Christman has had it right all along..........Evaluate the science behind each SNP, give it away for FREE and release information that you wish to study.....which is why I was surprised 23andSergey didn't give their hobbled service out for FREE!!! Like TruGenetics is doing....

If there is one thing going on here, it is that 23andSergey is slow on the research uptake. Heck, Navi made this leap immediately after they heard about Coriell......They piled on Eric Topol and started the Scripps study.......

But alas, Navi was a little slow on the clinical side.....I say this because they are now "releasing" the results of 5 other conditions.........What's on the list? You gessed it. Factor V Leiden. Didn't they read my post? Come on Dietrich, we talked.......what is going on there???? Also they must not have read the AHRQ or USPSTF reports on HFE testing either, because that is not recommended either..... These should be studied, not SOLD!

The Sherpa Says: Don't trust Charlie on Genomics, I think he's in the tank for DTC.....

Ahh CRP, Genotyping is such sweet superstition!

Recently in the Journal of the American Medical Association an article Entitled Genetic Loci Associated with CRP levels and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease...... Long name, useful article.......

Why so useful?

Because it proves quite a point.

What is that point?

In most genetic associations the causal relationships are not proven. These studies are merely associations..... Much like what I like to call superstition...... Perhaps you have heard of some of these?
If you spill salt and then throw it over your opposite shoulder you will avoid bad luck

If you break a mirror you have seven years of bad luck

If the cows are sitting down, it's going to rain.

Don't leave a fan on in a closed room or it will suffocate the occupants

Don't allow a cat to be in the room with a baby or it will suffocate the baby

I could go on here, but I think you get the point. There are millions of observations in this world which are so strong that they get carried on through folklore as if they are correct associations.

I am concerned that this genetic exceptionalism which is in the press and with the DTC genomics companies may create a whole new level of superstition........

"If you have SNP x then you will get disease Y............some of the time"

And it will be self fulfilling......trust me, you will see cases of this coming true being published as anecdotal reports, which will only strengthen this superstition about SNPs and maybe even other genetic findings like CNVs or other rare changes.....

This is why I laugh with associations without biology worked out.......

This is precisely what our ancestors did when the kept the sword which wounded them in a cool place to reduce the inflammation of the wound.......

Frankly, I think that using SNPs in this fashion is the EXACT SAME THING.......

So these people who are considered early adopters and are "cutting edge" here with 23andSergey scans or CEOs of DTC companies are actually nothing more than CAVE DWELLERS.......

This study in JAMA shows a smiliar finding. CRP also known as C-reactive protein is associated with increased risk of heart disease.............there are certain SNPs which are also associated with elevated CRP levels.....so using rat brain thinking, we postulate that the SNPs must ALSO be linked with increased risk of heart disease....... WRONG!!!!

rs6700896, rs4537545, rs7553007, rs1183910 and rs4420638 contribute nothing to risk for heart disease, but are significantly linked with elevated CRP.....

Which goes to show that there is a problem which cannot be solved by our current mode of thinking. Because there is a problem with the way in which we think.

And those who huddle together telling stories about there genome scans are nothing more than cave people exchanging superstitions.........

The Sherpa Says: Stick to the science, look for biological explanations and then look for clinical application. Without those things, you have nothing better than a divining rod people! Didn't someone call them Saliva Diviners? HT Misha. Oh, and Francis, Told Ya So in 2008!