Perspective
The Path to Personalized Medicine
N Engl J Med 2010; 363:301-304July 22, 2010
- Article
Major investments in basic science have created an opportunity for significant progress in clinical medicine. Researchers have discovered hundreds of genes that harbor variations contributing to human illness, identified genetic variability in patients' responses to dozens of treatments, and begun to target the molecular causes of some diseases. In addition, scientists are developing and using diagnostic tests based on genetics or other molecular mechanisms to better predict patients' responses to targeted therapy.
The challenge is to deliver the benefits of this work to patients. As the leaders of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), we have a shared vision of personalized medicine and the scientific and regulatory structure needed to support its growth. Together, we have been focusing on the best ways to develop new therapies and optimize prescribing by steering patients to the right drug at the right dose at the right time.
We recognize that myriad obstacles must be overcome to achieve these goals. These include scientific challenges, such as determining which genetic markers have the most clinical significance, limiting the off-target effects of gene-based therapies, and conducting clinical studies to identify genetic variants that are correlated with a drug response. There are also policy challenges, such as finding a level of regulation for genetic tests that both protects patients and encourages innovation. To make progress, the NIH and the FDA will invest in advancing translational and regulatory science, better define regulatory pathways for coordinated approval of codeveloped diagnostics and therapeutics, develop risk-based approaches for appropriate review of diagnostics to more accurately assess their validity and clinical utility, and make information about tests readily available.
Moving from concept to clinical use requires basic, translational, and regulatory science. On the basic-science front, studies are identifying many genetic variations underlying the risks of both rare and common diseases. These newly discovered genes, proteins, and pathways can represent powerful new drug targets, but currently there is insufficient evidence of a downstream market to entice the private sector to explore most of them. To fill that void, the NIH and the FDA will develop a more integrated pathway that connects all the steps between the identification of a potential therapeutic target by academic researchers and the approval of a therapy for clinical use. This pathway will include NIH-supported centers where researchers can screen thousands of chemicals to find potential drug candidates, as well as public–private partnerships to help move candidate compounds into commercial development.
The NIH will implement this strategy through such efforts as the Therapeutics for Rare and Neglected Diseases (TRND) program. With an open environment, permitting the involvement of all the world's top experts on a given disease, the TRND program will enable certain promising compounds to be taken through the preclinical development phase — a time-consuming, high-risk phase that pharmaceutical firms call “the valley of death.” Besides accelerating the development of drugs to treat rare and neglected diseases, the TRND program may also help to identify molecularly distinct subtypes of some common diseases, which may lead to new therapeutic possibilities, either through the development of targeted drugs or the salvaging of abandoned or failed drugs by identifying subgroups of patients likely to benefit from them.
Another important step will be expanding efforts to develop tissue banks containing specimens along with information linking them to clinical outcomes. Such a resource will allow for a much broader assessment of the clinical importance of genetic variation across a range of conditions. For example, the NIH is now supporting genome analysis in participants in the Framingham Heart Study, obtaining biologic specimens from babies enrolled in the National Children's Study, and performing detailed genetic analysis of 20 types of tumors to improve our understanding of their molecular basis.
As for translational science, the NIH is harnessing the talents and strengths of its Clinical and Translational Sciences Award program, which currently funds 46 centers and has awardees in 26 states, and its Mark O. Hatfield Clinical Research Center (the country's largest research hospital, in Bethesda, MD) to translate basic research findings into clinical applications. Just as the NIH served as an initial home for human gene therapy, the Hatfield Center can provide specialized diagnostic services for rare and neglected diseases, offer a state-of-the-art manufacturing facility for novel therapies, and pioneer clinical trials of other innovative biologic therapies, such as those using human embryonic stem cells or induced pluripotent stem cells.
As genetics researchers generate enormous amounts of new information, the FDA is developing the regulatory science standards and evidence needed to use genetic information in drug and device development and clinical decision making. The agency's Critical Path Initiative aims to develop better evaluation tools, such as biomarkers and new assays. Under the Voluntary Genomic Data Submission program, companies can discuss genetic information with the FDA in a forum separate from the product-review process. These discussions give the agency and companies a better understanding of the scientific issues involved in applying pharmacogenomic information to drug development and offer an opportunity for early, informal feedback that may assist companies in reaching important strategic decisions. The goal is to help companies integrate genomics into their clinical-development plans.
Today, about 10% of labels for FDA-approved drugs contain pharmacogenomic information — a substantial increase since the 1990s but hardly the limit of the possibilities for this aspect of personalized medicine.1 There has been an explosion in the number of validated markers but relatively little independent analysis of the validity of the tests used to identify them in biologic specimens.
The success of personalized medicine depends on having accurate diagnostic tests that identify patients who can benefit from targeted therapies. For example, clinicians now commonly use diagnostics to determine which breast tumors overexpress the human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2), which is associated with a worse prognosis but also predicts a better response to the medication trastuzumab. A test for HER2 was approved along with the drug (as a “companion diagnostic”) so that clinicians can better target patients' treatment (see table
Examples of FDA-Approved Drugs and Companion Diagnostics in Clinical Practice.).Increasingly, however, the use of therapeutic innovations for a specific patient is contingent on or guided by the results from a diagnostic test that has not been independently reviewed for accuracy and reliability by the FDA. For example, in 2006, the FDA granted approval to rituximab (Rituxan) for use as part of first-line treatment in patients with certain cancers. Since then, a laboratory has marketed a test with the claim that it can identify the approximately 20% of patients who are more likely to have a response to the drug. The FDA has not reviewed the scientific justification for this claim, but health care providers may use the test results to guide therapy. This undermines the approval process that has been established to protect patients, fails to ensure that physicians have accurate information on which to make treatment decisions, and decreases the chances that physicians will adopt a new therapeutic–diagnostic approach. The FDA is coordinating and clarifying the process that manufacturers must follow regarding their claims, including defining the times when a companion diagnostic must be approved or cleared before or concurrently with approval of the therapy. The agency will ensure that claims that a test will improve the care of patients are based on solid evidence, and developers will get straightforward, consistent advice about the standards for review and the best way to demonstrate that the combination works as intended.
Genetic tests are not perfect, in part because most gene mutations do not perfectly predict outcomes. Clinicians will need to understand the specificity and sensitivity of new diagnostics. The agency's goal is an efficient review process that produces diagnostic–therapeutic approaches that clinicians can rely on and allows companies that invest in establishing the validity and usefulness of tests to make specific, FDA-backed claims about benefits.
Patients should be confident that diagnostic tests reliably give correct results — especially when test results are used in making major medical decisions. The FDA has long taken a risk-based approach to the oversight of diagnostic tests, historically focusing on test kits that are broadly marketed to laboratories or the public (e.g., pregnancy tests or blood glucose tests); such kits are sold only if the FDA has determined that they accurately provide clinically significant information. But recently, many laboratories have begun performing and broadly marketing laboratory-developed tests, including complicated genetic tests. The results of these tests can be quite challenging to interpret. Because clinicians may order a genetic test only once, getting the results right the first time is crucial.
There are reports of problems with laboratory tests that have not had FDA oversight: women were erroneously told they were negative for a mutation conferring a very high risk of breast cancer; an ovarian cancer test, marketed before the completion of an NIH-funded study,2 gave false readings that reportedly led to the unnecessary removal of women's ovaries; and flawed, mishandled data underlying a test for Down's syndrome were discovered only days before the test was to go on the market. Through a process that includes opportunities for public input, the FDA will work to ensure the quality of key diagnostic tests, helping to protect patients and giving clinicians confidence that personalized medicine will lead to real health improvements.
In addition, the NIH will address the fact that there is no single public source of comprehensive information about the more than 2000 genetic tests that are available through clinical laboratories. On the recommendation of a federal advisory committee,3,4 the NIH — with advice from the FDA, other Department of Health and Human Services agencies, and diverse stakeholders — is creating a voluntary genetic testing registry to address key information gaps.5 Readily available information about these tests, including whether they were cleared or approved by the FDA, will help clinicians and consumers make informed decisions about using the tests to optimize health care. The registry will also support scientific discoveries by facilitating the sharing of data about genetic variants.
In February, the NIH and the FDA announced a new collaboration on regulatory and translational science to accelerate the translation of research into medical products and therapies; this effort includes a joint funding opportunity for regulatory science. Working with academic experts, companies, doctors, patients, and the public, we intend to help make personalized medicine a reality. A recent example of this collaboration is an effort to identify new investigational agents to which certain tumors, identified by their genetic signatures, are responsive.
Real progress will come when clinically beneficial new products and approaches are incorporated into clinical practice. As the field advances, we expect to see more efficient clinical trials based on a more thorough understanding of the genetic basis of disease. We also anticipate that some previously failed medications will be recognized as safe and effective and will be approved for subgroups of patients with specific genetic markers.
When the federal government created the national highway system, it did not tell people where to drive — it built the roads and set the standards for safety. Those investments supported a revolution in transportation, commerce, and personal mobility. We are now building a national highway system for personalized medicine, with substantial investments in infrastructure and standards. We look forward to doctors' and patients' navigating these roads to better outcomes and better health.
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.
This article (10.1056/NEJMp1006304) was published on June 15, 2010, and updated on September 8, 2010, at NEJM.org.
Source Information
Dr. Hamburg is the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, and Dr. Collins is the director of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda — both in Maryland.
- References
References
1
Frueh FW ,Amur S ,Mummaneni P , et al. Pharmacogenomic biomarker information in drug labels approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration: prevalence of related drug use. Pharmacotherapy 2008;28:992-998
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline2
Ovarian cancer research results from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial: fact sheet. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. (Accessed June 11, 2010, at http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/cancertopics/factsheet/detection/plco-ovarian.)
3
Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing. Enhancing the oversight of genetic tests: recommendations of the SACGT. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, 2000. (Accessed June 11, 2010, at http://oba.od.nih.gov/oba/sacgt/reports/oversight_report.pdf.)
4
Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society. U.S. system of oversight of genetic testing: a response to the charge of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, 2008. (Accessed June 11, 2010, at http://oba.od.nih.gov/oba/SACGHS/reports/SACGHS_oversight_report.pdf.)
5
Genetic Testing Registry. Bethesda, MD: National Center for Biotechnology, National Library of Medicine; 2010. (Accessed June 11, 2010, at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gtr.)
- Citing Articles (77)
Citing Articles
1
Peter J. Polverini. (2012) A Curriculum for the New Dental Practitioner: Preparing Dentists for a Prospective Oral Health Care Environment. American Journal of Public Health 102:2, e1-e3
CrossRef2
J Cohen, A Wilson, K Manzolillo. (2012) Clinical and economic challenges facing pharmacogenomics. The Pharmacogenomics Journal
CrossRef3
Fay Wang, John Flanagan, Nan Su, Li-Chong Wang, Son Bui, Allissa Nielson, Xingyong Wu, Hong-Thuy Vo, Xiao-Jun Ma, Yuling Luo. (2012) RNAscope. The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics 14:1, 22-29
CrossRef4
Linnea M Baudhuin, Leslie J Donato, Timothy S Uphoff. (2012) How novel molecular diagnostic technologies and biomarkers are revolutionizing genetic testing and patient care. Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics 12:1, 25-37
CrossRef5
M.J. Dingel, A.D. Hicks, M.E. Robinson, B.A. Koenig. (2012) Integrating Genetic Studies of Nicotine Addiction into Public Health Practice: Stakeholder Views on Challenges, Barriers and Opportunities. Public Health Genomics 15:1, 46-55
CrossRef6
Kathleen Kraft, Wolfgang Hoffmann. (2012) Challenge of evidence in individualized medicine. Personalized Medicine 9:1, 65-71
CrossRef7
Wolf-Dieter Ludwig. (2012) Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der stratifizierenden Medizin am Beispiel von prädiktiven Biomarkern und „zielgerichteten“ medikamentösen Therapien in der Onkologie. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen
CrossRef8
Ralph Snyderman. (2011) Personalized health care: From theory to practice. Biotechnology Journaln/a-n/a
CrossRef9
Sofia Pavanello, Marcello Lotti. (2011) Biological monitoring of carcinogens: current status and perspectives. Archives of Toxicology
CrossRef10
Issam Zineh, Shiew-Mei Huang. (2011) Biomarkers in drug development and regulation: a paradigm for clinical implementation of personalized medicine. Biomarkers in Medicine 5:6, 705-713
CrossRef11
Stanley J Szefler, Azzeddine Dakhama. (2011) New insights into asthma pathogenesis and treatment. Current Opinion in Immunology 23:6, 801-807
CrossRef12
Vinod Venkatraman, John A. Clithero, Gavan J. Fitzsimons, Scott A. Huettel. (2011) New scanner data for brand marketers: How neuroscience can help better understand differences in brand preferences. Journal of Consumer Psychology
CrossRef13
B. A. Tarini, K. P. Tercyak, B. S. Wilfond. (2011) Commentary: Children and Predictive Genomic Testing: Disease Prevention, Research Protection, and Our Future. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 36:10, 1113-1121
CrossRef14
J. Demotes-Mainard, C. Kubiak. (2011) A European perspective - the European clinical research infrastructures network. Annals of Oncology 22:Suppl 7, vii44-vii49
CrossRef15
Li-Rong Yu. (2011) Pharmacoproteomics and toxicoproteomics: The field of dreams. Journal of Proteomics 74:12, 2549-2553
CrossRef16
Johan van Limbergen, Dana Philpott, Anne M. Griffiths. (2011) Genetic Profiling in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: From Association to Bedside. Gastroenterology 141:5, 1566-1571.e1
CrossRef17
D. Drotar. (2011) Contemporary Directions in Research Ethics in Pediatric Psychology: Introduction to the Special Section. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 36:10, 1063-1070
CrossRef18
Nicole C Silvester, Christopher H George. (2011) Searching for new cardiovascular drugs: towards improved systems for drug screening?. Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery 6:11, 1155-1170
CrossRef19
Mark R. Trusheim, Breon Burgess, Sean Xinghua Hu, Theresa Long, Steven D. Averbuch, Aiden A. Flynn, Alfons Lieftucht, Abhijit Mazumder, Judy Milloy, Peter M. Shaw, David Swank, Jian Wang, Ernst R. Berndt, Federico Goodsaid, Michael C. Palmer. (2011) Quantifying factors for the success of stratified medicine. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 10:11, 817-833
CrossRef20
Bianca Woehrl, Matthijs C. Brouwer, Carmen Murr, Sebastiaan G.B. Heckenberg, Frank Baas, Hans W. Pfister, Aeilko H. Zwinderman, B. Paul Morgan, Scott R. Barnum, Arie van der Ende, Uwe Koedel, Diederik van de Beek. (2011) Complement component 5 contributes to poor disease outcome in humans and mice with pneumococcal meningitis. Journal of Clinical Investigation 121:10, 3943-3953
CrossRef21
César Fernández-de-las-Peñas, Irene Cantarero-Villanueva, Carolina Fernández-Lao, Silvia Ambite-Quesada, Lourdes Díaz-Rodríguez, Inés Rivas-Martínez, Rosario del Moral-Avila, Manuel Arroyo-Morales. (2011) Influence of catechol-o-methyltransferase genotype (Val158Met) on endocrine, sympathetic nervous and mucosal immune systems in breast cancer survivors. The Breast
CrossRef22
Katherine M. James, Clayton T. Cowl, Jon C. Tilburt, Pamela S. Sinicrope, Marguerite E. Robinson, Katrin R. Frimannsdottir, Kristina Tiedje, Barbara A. Koenig. (2011) Impact of Direct-to-Consumer Predictive Genomic Testing on Risk Perception and Worry Among Patients Receiving Routine Care in a Preventive Health Clinic. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 86:10, 933-940
CrossRef23
Pierre Miossec. (2011) Biomarqueurs et médecine personnalisée au cours de la polyarthrite rhumatoïde : vers un changement historique. Revue du Rhumatisme 78, S154-S156
CrossRef24
Feero, W. Gregory, Guttmacher, Alan E., , Hudson, Kathy L., . (2011) Genomics, Health Care, and Society. New England Journal of Medicine 365:11, 1033-1041
Full Text25
César Fernández-de-las-Peñas, Carolina Fernández-Lao, Irene Cantarero-Villanueva, Silvia Ambite-Quesada, Inés Rivas-Martínez, Rosario Moral-Avila, Manuel Arroyo-Morales. (2011) Catechol-O-methyltransferase genotype (Val158met) modulates cancer-related fatigue and pain sensitivity in breast cancer survivors. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
CrossRef26
Bradley Malin, Grigorios Loukides, Kathleen Benitez, Ellen Wright Clayton. (2011) Identifiability in biobanks: models, measures, and mitigation strategies. Human Genetics 130:3, 383-392
CrossRef27
Joshua Cohen. (2011) Dearth of clinically useful diagnostics limits growth of personalized medicine. Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology 4:5, 527-529
CrossRef28
Melissa Ann Ashlock. (2011) Personalized medicine for cystic fibrosis: the next generation. Personalized Medicine 8:5, 495-499
CrossRef29
Jean-Pierre Boissel, Riad Kahoul, Emmanuel Amsallem, François Gueyffier, Margaret Haugh, François-Henri Boissel. (2011) Towards personalized medicine: exploring the consequences of the effect model-based approach. Personalized Medicine 8:5, 581-586
CrossRef30
Stanley J Szefler. (2011) Personalised medicine for asthma management in pregnancy. The Lancet 378:9795, 963-964
CrossRef31
Crystal Dodson, Marcia Van Riper. (2011) Analysis of clinicians’ attitudes towards pharmacogenomics. Personalized Medicine 8:5, 533-540
CrossRef32
Barbara M. Raudonis, Denise M. Cauble. (2011) Palliative Care in the Genomic Era. Journal of Hospice & Palliative Nursing 13:5, 298-308
CrossRef33
Richard Sullivan, Jeffrey Peppercorn, Karol Sikora, John Zalcberg, Neal J Meropol, Eitan Amir, David Khayat, Peter Boyle, Philippe Autier, Ian F Tannock, Tito Fojo, Jim Siderov, Steve Williamson, Silvia Camporesi, J Gordon McVie, Arnie D Purushotham, Peter Naredi, Alexander Eggermont, Murray F Brennan, Michael L Steinberg, Mark De Ridder, Susan A McCloskey, Dirk Verellen, Terence Roberts, Guy Storme, Rodney J Hicks, Peter J Ell, Bradford R Hirsch, David P Carbone, Kevin A Schulman, Paul Catchpole, David Taylor, Jan Geissler, Nancy G Brinker, David Meltzer, David Kerr, Matti Aapro. (2011) Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries. The Lancet Oncology 12:10, 933-980
CrossRef34
Tuomo Rankinen, Claude Bouchard. (2011) Genetic Predictors of Exercise Training Response. Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports 5:4, 368-372
CrossRef35
Jonathan D. Leff, Hilcias Duran, Liza Enriquez, Joseph DeRose, Linda Shore-Lesserson, Jerry H. Kim, Debra A. Schwinn, Mihai V. Podgoreanu, Henry Rosenberg. (2011) Case 4—2011 Malignant Hyperthermia in Cardiac Surgery. Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia 25:4, 731-735
CrossRef36
Gordon Strathdee. (2011) Methylation markers in the clinical management of leukemia patients: wave of the future or just damp squib?. Epigenomics 3:4, 391-394
CrossRef37
Elizabeth F. Neufeld. (2011) From Serendipity to Therapy. Annual Review of Biochemistry 80:1, 1-15
CrossRef38
F. S. Collins. (2011) Reengineering Translational Science: The Time Is Right. Science Translational Medicine 3:90, 90cm17-90cm17
CrossRef39
Sagit Zolotov, Dafna Ben Yosef, Naphtali D Rishe, Yelena Yesha, Eddy Karnieli. (2011) Metabolic profiling in personalized medicine: bridging the gap between knowledge and clinical practice in Type 2 diabetes. Personalized Medicine 8:4, 445-456
CrossRef40
Kenneth Offit. (2011) Personalized medicine: new genomics, old lessons. Human Genetics 130:1, 3-14
CrossRef41
John D. Blakey, Ian P. Hall. (2011) Current progress in pharmacogenetics. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 71:6, 824-831
CrossRef42
J. Vaught, J. Rogers, T. Carolin, C. Compton. (2011) Biobankonomics: Developing a Sustainable Business Model Approach for the Formation of a Human Tissue Biobank. JNCI Monographs 2011:42, 24-31
CrossRef43
Odysseas Zoras, Christos S Katsios, Dimitrios H Roukos. (2011) Personalizing prophylactic surgery in cancer: current practice and future perspectives from new genome-wide association studies. Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy 11:6, 813-816
CrossRef44
Joshua P Cohen. (2011) Personalized medicine: are payers the weak link?. Personalized Medicine 8:3, 293-296
CrossRef45
Bradford W. Hesse, Robert T. Croyle, Kenneth H. Buetow. (2011) Cyberinfrastructure and the Biomedical Sciences. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 40:5, S97-S102
CrossRef46
Paul W Franks, Dmitry Shungin. (2011) The interplay of lifestyle and genetic susceptibility in Type 2 diabetes risk. Diabetes Management 1:3, 299-307
CrossRef47
Jean L. Rouleau. (2011) New and Emerging Drugs and Device Therapies for Chronic Heart Failure in Patients With Systolic Ventricular Dysfunction. Canadian Journal of Cardiology 27:3, 296-301
CrossRef48
Jeffrey N Gibbs. (2011) Regulating molecular diagnostic assays: developing a new regulatory structure for a new technology. Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics 11:4, 367-381
CrossRef49
Thomas Stricker, Daniel V.T. Catenacci, Tanguy Y. Seiwert. (2011) Molecular Profiling of Cancer—The Future of Personalized Cancer Medicine: A Primer on Cancer Biology and the Tools Necessary to Bring Molecular Testing to the Clinic. Seminars in Oncology 38:2, 173-185
CrossRef50
Brent J. Small, Kerri Sharp Rawson, Erin Walsh, Heather S. L. Jim, Tiffany F. Hughes, Lindsay Iser, Michael A. Andrykowski, Paul B. Jacobsen. (2011) Catechol-O-methyltransferase genotype modulates cancer treatment-related cognitive deficits in breast cancer survivors. Cancer 117:7, 1369-1376
CrossRef51
Albert Urwyler. (2011) Malignant hyperthermia: presymptomatic screening and treatment 2011. European Journal of Anaesthesiology 28:4, 237-239
CrossRef52
Petra Denig, Flora Haaijer-Ruskamp. (2011) Do we need individualised prescribing quality assessment? The case of diabetes treatment. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy 33:2, 145-149
CrossRef53
Radoje Drmanac. (2011) The advent of personal genome sequencing. Genetics in Medicine 13:3, 188-190
CrossRef54
Elizabeth O Lillie, Bradley Patay, Joel Diamant, Brian Issell, Eric J Topol, Nicholas J Schork. (2011) The n-of-1 clinical trial: the ultimate strategy for individualizing medicine?. Personalized Medicine 8:2, 161-173
CrossRef55
B. Bengsch, R. Thimme, H.E. Blum. (2011) Individualisierte Medizin 2011. Der Gastroenterologe 6:2, 106-111
CrossRef56
S. Mitchell Harman, Eric Vittinghoff, Eliot A. Brinton, Matthew J. Budoff, Marcelle I. Cedars, Rogerio A. Lobo, George R. Merriam, Virginia M. Miller, Frederick Naftolin, Lubna Pal, Nanette Santoro, Hugh S. Taylor, Dennis M. Black. (2011) Timing and Duration of Menopausal Hormone Treatment May Affect Cardiovascular Outcomes. The American Journal of Medicine 124:3, 199-205
CrossRef57
Robert M. Plenge, S. Louis Bridges. (2011) Personalized medicine in rheumatoid arthritis: Miles to go before we sleep. Arthritis & Rheumatism 63:3, 590-593
CrossRef58
Dimosthenis E Ziogas, Christos S Katsios, Dimitrios H Roukos. (2011) Preventing familial breast and ovarian cancer: major research advances with little implication. Women's Health 7:2, 135-138
CrossRef59
S. F. Terry, P. F. Terry. (2011) Power to the People: Participant Ownership of Clinical Trial Data. Science Translational Medicine 3:69, 69cm3-69cm3
CrossRef60
Zachary Laksman, Allan S. Detsky. (2011) Personalized Medicine: Understanding Probabilities and Managing Expectations. Journal of General Internal Medicine 26:2, 204-206
CrossRef61
Scott A. Waldman, Andre Terzic. (2011) Clinical Translational Science 2020: Disruptive Innovation Redefines the Discovery-Application Enterprise. Clinical and Translational Science 4:1, 69-71
CrossRef62
Katherine H Saunders, Shivani Nazareth, Peter I Pressman. (2011) Case report: BRCA in the Ashkenazi population: are current testing guidelines too exclusive?. Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice 9:1, 3
CrossRef63
Benjamin P. Chapman, Brent Roberts, Paul Duberstein. (2011) Personality and Longevity: Knowns, Unknowns, and Implications for Public Health and Personalized Medicine. Journal of Aging Research 2011, 1-24
CrossRef64
Offie P. Soldin, Sarah H. Chung, Donald R. Mattison. (2011) Sex Differences in Drug Disposition. Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2011, 1-14
CrossRef65
D O’Kane. (2010) An Outsider’s Viewpoint: The FDA Should Regulate Clinical Pharmacogenetic/Genomic Tests, But.... Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 88:6, 746-748
CrossRef66
Henry Rodriguez, Robert Rivers, Christopher Kinsinger, Mehdi Mesri, Tara Hiltke, Amir Rahbar, Emily Boja. (2010) Reconstructing the pipeline by introducing multiplexed multiple reaction monitoring mass spectrometry for cancer biomarker verification: An NCI-CPTC initiative perspective. PROTEOMICS - Clinical Applications 4:12, 904-914
CrossRef67
Kristina W Thiel, Paloma H Giangrande. (2010) Intracellular delivery of RNA-based therapeutics using aptamers. Therapeutic Delivery 1:6, 849-861
CrossRef68
D K Burns. (2010) Developing Pharmacogenetic Evidence Throughout Clinical Development. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 88:6, 867-870
CrossRef69
Andrew S. Mitchell, Rosalie Viney. (2010) Meeting the information needs of a national drug payer: aspirations of the guidelines from Australia. Drug Development Research 71:8, 463-469
CrossRef70
Andre Terzic, Scott A Waldman. (2010) Translational medicine: path to personalized and public health. Biomarkers in Medicine 4:6, 787-790
CrossRef71
Hsiang-Yin Chen, Li-Chia Chen. (2010) Implementation of innovative pharmacogenetic tests into practice in Taiwan: an institutional perspective. Drug Development Research 71:8, 502-506
CrossRef72
Kathleen C. Barnes. (2010) Ancestry, ancestry-informative markers, asthma, and the quest for personalized medicine. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 126:6, 1139-1140
CrossRef73
Kamal Jethwani, Julie Kvedar, Joseph Kvedar. (2010) Behavioral phenotyping: a tool for personalized medicine. Personalized Medicine 7:6, 689-693
CrossRef74
Maria P. Hernandez-Fuentes, Robert I. Lechler. (2010) A 'biomarker signature' for tolerance in transplantation. Nature Reviews Nephrology 6:10, 606-613
CrossRef75
Giuseppe Novelli. (2010) Personalized genomic medicine. Internal and Emergency Medicine 5:S1, 81-90
CrossRef76
Scott A. Waldman, Andre Terzic. (2010) Clinical and Translational Science: From Bench-Bedside to Global Village. Clinical and Translational Science 3:5, 254-257
CrossRef77
Erik Tambuyzer. (2010) Towards a framework for personalized healthcare: lessons learned from the field of rare diseases. Personalized Medicine 7:5, 569-586
CrossRef
