Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Commentary
  • Published:

Creating incentives for genomic research to improve targeting of therapies

Nature Medicine volume 10, pages 1289–1291 (2004)Cite this article

Pharmacogenomics is the study of genetic variability in the way people respond to medicines, traced to the expression of genes related to disease susceptibility and drug response at the cellular, tissue, individual and population levels1,2. It has potential to improve targeting of therapies through tests to identify, in advance, individuals who are genetically disposed to respond favorably or unfavorably to particular medicines3. Recent successes included demonstration of a genetic strategy to identify lung cancer patients most likely to benefit from treatment with gefitinib (Iressa), a drug previously recognized as ineffective in most cancer patients4,5.

Government-funded research had a critical role in determining the target population that benefits from gefitinib. This highlights a question that looms over pharmacogenomics: do private-sector companies have adequate commercial incentives to pursue research aimed at improving the targeting of therapies? If not, then is governmental intervention required and in what form?

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. Report No. EMEA/CMP/3070/01. Position paper on terminology in pharmacogenetics. (European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products, London, 2002).

  2. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Pharmacogenetics: ethical issues (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London, 2003).

  3. Lesko, L.J. et al. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 43, 342–358 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Lynch, T.J. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. 350, 2129–2139 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Paez, J.G. et al. Science 304, 1497–1500 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Peakman, T. & Arlington, S. Drug Discovery World 2, 35–40 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Rägo, L. WHO Drug Information 17, 84–91 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dickson, M., Hurst, J. & Jacobzone, S. Survey of pharmacoeconomic assessment activity in eleven countries. (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lesko, L.J. & Woodcock, J. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 763–769 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. US Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration. Innovation or stagnation: challenge and opportunity on the critical path to new medical products (Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC, 2004).

  11. US Department of Health and Human Services. Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services. National Health Expenditures Tables. Table 3: National health expenditures by source of funds and type of expenditure: selected calendar years 1997–2002 (US Department of Health and Human Services, CMS, Washington, DC, 2004).

  12. Lazarou, J., Pomeranz, B.H. & Corey, P.N. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 279, 1200–1205 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Agrawal, M. & Emanuel, E.J. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 290, 1075–1082 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jess, M. Natural Gas Monthly DOE/EIA-1030(97/05), vii–xxi (1997).

  15. World Health Organization. The world health report 2003. Annex Table 5: Selected national health account indicators: measured levels of expenditure on health, 1997–2001 (World Health Organization, Geneva, 2004).

  16. Guttmacher, A.E. & Collins, F.S. N. Engl. J. Med. 349, 996–998 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hensley, S. Wall Street Journal. B:1 (Eastern ed., April 27, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Epstein, A.M., Lee, T.H. & Hamel, M.B. N. Engl. J. Med. 350, 406–410 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Dodds-Smith, I. & Bagley, G. in Global Counsel Life Sciences Handbook 2004/05. p 77–85 (Practical Law Company, London, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Rawlins, M.D. N. Engl. J. Med. 351, 1383–1385 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Institute of Medicine. Care without coverage: too little, too late (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2002).

  22. US Department of Health and Human Services. Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Transcript No. CAG-00157N (2/12/2003): Medicare Coverage Advisory Committee meetings for implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) (US Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Washington, DC, 2003).

  23. US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Report No. DOE/EIA-0602(5) Energy policy act transportation study: interim report on natural gas flows and rates (EPACT) Ch. 2, p. 9 (US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC, 1995).

  24. US Congressional Budget Office. Electric utilities: deregulation and stranded costs (US Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, 1998).

  25. US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Electricity reform abroad and U.S. investment. Ch. 2 (U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Washington, DC, 1997).

  26. Michaels, R.J. Regulation 16, 20–31 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Supported in part by Pharmacogenetics Research Network grant U-01 GM61373 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, Bethesda, MD and by the Indiana Genomics Initiative (INGEN), which is supported by the Lilly Endowment, Inc.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pharmacogenomics, Ethics, and Public Policy Program, Indiana University Center for Bioethics, Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis

    Barbara J Evans, David A Flockhart & Eric M Meslin

  2. The Law Firm of Baker & Daniels, Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis

    Barbara J Evans

  3. Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis

    David A Flockhart

  4. Indiana University Center for Bioethics, Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis

    Eric M Meslin

  5. Departments of Medicine and Medical and Molecular Genetics, Indiana University School of Medicine,

    Eric M Meslin

  6. Department of Philosophy, Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis

    Eric M Meslin

Authors
  1. Barbara J Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David A Flockhart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eric M Meslin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Evans, B., Flockhart, D. & Meslin, E. Creating incentives for genomic research to improve targeting of therapies. Nat Med 10, 1289–1291 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/nm1204-1289

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nm1204-1289

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing