Industry involvement in evidence production for genomic medicine: A bibliometric and funding analysis of decision impact studies.

BACKGROUND: Decision impact studies have become increasingly prevalent in genomic medicine, particularly in cancer research. Such studies are designed to provide evidence of clinical utility for genomic tests by evaluating their impact on clinical decision-making. This paper offers insights into understanding of the origins and intentions of these studies through an analysis of the actors and institutions responsible for the production of this new type of evidence. METHODS: We conducted bibliometric and funding analyses of decision impact studies in genomic medicine research. We searched databases from inception to June 2022. The datasets used were primarily from Web of Science. Biblioshiny, additional R-based applications, and Microsoft Excel were used for publication, co-authorship and co-word analyses. RESULTS: 163 publications were included for the bibliometric analysis; a subset of 125 studies were included for the funding analysis. Included publications started in 2010 and increased steadily over time. Decision impact studies were primarily produced for proprietary genomic assays for use in cancer care. The author and affiliate analyses reveal that these studies were produced by 'invisible colleges' of researchers and industry actors with collaborations focused on producing evidence for proprietary assays. Most authors had an industry affiliation, and the majority of studies were funded by industry. While studies were conducted in 22 countries, the majority had at least one author from the USA. DISCUSSION: This study is a critical step in understanding the role of industry in the production of new types of research. Based on the data collected, we conclude that decision impact studies are industry-conceived and -produced evidence. The findings of this study demonstrate the depth of industry involvement and highlight a need for further research into the use of these studies in decision-making for coverage and reimbursement.

Regulatory niches: Diagnostic reform as a process of fragmented expansion. Evidence from the UK 1990-2018.

This paper analyses the politics of regulatory expansion within the diagnostics sector. Since 1990, an informal, clinician-led process of diagnostic innovation within the UK NHS has been challenged by new mechanisms for the evaluation of diagnostics. We describe these diagnostic reforms as a process of fragmented regulatory expansion. New governance mechanisms function as regulatory niches: discrete spaces within an overarching sociotechnical regime. The boundaries of regulatory niches are organisational and epistemological. Organisational boundaries map onto established communities of practice that constitute the regulatory target; epistemological boundaries are defined by distinctive evaluation frameworks. Niches are also distinguished by their outcomes (rate of positive decisions) and their origins. Niche formation was triggered by five drivers: public scandal; technological change; marketisation; institutional isomorphism; and transnational policy transfer. Each niche was triggered by a unique confluence of these drivers, but common to all were historic shifts in healthcare politics, as the rise of evidence-based medicine intersected with the centralising impulse of the regulatory state, which encroached on clinical autonomy in a contest for power that is increasingly mediated by influential non-governmental organisations.

Half a Century of Wilson & Jungner: Reflections on the Governance of Population Screening.

Background: In their landmark report on the "Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease" (1968), Wilson and Jungner noted that the practice of screening is just as important for securing beneficial outcomes and avoiding harms as the formulation of principles. Many jurisdictions have since established various kinds of "screening governance organizations" to provide oversight of screening practice. Yet to date there has been relatively little reflection on the nature and organization of screening governance itself, or on how different governance arrangements affect the way screening is implemented and perceived and the balance of benefits and harms it delivers. Methods: An international expert policy workshop convened by Sturdy, Miller and Hogarth. Results: While effective governance is essential to promote beneficial screening practices and avoid attendant harms, screening governance organizations face enduring challenges. These challenges are social and ethical as much as technical. Evidence-based adjudication of the benefits and harms of population screening must take account of factors that inform the production and interpretation of evidence, including the divergent professional, financial and personal commitments of stakeholders. Similarly, when planning and overseeing organized screening programs, screening governance organizations must persuade or compel multiple stakeholders to work together to a common end. Screening governance organizations in different jurisdictions vary widely in how they are constituted, how they relate to other interested organizations and actors, and what powers and authority they wield. Yet we know little about how these differences affect the way screening is implemented, and with what consequences. Conclusions: Systematic research into how screening governance is organized in different jurisdictions would facilitate policy learning to address enduring challenges. Even without such research, informal exchange and sharing of experiences between screening governance organizations can deliver invaluable insights into the social as well as the technical aspects of governance.

Continental drift? Do European clinical genetic testing laboratories have a patent problem?

Recent US Supreme Court decisions have invalidated patent claims on isolated genomic DNA, and testing methods that applied medical correlations using conventional techniques. As a consequence, US genetic testing laboratories have a relatively low risk of infringing patents on naturally occurring DNA or methods for detecting genomic variants. In Europe, however, such claims remain patentable, and European laboratories risk infringing them. We report the results from a survey that collected data on the impact of patents on European genetic testing laboratories. The results indicate that the proportion of European laboratories that have refrained from providing associated testing services owing to patent protection has increased over the last decade (up from 7% in 2008 to 15% in 2017), and that the non-profit sector was particularly strongly affected (up from 4% in 2008 to 14% in 2017). We renew calls for more readily available legal support to help public sector laboratories deal with patent issues, but we do not recommend aligning European law with US law at present. Watchful monitoring is also recommended to ensure that patents do not become a greater hindrance for clinical genetic testing laboratories.

Neoliberal technocracy: explaining how and why the US Food and Drug Administration has championed pharmacogenomics.

By 2004 the FDA had emerged as a champion of pharmacogenomics as an exemplar for novel approaches to drug development. This was made clear in 2004 when the agency released a wide-ranging report which positioned pharmacogenomics at the heart of a broader regulatory reform agenda. The Critical Path initiative addressed declining productivity of drug development by suggesting that the problem was a mismatch between the rapid pace of discovery in post-genomic biomedicine and the antiquated development process for new drugs. Framing their work in this context, FDA officials reconceptualised their role in the innovation process, in what was the first programmatic statement of a shift from a strictly gate-keeping role to a more collaborative or facilitative role as enablers of innovation. This paper situates the FDA's emergence as a champion of pharmacogenomics in the broader politics of pharmaceutical regulation in the USA. In making a contribution to the pharmaceuticalisation literature this paper will draw on the work of John Abraham who has argued that one of the primary drivers of pharmaceuticalisation has been "deregulatory state policies" and on Williams and colleagues who have argued that the changing relationship between regulatory agencies and the pharmaceutical industry is an important dimension of pharmaceuticalisation. This paper links this to the promotion of pharmaceutical futures such as pharmacogenomics and explores how this shift is also closely related to the trend towards a risk management approach to pharmaceutical regulation. The role of Bush appointees in the development and promotion of the Critical Path agenda is also examined.

Reflections on the cost of "low-cost" whole genome sequencing: framing the health policy debate.

The cost of whole genome sequencing is dropping rapidly. There has been a great deal of enthusiasm about the potential for this technological advance to transform clinical care. Given the interest and significant investment in genomics, this seems an ideal time to consider what the evidence tells us about potential benefits and harms, particularly in the context of health care policy. The scale and pace of adoption of this powerful new technology should be driven by clinical need, clinical evidence, and a commitment to put patients at the centre of health care policy.

A molecular monopoly? HPV testing, the Pap smear and the molecularisation of cervical cancer screening in the USA.

DNA-based molecular testing for human papillomavirus has emerged as a novel approach to cervical cancer screening in the context of well-entrenched existing technology, the Pap smear. This article seeks to elucidate the process of molecularisation in the context of screening programmes. We illustrate how, although Pap has long been problematised and could be seen as a competing technological option, the existing networks and regime for Pap were important in supporting the entrenchment process for the artefacts, techniques and new diagnostics industry entrant, Digene, associated with the new test. The article provides insights into how the molecularisation of screening unfolds in a mainstream market. We reveal an incremental and accretive, rather than revolutionary, process led by new commercial interests in an era when diagnostic innovation is increasingly privatised. We show Digene's reliance on patents, an international scientific network and their position as an obligatory point of passage in the clinical research field with regard to the new technology's role, as well as on controversial new marketing practices. The article is based on a mixed method approach, drawing on a wide range of contemporary sources (including patents, statutory filings by companies, scientific literature and news sources) as well as interviews.

The future of direct-to-consumer clinical genetic tests.

In light of the meeting of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in March 2011 to discuss the regulation of clinical direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests, we have invited five experts to consider the best means of overseeing the ordering and interpretation of these tests. Should these tests be regulated? If so, who, if anyone, should communicate results to consumers?

Regenerative medicine in Europe: global competition and innovation governance.

Leading European nations with strong biotech sectors, such as the UK and Germany, are investing heavily in regenerative medicine, seeking competitive advantage in this emerging sector. However, in the broader biopharmaceutical sector, the EU is outperformed by the USA on all metrics, reflecting longstanding problems: limited venture capital finance, a fragmented patent system, and relatively weak relations between academia and industry. The current global downturn has exacerbated these difficulties. The crisis comes at a time when the EU is reframing its approach to the governance of innovation and renewing its commitment to the goal of making Europe the leading player in the global knowledge economy. If the EU is to gain a competitive advantage in the regenerative medicine sector then it must coordinate a complex multilevel governance framework that encompasses the EU, member states and regional authorities. This article takes stock of Europe's current competitive position within the global bioeconomy, drawing on a variety of metrics in the three intersecting spheres of innovation governance: science, market and society. These data then provide a platform for reviewing the problems of innovation governance faced by the EU and the strategic choices that have to be confronted in the regenerative medicine sector.