Archive for June, 2008
By Dana
The race for discovery and innovation within the field of genomics has followed an exciting and prosperous trajectory of late, and that uphill climb has spiked over the first half of 2008 for companies with a stake in the burgeoning genetic testing industry. Although genetic testing and sequencing has captivated the public for the better part of this century, the field remains largely uncharted, with much research, definition and regulation left to be put in place.
It is the absence of regulation and common definition that has brought the race to a screeching halt for genetic testing companies that specialize in Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) genetic testing. These tests, purported by companies like 23andMe, Navigenics, and deCODE Genetics to help consumers determine whether they are carrying genes associated with everything from baldness to breast cancer, have spawned major debate and a public outcry for a crackdown on what some regulators suggest is a rampant disregard of social responsibility. Most recently, the California Department of Public Health issued cease-and-desist letters to 13 companies accused of peddling DTC genetic tests to state residents, an action strikingly similar to that taken by New York against 31 genetic testing companies earlier this year.
In today’s New York Times, Andrew Pollack explores some of the more extreme points-of-view to emerge from this issue. On one side is a group beseeching federal measures be put in place to ensure companies offering DTC tests are licensed and provide results with “clinical” validity—that is to say, the assurance that a recognized genetic variation is an actual indicator of a disease or an increased risk for one. Following this chain of logic, it is assumed these federal measures will help prevent the unfounded hysteria that can crop up after an individual receives an “invalid” genetic reading. On the other side are individuals who staunchly believe every consumer has the right to have and control his or her complete, accurate and affordable medical information and subsequent treatment, genome sequence and all. Stifling the power of DTC companies to innovate and offer services, they say, will stifle the fundamental right of individuals to take control of their own lives and their own health care.
It’s a valid debate, and one that will be interesting to watch as the arguments continue to refine and take shape. Eliminating consumer access to genetic testing services might prevent patients from unecessarily going off the deep end in the wake of receiving an ominous genetic reading. At the end of the day though, the same patients who take advantage of these services will surely go to any measure to self-diagnose–and go off the deep end anyway after they draw their own ominous conclusions from information they’ve gleaned from the Internet, medical journals and conversations with friends. If we run block on companies that are helping to drive important science and research, wouldn’t we have to likewise regulate everything that could potentially be misused or misinterpreted? Where does it end, and how far will these naysayers push before this revolutionary science is reduced to a sliver of its true potential?
June 26th, 2008
By Lynda
While June sparks the start of the summer and school vacations, it also marks the halfway point of the year. Ok, ok – so while we don’t need a countdown to the holiday season just yet, it might be time to reflect on the first half of 2008 – major milestones, medical breakthroughs, etc, but also think critically about the next half of the year.
Businessweek recently published an article, “The Cutting Edge of Health Care”, to examine the upcoming medical innovations we can expect from the health care industry. The article narrows a list down to eight innovations that they predict will have a large impact on the practice of medicine. Highlights include:
E-Care – The evolution to digital health records
Predictive/Preventive Care – Advanced diagnostic tools/genetic research that will be able to pinpoint which diseases we are most susceptible to; thereby customizing treatment plans
Culturally Adapted Treatment – Using the knowledge of culture and various demographic factors to change health and wellness behavior/treatments
It will be interesting to follow the medical innovations behind culturally adapted treatment – as almost every day there is a C.D.C report warning Americans our diets, exercise routines and general lifestyles are leaving us prone to serious health conditions – including today’s report that revealed Americans with diabetes has increased by 15 percent.
Read the Businessweek article and review the full list of major innovations in health care, do you agree with their list? What will support innovation in health care in 2008? What are the barriers?
June 25th, 2008
By Cheri
There has been a lot of excitement in Massachusetts about the life sciences industry. Just Monday Governor Deval Patrick signed the much-anticipated life sciences legislation after months in the Senate and House of Representatives and he’s also attending the BIO International Convention in California this week.
Of particular note at the conference is the intersection of digital media relations and biotech that will happen in the panel “Biotech and the Blogosphere: How Social Media Can Help Companies Enhance their Communication with Stakeholders” on Thursday. Larry Weber will be moderating the panel and will help the audience to understand how new tools can be best used to communicate and understand its stakeholder.Certainly this is an exciting time for life sciences companies in Massachusetts as the visibility of the industry is rising with Gov. Patrick’s attendance at BIO and the tax breaks and funding from the life sciences bill. This is also an exciting moment for Racepoint’s Massachusetts-based life sciences clients as the state is further solidified as the life sciences hub. Increased media attention to these issues will certainly help to elevate and discover the interesting companies that are developing in the area.
June 18th, 2008
By Sally
There was an article on Boston.com recently that caught my eye talking about how long new moms “technically” have to lose the baby weight. Let me preface this blog entry with the fact that I’m nine months pregnant and feeling like an absolute water balloon these days but despite that, I’m interested in learning about how long is too long to keep the baby weight on. Although the article is really talking how long it took celebrity moms to take off the weight (I’d be in good shape too if I had a baby nurse, trainer and professional chef come to my house to cook for me), is it fair to compare you and I to these people? In the end, there’s no doubt it’s all about the baby—is he/she healthy, is everything ok developmentally, etc. but as you move beyond that, it’s time to fit back into your jeans and be yourself again, well, at some point…
With obesity such an issue in the U.S., the good news is that a recent British study revealed that extra weight during pregnancy doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll have an obese child. The study concluded “that obese mothers are unlikely to be driving a growing obesity epidemic by having babies who are metabolically programmed to get fat as they get older.” Additional research recently presented at the 121st annual meeting of the American Physiological Society revealed that exercising during pregnancy has cardiovascular benefits for both Mom and baby. To me, this isn’t too surprising but if it proves to help the baby’s heart, I’m all for it—I just need to get on that treadmill!
June 12th, 2008
By Dana
Tune in to the news on any given day and you’re likely to find a story about an infectious outbreak somewhere around the globe. Take today, for instance: in today’s news, five infants in Australia have tested positive for MRSA, hospitals in Canada are reporting a rash of rare infections and resistant virus strands that have afflicted 15 people to date, and an Irish hospital is coming under fire for the deaths of 40 patients from a virus outbreak.
These stories can at times strike fear in the hearts of us all, as we saw (today, incidentally) when ears perked up for the story of 15,000 hens slaughtered on an Arkansas farm after exposure to a particularly virulent strain of the bird flu. A collective sigh of relief was breathed after learning that this time, the strain was of no threat to the human population.
It is this endemic fear that is driving companies to create solutions that stave off virus outbreaks. New products, ranging from cleaning solvents and hand wipes to facemasks and antimicrobial mattress pads, crop up all the time and purport to have properties capable of killing these viruses – or at least stopping them in their tracks.
But how many of these “miracle” products are truly effective in preventing the spread of disease, and aren’t just gimmicks that capitalize on the sentiment of an anxious population? And how many of them could well lead to bacterial evolutions and the spawn of even more impervious superbugs? MY personal fear is that counting on these products instead of things like good ol’ fashioned diligent hand washing is going to give these bugs a chance to gear up, mutate, and launch a counter attack on us humans that we’re not going to be able to beat.
June 6th, 2008
By Jackie
When it comes to the most reputable, credible sources of medical information, the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) and New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) inarguably top the lists. Considered the holy grail of medicine, these journals serve as the go-to source for everything medical. Without blinking an eye, physicians across the world have historically based drug choices, treatment options and procedural decisions on the study data and findings presented in these two books.
Well folks, that’s all changing now. Over the past couple of months, several studies published in both JAMA and NEJM have come under severe scrutiny by the medical industry. Turns out, three recent pharmaceutical-based studies were found biased and inaccurately favorable toward the industry funder, demonstrating the lengths pharmaceutical companies are willing to go to manipulate the odds in their favor. Additionally, just last month, a lung cancer study set off a firestorm among medical researchers as a leading lung cancer researcher failed to disclose the source of her funding in published studies. That source? Tobacco maker Liggett Group Inc.
When you consider the weight that physicians have traditionally placed on these studies, this news is particularly disturbing, especially from a patient perspective. Fortunately, a number of physicians are coming to the forefront, challenging other physicians to rethink the way they view medical studies. Some physicians have even gone so far as to vocally equate industry-funded research with pharmaceutical advertisements. At any rate, MDs are encouraging their peers to review these studies with a skeptical eye and a careful examination of all funding sources.
Until the National Institutes of Health (NIH) increases its financial support of clinical studies, researchers will likely continue their financial dependence on industry players. It is refreshing, however, to know that a large cohort of physicians are speaking out and challenging the status quo. I think I can speak for all patients when I say, we do appreciate it.
June 6th, 2008
