Written by Tena MooreA new study, presented at the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders in Paris, has found that bariatric surgery for weight loss can also help eradicate diabetes type 2 symptoms. Bariatric surgery (aka, gastric-band operation) is a weight loss surgery where a staple or band is fitted around the upper part of the stomach to shrink the
Found: A Gene That Controls Fat Cells
Written by Tena MooreWouldn’t it be nice if scientists could find the ‘fat cell gene’ and figure out how to disable it for good? It would be better than health care reform; it would be health reform! Not only would it decrease the amount of obesity in the world, but it would also decrease the amount of depression, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and a whole host of other illnesses that are either
Sugars and Starches, what’s the difference?
Written by Tena MooreBelieve it or not, sugars and starches aren’t that different, since they are both carbohydrates. There are many different forms of sugar. It is also referred to as glucose, fructose, lactose, sucrose, etc. Sugar is a monosaccharide, oftentimes referred to as a simple sugar, and it can be found naturally in milk and most fruits. It can also be added to foods, as I’m sure you
Improving your health with a serving of nuts?
Written by Tena MooreYou can definitely improve your health with a serving of nuts. Studies have shown they can help decrease risk of diabetes and heart disease, and they are chocked full of healthy vitamins and minerals. They are also fiber rich, helping to reduce cholesterol. The reason many people shy away from these nutritional powerhouses is because of their fat content. Many dismiss the
Change IS Needed. I agree with William, sometimes.
Over the past day or so I have been engaged with one of my fiercest critics. No a critic of me per se, but a critic of my opinions in the space of Personalized Medicine.
We may have a "truce", maybe......
William Gunn PhD is a pretty amazing guy and if you read his CV you can see he is very involved in the space and an excellent scientist.
Yesterday he and I exchanged emails and he posted a letter to the medical community. I think it is a great letter. He expresses some of the EXACT SAME frustration I have.
"I believe, as does pretty much everyone, that medicine is on the cusp of great changes and that personalized medicine holds great promise. I believe that an informed patient is an empowered patient, and ultimately a healthier one. Every good doctor should want this, and every below-average doctor should pray this day never comes."
I love his opening lines, but there are some problems that I see.
First let me state I agree with most of what he says, but:
1. There are a whole bunch of people who think personalized medicine is a pipe dream created while chilling with the caterpillar and Alice. Namely, doctors, scientists and politicians
2. I think most doctors try to help people, even the less than average ones. An empowered patent would be a benefit to them, but it depends on what the definition of empowered means.....
That is the major league difference between doctors and "super early adopters" in the DTC genomics space.
What is the difference?
The definition of empowered patient.
I have heard it described broadly such as
"Patient empowerment in the health care context means to promote autonomous self-regulation so that the individual’s potential for health and wellness is maximised."
This could be just about anything, including diagnosis and treatment. Which is interesting because in all states of the US you need a medical license to do that.
I also have heard it stated specifically in the Patients Bill of Rights as
"
The providing of information regarding therapeutic options so that a Patient can actively participate in the decision on whether to undergo a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure, or pursue alternatives." See Patient Bill of RightsThis is obviously more specific and falls in the realm of, you have a disease, now you can be empowered to actively participate in the discussion. I have always thought that if you don't have the terminology of medicine, this part puts you as a one legged man at an ass kicking contest.
The ideal place for patient empowerment is not sick in the hospital, by that time it is too late. You are sick and not likely to be able to learn as well as if you were healthy.
Which is why the empowerment piece should come in at the doctor's office or even at home in your underwear on your MacBook. I agree. I love when patients come in having read stuff. Just recently a patient came in knowing just about everything about a familial disease....the consult was super awesome and we had a great discussion. But again, this was a motivated subject.
But I ask, is that what the DTC Genomics coummunity thinks empowerment is? Is empowerment education? That is what the health community thinks.
But, William et.al. think it is more than that. They think it is access to biometric data AND interpretation of that. In some aspects, this could be considered education......
I agree, it is education of a sort. When it is from your doctor it is called good medical care.
But often it is through an Apomediary.
What's an apomediary? Well, 23andME considers themselves such.
even I consider myself an apomediary in things for which I am not licensed for (golf, start ups, etc). I.E. a self defined expert providing guidance to information about their "expert subject"
But for medicine, I am a licensed, board certified physician who has worked long and hard to stand by my expertise (8 years of work after my undergraduate work). Unlike DTC genomics companies, who are neither regulated, nor accredited to give expert medical opinion.
Thus, they are apomediaries. Is patient empowerment, unregulated access to apomediaries? Well, maybe. But I argue that DTC genomics are more than just Apomediaries.
They test human biologic samples and provide a diagnostic result, despite stating they are not providing diagnosis. Think BRCA carrier status here. Which BTW is a medical diagnosis. With a medical test.
So, is patient empowerment the ability to obtain diagnoses from a non licensed diagnostician?
I would argue that this is precisely what I am opposed to. This can lead to all sorts of danger. Last time I checked, laudanum was not FDA approved, nor were the apothecaries.......
The Sherpa Says: We have come a long way since then and going back there would put us squarely into the stone ages for quality of care. Which is why I am so vehemently against a company that tests your human biologic sample and provides a diagnosis without being licensed to do so. Change is Needed William, I agree.
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...
Follow up to Yesterday’s WTF? Harvard, Navi? and Pfizer???
Yes, that is pretty freaking preposterous in and of itself, but I have a deeper concern.....
"Beth Israel has launched the Personalized Genomics and Next Generation Sequencing Training Program, which includes a series of lectures, discussions, and presentations, aimed at promoting a better understanding of the personalized genomics field and next-generation sequencing technologies."
Ok, so my question is. Who will be giving the lectures?
Let me put this another way.....
"NewsFlash" (This is not true, however it is just as preposterous and written to illustrate a point)
Harvard Medical School has agreed to partner with Pfizer to educate young resident physicians about pharmacology.
Residents will receive a series of lectures crafted by Pfizer to help physicians understand the complexities of pharmacology. To help the young physicians a pharmaceutical specialist employed by Pfizer will take the residents out to dinner and give lectures crafted by Pfizer.
To further enhance the training, all physicians will be given free samples of viagra/modafinil to help them understand how the medication works
"We believe that pharmacology and pharmacogenetics 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 pharmaceutical services and technologies will be essential to this future."
(End Fake Story)
Do you get what I am saying yet, or are you such a blind supporter of DTC genomics to see the absolutely clear freaking conflict of interests here?
And for such a school which focuses so much on Conflicts of Interest, I am blown away that this program has not yet been shut down.....
You can email Mark Boguski at mark_boguski@hms.harvard.edu if you think this is as crazy as I do. Or maybe a phone call? 617-432-7375
The Sherpa Says: Do you see what I am getting at Mark? This is sketchy at best....
Did you get your kit? Thanks Dr. Rob from MedCo
I love and hate when GenomeWeb scoops me. I love it because I know someone else is out there assessing the field. But the competitive nature in me hates to be scooped......ah well, you can't win them all.
It turns out that Good 'Ol Dr. Rob and I agree, physician education is the key to get physicians involved in clinically important PGX testing.
Not only is education key, but maybe involving them in research about it may even be better.
A survey conducted by Dr. Rob's Team at MedCo and AMA just published at ASHG says so too.
"The survey, which was conducted in 2008, found that 13 percent of doctors had either ordered or recommended pharmacogenomic tests for their patients in the preceding six months"
That is about spot on as to what I told them about how many would be ordering tests immediately.
"There is a general lack of formalized pharmacogenomics training among physicians, the survey found, with 26 percent of respondents saying that they had received some form of education in the subject either in medical school or after graduation."
I taught pharmacogenomics to Yale and Yale Affiliated residents from 2007-09. I know that the ones who have learned are now actively looking up and interested in this stuff.
"98 percent of these physicians agreed that patient genetic profiles may influence drug therapy"
Obviously, they took pharmacology, the GET pharmacogenomics. It is not a big leap here!
"It's clear that there is wide acceptance that genetic testing has a role in patient care, but the need for formal training and education among physicians is necessary to obtain greater adoption and implementation of these tests in clinical practice. -Robert Epstein MD"
Precisely Dr. Rob, Precisely. No big surprise with the survey. But a big surprise in my mailbox......
Yes, a CYP2C19 study spit kit. MedCo is studying Effient vs Plavix with CYP2C19 testing, head to head.......
BooYah!! I just spoke with the Effient people the other day. They are keen on taking this market.
Now I just happen to be working on something that all of these interested and willing physicians will need.........
The Sherpa Says: Dr. Rob, I hope you are listening........It's time to execute.
Gluco…Wha? Parkinson’s Disease and Glucocerebrosidase mutations.
In 2007 I diagnosed a 74 year old woman with CF.
She had a positive sweat test and positive mutation with an intronic mutation as well.
I investigated this after she had bronchiectasis and no history of smoking. And a grandson with CF......... Why did I do the sweat test?
I needed to know if her bronchiectasis was due to CFTR mutations. Maybe she didn't need COPD treatment after all.
That same intellectual curiosity is found in a recent study in the NEJM. It turns out they are finding some patients who have Gaucher's also have Parkinson's Disease.
What's even more interesting is that Heterzygotes for Gaucher's are at increased risk of sporadic or familial Parkinson's disease. So one has to wonder, how many Parkinon's cases are due to GBA mutations.....
Well, this study aimed to elucidate that. First off, if the GBA mutations are higher than LRRK2, well, we my have another Ashkenazi Jewish disease.
What did these guys do?
5691 patients with Parkinson's disease (780 Ashkenazi Jews) and 4898 controls (387 Ashkenazi Jews) were analyzed, with multivariate logistic-regression models and the Mantel–Haenszel procedure used to estimate odds ratios across centers. Ok, a reasonable method.
Now what did they find?
This finding allows for confidence in reporting the Mantel–Haenszel combined odds ratios for N370S (odds ratio, 3.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.60 to 6.02) and L444P (odds ratio, 6.73; 95% CI, 4.50 to 15.42). After correcting for outliers they can confidently report a Mantel–Haenszel odds ratio of 5.43 for GBA mutations, in patients versus controls Ok, so if you have either of these mutations, you are at a pretty high risk for Parkinson's Disease. Seriously. How many of the Parkinson's cases are due to this type of carrier mutation? Overall, when screening solely for N370S and L444P, one of these two mutations was found in 15% of Ashkenazi Jewish patients as compared with 3% of Ashkenazi Jewish controls and in 3% of non–Ashkenazi Jewish patients as compared with less than 1% of non–Ashkenazi Jewish controls That's a lot of cases.
Way more than the LRRK2 mutation Familial Autosomal Dominant disease that could be counseled by pedigree alone that Serge was so hepped up about.
But if you want a breakdown of LRRK2 versus GBA you can read about it here.
Of note, there are very few papers comparing both, but there is one that disproved my hypothesis that it is likely that the LRRK2's actually are GBA mutation carriers.... But 37 Families still gives me a little hope that Serge was focused on the WRONG gene...
Back to GBA mutation carriers, this like CF now has me asking "Does anyone in your family have a genetic disease like Gaucher's" when I see some PD history.
Which highlights a significant point, if Primary Care Doctors are supposed to perform family histories, then how in the hell are they supposed to know about this?
The answer: This NEJM article? Navigenics? Who? How?
Unfortunately, most Internists will look at the article and say "Meh, another one of those genetics articles I don't understand" Will giving each doctor a FREE Navigenics test break that attitude......doubtful.
The Sherpa Says: Geneticists need to do their job and teach other doctors, not serve on DTC genomics boards.
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.
A few months late to the party….
This month's Internal Medicine News has Dr. Patricia Ganz on the cover.
I couldn't help but say, "Why does she look familiar???" But then I read and remembered
"Few physicians feel prepared to interpret findings from direct-to-consumer genetic tests and incorporate the results into clinical practice, according to speakers at a National Academy of Sciences workshop on DTC genetic testing."
Ahh, yes, she was at the National Academy meeting which served as the official hammer to DTC genomics....
These first intro words from the one of many articles in the Internal Medicine News about Genomics hits home
"Few physicians feel prepared to interpret findings from direct-to-consumer genetic tests" I have a serious question.
If these "tests" are for "fun" and not to be used for medicine, then why should it matter if doctors feel prepared to interpret these tests......
Should they not be interpreting these tests at all?
Since, after all, they are "not to be used for medicine".......
Well, unfortunately, the marketing firms and PR firms have pitched these little babies right next to other OTC medical treatments.......
Which means, the public will "Think" of these tests as medical.
And hell, why not?
Freaking 23andSergey is testing for the Ashkenazi Jewish BRCA founder mutations and placing the results right next to IBD, prostate cancer and heart disease, which BTW is right next to ear wax type.......
The biggest problem here is the confusion of "Medically important" with non medically important.......
When a consumer reviews important sounding stuff with non important sounding stuff, the non important looks more interesting, because it comes with stuff that "Can keep me from dying!!!!" This is the problem here.
And despite what Howard Levy of JHUMC says, I am not down with this problem continuing to exist.......we have allowed it to happen way too many times.....
My prediction is that clinicians will tune out this noise of DTC and use it as another excuse to tune out TRUE CLINICAL GENETICS......How do I know this? Because I know community physicians. They are WAYYYY different from the academic clinicians out there......
Dr Levy is incorrect in assuming that DTC will push the clinician to "Learn Genetics or Consult a geneticist"
Hell, most geneticists couldn't tell you what a heart attack and it's treatment entails these days. Unless of course they have had one. You should have seen the talk about Brugada up in New Haven, what a mess! I leave aside the IM genetics brethren here.....which are less in number than astronauts.......
And now that the team in Mountain View put out a press release about pure swill, it is all too clear to me what the hell is going on.
These guys are desperate. They need to live, or else the empowered genetics patient will die.
Or so they think.
This couldn't be further from the truth.
Genetics and Genomics is doing just fine without these boondoggles...... Do we need NYT spreads to survive and thrive? The answer: No.
Why?
1. Francis Collins is head of NIH
2. Obama proposed bills supporting Personalized Medicine
3. Major corporations are investing in useful genetic technology
4. Clinical research is progressing nicely in the PGx space
5. Clinicians like myself are organizing and practicing personalized medicine
So, I ask you "Why should we support something that distracts from the reality of genomic medicine?"
So we can have them figure out the interpretation algorithms? Well, they have shown what a complete hash of that they made...... For seven diseases, 50% or less of the predictions of two companies agreed across five individuals
So we can get the public supporting Genetics in Medicine? I think we know that the public supports us, with or without them.......In fact they support us more WITHOUT them!!! Because what the public fears can actually legally happen especially if a company goes belly up......
So they can carry out the next level of collaborative research? Have you seen the latest joke research? No thanks, I'll stick with Coriell for now...Maybe Scripps too.......
Suffice to say, from my view point on the mountain, these guys (DTC Genomics) are actually parasites, sucking the energy from the movement. They contribute nothing but hype, which now will turn to backlash......
In conclusion, this backlash will detract more from the movement than the hype added to it.
The Sherpa Says: Why continue to support something that in the long run will damage credibility with community physicians and the public? Why?
Stated Another Way…….
Last week I was criticized harshly about the shock and awe I used with the picture of a parasite being passed from an animal and comparing it to what needs to be done with DTC Genome Scans.
I was asked to be critical and analyze the work. And frankly, I am a little embarrassed. That doesn't mean I will take down the post. It means I will begin to state the rationale for my argument.
The premise is this, DTC Genomics has cast a shadow on the field of genetics and genomics. In not only the clinical utility but also the scientific utility, this boondoggle has screwed the field. The community had been seduced by receiving offers of "Advisorship" for "The Next Google" or whatever the pitch was.
A few smart people bit, including George Church, who I think was hurt the most. His PGP received less attention and less gravitas as it was lumped in with 23andSerge and Navigenics cocktail parties in SoHo......
I said this back in 2007 when I had coffee with Amy Harmon, prior to her Pulitzer . She asked me why I was against this DTC movement. Well, unlike then I have thought about this for a while now.
The singular reason is: "The marketing and promotion of these services has caused a tremendous amount of confusion as to what exactly is important"
????
"You don't mean your rant about how this is medicine and should be regulated as such?"
Well, that is an issue of importance. They have been playing important, just like a TV doctor would.
"You don't mean the issue where they steal your genome?" Well, again, they may be confusing what is important in the genome and making you think their 500k SNP analysis IS important.....
"You don't mean the rant about how doctors confuse Personalized Medicine with DTC Genomics?"
Again, this is an issue about what is important and what is not.
Detracting attention from that which is important is probably the biggest crime that is being committed here. What we are now going to see is a phase of skepticism drawn to the whole field of genomics. Don't believe me? Read here
"As scientists including Venter aim to usher in an era of personalized medicine based on individuals’ biological differences, companies such as 23andMe and Navigenics already offer tests that plumb people’s genetic makeup. The article’s authors said “the nascent industry” could improve predictions by developing a consensus on how to do the analyses."
So I ask, "Is the nascent industry personalized medicine? Or is it 23andME and Navigenics?"
By lumping Personalized Medicine with these companies, you begin to take on their traits......
"Google-Backed DNA testers Don't always agree"
Ok, so now personalized medicine is Google Backed and the results are sketchy at best.......
Do you see what I mean?
Don't believe me? Read This
The Journal? Personalized Medicine. the Article? DTC Genomics......
I hope you see what I am getting at. Still having a hard time?
Take David Agus' MD Quote
"Make preventative genomic medicine part of your practice"
Meaning: Use Navigenics DTC Genomics test and you will be practicing "preventative genomic medicine" The new Marketing Word for "Personalized Medicine"
So, there ya go. They want to be personalized medicine, yet disclaim any use of the test for personalized medicine.
This huge circus is one of the biggest distractions to ever befall Personalized Medicine, especially as the story of the epigenome begins to unfold.
We have to ask ourselves
1. "What was gained by supporting these companies?"
2. "What did these companies do to advance personalized medicine?"
3. "What researcher gained greater attention or funding because of the DTC Genomic Buzz?"
4. "What percentage of physicians gained greater appreciation of genomic medicine?"
IMHO, these companies have mad a mockery of personalized medicine and the research that is going on in the space
The Sherpa Says: Hopefully that will explain why I feel that these companies are parasites playing off of our name.....
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.
2D6 Rears its ugly head…..
Ok, I have been to hell and back......but I am back.......
I am working on a video you all may soon love to hate, I am also working on a poster for GAPPNet which you too may also soon love to hate......
Well, for all you Amplichip fans, the data from a recent retrospective analysis of German and US cohorts reveals that null function 2D6 may actually portend a worse prognosis for those taking adjuvant (after surgery) chemotherapy for breast cancer. These are women who had hormone receptor positive breast cancer stages I-III, without metastases and without chermotherapy.
At 9 years of follow up, patients who had null 2D6 CYP 450 enzymes ended up with a 29% recurrence rate instead of those who had active 2D6 enzymes. This compared to 14.9% for extensive metabolizers.
Why does this matter?
1. Tamoxifen is used a lot
2. Aromatase inhibitor therapy (Another Drug) is another option for this type of cancer
3. This test is easy to do
4. This follows the Plavix model......
My guess, Roche is about to make a lot of money on the Amplichip shortly.......
Why is this study important? It is the first sufficiently powered study to assess 2D6 genotypes and outcomes.....
Even more importantly, Tamoxifen is a Pro-Drug.....just like Plavix. This time it requires conversion to Endoxifen which is the active drug derived from Tamoxifen.......
The hazard ration for recurrence with poor metabolizers is 2.12. That is a useful thing, which may prompt refined endocrine therapy for these postmenopausal breast cancers......
The Sherpa Says: I am back!!!
Ok, Fine, Back to Plavix
Did anyone else see this?
Scripps and Eric Topol are going to be doing testing for 2C19 polymorphisms in their interventional dept.
"Scripps physicians will initially offer the genetic tests to elective stent patients before they undergo their procedures at Scripps Green Hospital. Eventually, Scripps may extend the offering to its other facilities across San Diego County."
I have been prodding Greenwich Hospital to do this.....I hope they do......They could be the El Camino of the East.
What are these guys, Topol et.al going to be doing? "Scripps patients carrying the gene risk variants will be considered for three treatment choices following their stent procedures, each on an individualized basis. Patients will either:
- Be given a routine 75 milligram dose of Plavix with careful surveillance;
- Be given a 150 milligram dose of Plavix, which has recently been shown to be safe and effective in patients showing lack of response to Plavix; or
- Be given the newly approved medicine Effient (prasugrel), which is not affected by the gene variant Cytochrome (CYP) 2C19."
So there you have it. A cutting edge medical facility doing this. I am only all too certain we will see about 20 hospitals follow in their footsteps in 2010.....
The Sherpa Says: Wha? These guys are like a year behind me......I have been doing this since January........
Kaiser a protoype for Collins’ Aim
Don't know if anyone had heard about the Kaiser Permanente Biobank?
Since Kaiser has millions of lives cared for in a statewide healthcare system, they could easily pound out 500k bio samples overnight.
For the past year or so I have been thinking that the big problem with environmental studies is the need for huge sample size per environment size.
These guys popped up on my radar back in January.
When the AMA News covered there new shiny "biobank"......
" Kaiser Permanente is constructing what is expected to be one of the world's largest and most diverse repositories of genetic, environmental and health data.
The Kaiser repository already has 40,000 DNA samples from members of its giant California-based health plan and expects to have 500,000 samples by 2012."
Well, it turns out that they already have 100k now. Why wouldn't they? They actively care for over 3 million of California's citizens......And with the Government going under, I am certain Kaiser will take care of EVEN MORE.......
In my email inbox an update on this machine.......
The Kaiser Permanente Research Program on Genes, Environment, and Health (RPGEH) and the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) have been awarded $24.8 million over two years by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to create a new resource for studying disease, health, and aging.
With this support, Kaiser Permanente’s RPGEH and UCSF will conduct a genome-wide analysis of DNA samples from 100,000 Kaiser Permanente members from Northern California who have volunteered to join the RPGEH. This new and detailed genetic information – which has never before been generated on such a large and diverse population – will be linked to decades of historical clinical and other health-related information on these participants, taken from health surveys and the Kaiser Permanente electronic health record, the world's largest civilian electronic health record.
This will likely serve as a prototype for which Francis will follow........Why?
Think about it. Lots of national/EPA data on environment, now linked to clinical data and genotypes.
Boy, the government could get a whole crapload of that data if they would just open up the VA EMR for free to all physicians........
Any company looking to get into the EMR business these days is going to fail unless they can give it away for free....
That being said, Kaiser has a huge head start on anyone else looking to do this. Why? 3.3 million medical records paired with DNA......
But, this still could be a boondoggle unless they have much more specific environmental data. "Linking environment to disease ain't like dusting crops boy........"
If you want to learn why, you can start here
In fact, the more I learn about the field, the more madness I discover.....This will be a huge boondoggle unless done very, very carefully. The old adage of collect the right data may actually be something of a moving target as the study continues. Which may make this type of exercise particularly suited for the internet age.....
The Sherpa Says: Yeah, Biobanks are all the rage......but how well does one know how to keep thine own? Ask Coriell, they have been doing it a very, very long time....
Tell Me, How do you feel now? Sherpa’s RX
One thing is for sure. In a recent poll of members of the AMA, granted a pretty skewed poll as tons of AMA members cut up their cards this year........random sample of 6000 physicians from the American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile, which includes current data on all U.S. physicians.
Excluded were, residents and doctors in US territories. From this data in the New England Journal of Medicine, Keyhani et al found some interesting things. The biggest of these is that a majority of physicians are for a governmental option WITH private options.
Not a surprise, this is what ALREADY EXISTS.
From the study......
"Survey respondents were asked to indicate which of three options for expanding health insurance coverage they would most strongly support:
1. public and private options, providing people younger than 65 years of age the choice of enrolling in a new public health insurance plan (like Medicare) or in private plans
2. private options only, providing people with tax credits or subsidies, if they have low income, to buy private insurance coverage, without creating a new public plan.
3. a public option only, eliminating private insurance and covering everyone through a single public plan like Medicare.
We also assessed the level of physician support for a proposal that would enable adults between the ages of 55 and 64 years to buy into the current Medicare program — a strategy that the Senate Finance Committee has proposed."
But what pisses me off about the article is how it is written....take a listen....
"Physicians in every census region showed majority support for a public option, with percentages in favor ranging from 58.9% in the South to 69.7% in the Northeast. Practice owners were less likely than nonowners to support a public option (59.7% vs. 67.1%, Pmajority still supported it."
No caveats for the fact that DOCTORS ONLY SUPPORT A PUBLIC OPTION IFF there exists a private industry as well.
What these jokers don't say is precisely that point. Which is why, the press will publish "A majority of doctors support a Public Plan" which may sound like they support single payer.....
They don't. In fact, 3 times as many support a private only plan than a public only plan!!!!
They do acknowledge limitations
"Some limitations of our study deserve comment. First, our response rate was 43.2%, which is modest, though typical of the most recent national physician surveys and surveys in general.
There were no significant differences between survey respondents and nonrespondents in important characteristics, such as specialty, practice location, and practice type.
Second, physicians’ opinions about strategies for expanding health insurance coverage may have evolved during the period of data collection, given the intensive press coverage of the issues."
But in the end, they never, ever mention the fact that a near THIRD of physicians support a private ONLY system and that this number is 3 times the physicians who support a government ONLY plan like Canada or the UK. Thus placing those progressives who demand such, clearly outside of the mainstream of most physicians.....
The only true way to save costs is to start using science and personalized medicine. You will not save costs by covering more people. In fact, I argue that there is no science which truly extols the benefit of enhanced coverage. What should be enhanced is catastrophic coverage.
What bankrupts people? Catastrophe, not a URI.
If you want to nationalize/universalize coverage, stick with catastrophic care. That would make sure everyone was covered when HUGE bills hit.
I am certain this plan would be extremely useful. Enroll everyone in this system and pay out when catastrophe strikes. It works for life insurance. Leave the small time players alone and focus on hospitalization costs, etc.
Continue funding HPSA and increase the loan repayment to 300k over 3 years rather than 85 over 3 years. Watch the doctors come then.......
Give tax subsidies for people who pay for URIs etc or traditional health insurance, which now should cost less as the government/taxpayer absorbs the catastrophic costs.........
That should keep everyone covered and help out with the uninsured. We all know that the major cost to hopsitals is the "self pay" patient with disseminated echinococcus or HIV or esophageal cancer or heart attack.
As for the government and medicare, if you just had a huge boost in revenue by new people coming on board for catastrophic care (To be read as, not pay out for most, and pay out later for some) you could help that insolvency thingy........
The Sherpa Says: Personalized Medicine is a key, rational thinking is the LOCK! I know, my wife just had an ER visit, the hospital charged 6168.00 USD, the insurance paid 800 USD. If she didn't have an insurer protecting her from gouging, she would have had to pay 6168.00 USD. I see it both ways....
This Just In. 23andMe to go to GPs. I love my readers!!
That's correct. 23andSergey are going to offer GPs deep discounted SNP scans to General Practitioners in England.
As she is interviewed by The Times!!!
This comes just DAYS after I said that their market is in England, NOT the United States.....
"After listening closely to Timothy Aitman of the Imperial College of London, it seems to me that the market for DTC is not in the United States.
It is in Jolly 'Ol England. "
One of my readers sent this to me today and I laughed and laughed.
Why?
I am filling out an abstract that I will present to the GAPPNET meeting in Michigan.
It is about media response and attitudinal change to these companies correlated to my blog posts......
So what does Jolly 'Ol Anne and Bloody Sergey plan to do for Londoners????
"Ms Wojcicki said that it would be especially important for companies like hers to work with doctors to interpret genomic information, as the costs of DNA sequencing fall further. It is widely predicted that it will be possible to sequence anybody’s entire genome for less than £1,000 within a year or two, to reveal genetic variations that influence disease risk and response to drugs."
Ahhh, now you want to work with doctors Eh? Maybe listening to Mari Baker a little???? Physician distribution centers......
OMG, Dietrich, did you tell them our plan????
Well, count me in. As long as you come on bended knee. I will hear what you have to say. But then you have to hear what I am to say as well........
I have been getting CPMC data, this is no different, except the lack of IRB, the potential of bankruptcy sales of my data, the pootential of google linking this data to my gmail account etc.
The Sherpa Says: After trying to replace doctors with algorithms and getting bashed up against a brick wall, I would be more than happy to help you do this the right way.....Unless of course, you eat pain for breakfast!!!!!
Sorry so long away
I haven't been blogging for sometime lately, this is for several reasons. The biggest of which is personal. I apologize to my readers, but we have had some family health issues.
When I come back, and I will, I am going to bring you some very exciting updates and also be posting on things VERY, VERY relevant to the Personalized Medicine Revolution taking place.
But until then, Family First. I hope you all understand.
Keep Climbing,
-The Sherpa
Is it true?
Did Anne really dump Linda for Google?
I am looking forward to the next couple of weeks out of the DTC Genomics community.
IMHO, they were not that impressive at the IOM/National Academies meeting.
In fact, I came away with some significant questions which I am certaim the IOM will have as well.
First and foremost, "Tell me why you aren't practicing medicine"
No one here wants to stifle progress. But we don't think you need to break a dozen eggs before you get your omelette.
You would figure someone who had gotten a seat on the Board of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health would have figured that one out.
Yes, that is correct.
She sits on the foundation board for the NIH!!!!
Once again I am amazed!
My Hypothesis is this.
Francis Collins has never come out abashedly against this type of testing. Why? He needs a Phenome Genome Metabolome study that can be run via the web. He is friends with Kari Stefansson, who knows how to do this. And NOW it appears Anne is on his Foundation's board. What a seriously crazy coincidence............
I do wonder what it takes to sit on that Board. My guess is that you have to have billions of dollars.
Because that is about all she has. B.S. from Yale (yeah, that and a 2.50 will get you a cup of joe), Company founded by her with her husbands money. But it is notable, that this young woman wields quite a bit of power now.
My guess, 23andme Francis and the NIH will sponsor the largest personalized medicine project to challenge the Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative.
Barack Obama will need a good will piece like this to erase the banter of health care and it will make everyone see how future oriented he is.
23andSergey win by getting access to the data, NIH wins by leveraging a huge tool which previously had stunted most large cohort studies, President Obama wins by changing the topic to something a little less controvesial (Unless you are an Eschatologist.....)
This will probably be announced in under a year.
The Sherpa Says: Yes 23andSergey, Drew was right, you will probably outlast all others because of your shear wealth. That doesn't make it right, or ethical, but in Washington it is what it is........
