Emerging Genetic Counselor Roles within the Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Industries: as Industry Interest Grows in Rare Genetic Disorders, How are Genetic Counselors Joining the Discussion?

Traditionally, the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry (BPI) has focused drug development at the mass-market level targeting common medical issues. However, a recent trend is the development of therapies for orphan or rare disorders, including many genetic disorders. Developing treatments for genetic disorders requires an understanding of the needs of the community and translating genomic information to clinical and non-clinical audiences. The core skills of genetic counselors (GCs) include a deep knowledge of genetics and ability to communicate complex information to a broad audience, making GCs a choice fit for this shift in drug development. To date there is limited data defining the roles GCs hold within this industry. This exploratory study aimed to define the roles and motivation of GCs working in BPI, assess job satisfaction, and identify translatable skills and current gaps in GC training programs. The authors surveyed 26 GCs working in BPI in the United States; 79 % work for companies focused on rare disorders. GC positions in BPI are growing, with 57 % of respondents being the first GC in their role. GCs in BPI continue to utilize core genetic counseling competencies, though 72 % felt their training did not fully prepare them for BPI. These data suggest opportunities for exposure to BPI in GC training to better prepare future generations of GCs for these career opportunities. GC satisfaction was high in BPI, notably in areas traditionally reported as less satisfying on the National Society for Genetic Counselors Professional Status Survey: salary and advancement opportunities. BPI's growing interest in rare disorders represents a career opportunity for GCs, addressing both historic areas of dissatisfaction for GCs and BPI's genomic communication needs.

Evidence synthesis and guideline development in genomic medicine: current status and future prospects.

PURPOSE: With the accelerated implementation of genomic medicine, health-care providers will depend heavily on professional guidelines and recommendations. Because genomics affects many diseases across the life span, no single professional group covers the entirety of this rapidly developing field. METHODS: To pursue a discussion of the minimal elements needed to develop evidence-based guidelines in genomics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute jointly held a workshop to engage representatives from 35 organizations with interest in genomics (13 of which make recommendations). The workshop explored methods used in evidence synthesis and guideline development and initiated a dialogue to compare these methods and to assess whether they are consistent with the Institute of Medicine report "Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust." RESULTS: The participating organizations that develop guidelines or recommendations all had policies to manage guideline development and group membership, and processes to address conflicts of interests. However, there was wide variation in the reliance on external reviews, regular updating of recommendations, and use of systematic reviews to assess the strength of scientific evidence. CONCLUSION: Ongoing efforts are required to establish criteria for guideline development in genomic medicine as proposed by the Institute of Medicine.

GENE TARGET: A framework for evaluating Mendelian neurodevelopmental disorders for gene therapy.

Interest in gene-based therapies for neurodevelopmental disorders is increasing exponentially, driven by the rise in recognition of underlying genetic etiology, progress in genomic technology, and recent proof of concept in several disorders. The current prioritization of one genetic disorder over another for development of therapies is driven by competing interests of pharmaceutical companies, advocacy groups, and academic scientists. Although these are all valid perspectives, a consolidated framework will facilitate more efficient and rational gene therapy development. Here we outline features of Mendelian neurodevelopmental disorders that warrant consideration when determining suitability for gene therapy. These features fit into four broad domains: genetics, preclinical validation, clinical considerations, and ethics. We propose a simple mnemonic, GENE TARGET, to remember these features and illustrate how they could be scored using a preliminary scoring rubric. In this suggested rubric, for a given disorder, scores for each feature may be added up to a composite GENE TARGET suitability (GTS) score. In addition to proposing a systematic method to evaluate and compare disorders, our framework helps identify gaps in the translational pipeline for a given disorder, which can inform prioritization of future research efforts.