Genetic Testing in Natural History Studies: A Review of the Regulatory and Legal Landscape.

BACKGROUND: Natural history (NH) studies, using observational methods, are common in rare and orphan diseases (80% of which have a genetic component). There is profound interest in identifying genetic mutations driving these diseases in these studies to support the formulation of targeted precision medicines. The global regulatory classification of NH studies with novel molecular biomarker collection has not been clearly delineated, presenting researchers with the challenge of determining how these studies are classified and regulated across multiple geographies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this investigation was to conduct a review of regulations related to NH studies and genetic testing to elucidate regulatory pathways to inform clinical researchers in the field. METHODS: Regulatory provisions for NH studies and genetic testing were obtained from Pharmaceutical Product Development (PPD)'s propriety regulatory intelligence database and by surveying the company's country-specific regulatory experts. A literature search was conducted in the Google Scholar search engine and PubMed for supplementary information. RESULTS: Nineteen countries were evaluated; 37% classified NH studies with biomarker collection as noninterventional and 26% required regulatory approval (increasing to 47% when molecular biomarker testing was introduced). No regulatory provisions for genetic testing could be identified in 32% of countries, and 58% did not have binding requirements for genetic counseling. CONCLUSION: Lack of harmonization of regulations governing NH studies with molecular biomarker collection contributes to the operational complexity of conducting multinational studies in orphan and rare diseases. A set of harmonized international guidelines for these studies would improve efficiency, and this may be on the horizon with the recent adaption of International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) guideline E18.

Are Global Health Systems Ready for Transformative Therapies?

BACKGROUND: We have seen significant advancement in a range of health technologies, some with transformative or curative potential. Nevertheless, it is often unclear how global health systems recognize or reward innovation. OBJECTIVES: To consider what is transformative, challenges for transformative therapies, and downstream health ecosystem effects. METHODS: A systematic review of publications in English between 2012 and 2018 was conducted with a focus on value assessment processes and health system effects of a range of breakthrough health technology categories. After screening 9012 records, 222 unique studies were identified. The study also included an analysis of 100 health technology assessments (HTAs) from 5 markets to consider how and in what ways global HTA bodies evaluate transformative therapies. Global sales and technology/procedure utilization data were also evaluated to gain insights into patient access and commercial impact. RESULTS: This article evaluated uncertainties around evidence of efficacy, safety, and duration of effect, as well as underlying study quality and methodological considerations in the target categories. Although many HTA evaluations had similar approaches to assessing parameters such as safety, there were significant differences across technology categories. Technology-driven trends also surfaced where global HTA and payer systems may not yet be prepared to recognize and reward emerging technology impacts, including use of next-generation diagnostic results to guide care, considering novel impacts on therapy sequencing and clinical pathway management, and changes in payment and health delivery models. CONCLUSIONS: Some trends stemming from rapid evolution of breakthrough therapies will prompt reconsideration of our conventional value assessment and reward models, because health system measurement and management processes have not fully anticipated their effects.