The Best Medications For Your Genes

blackbearnh writes "Until recently, physicians prescribed drugs to patients with dosages based only on weight, and with no idea if the drug would be effective for that particular person. But as this article on Forbes.com highlights, the same advances in genomics that are letting people know about their likelihood of getting certain diseases can also let doctors know what drugs, and what dosages, will be likely to do the most good. 'Tamoxifen, the much-heralded cancer-fighting drug, has been shown to have little benefit for 7% to 10% of patients taking it. In the past, we would have just said that it works 90% of the time. But now, with our new genomic knowledge under our belt, we can say that it works nearly 100% of the time for people with the 'right' version of the CYP2D6 gene, and 0% of the time for people with the 'wrong' version, who make up roughly 7% to 10% of the population.'"

Comments

Why Where and When?

[DynaSoar]

Of course Forbes is known as a health care consumer advocate, not a source of data useful for strategic and tactical planning by corporations. Therefore they've put this article together so that we, the consumers, will seek the best possible care by consenting to the genetic testing offered, allowing them to select the best drugs for us rather than waste our time with less effective ones. There's no way any of those health care sources could misuse such information because the law forbids it, so when they start ranking their drugs as to efficacy in various genotypes, they'll make it entirely our decision whether to pay for the best our insurance will allow us to have using shot in the dark medical treatment which would be considered experimentation on human subjects if it weren't so ingrained in our minds as acceptable medicine, or whether to request the genetic testing they make available as a service so they can help us select the most effective drug for us, something the insurance companies will be sure to support. And when the insurance companies decide it's time to raise the malpractice insurance rates again, those doctors who support genetic testing and use it to select medications will find that their policies will cost less if they take the precaution of testing their patients first rather than play Pharma roulette with their treatment.

Very, very few drugs do or can react differently enough according to the genetics to make it worth taking the trouble. But since a very few do, many will get tested. Whether or not there is a practical difference, a statistical difference can be forced making it seem as if more and more drugs can be dispensed according to this tactic. During the coming lobbyist/marketoid paroxysm of profit seeking wearing the Easter Bunny suit of consumer advocacy they enjoy so much, we will be bombarded with advertising (and the medical community with far more) showing us how this is all benefit to us, and care & concern on their part. Afterwards there will be genetics rankings on myriad products, and more and more treatment decisions will be based on these. There will be adequate statistical (as opposed to real) evidence supporting the use.

It will come from providers, and it will be our decision to accept it. They fully expect us to despite the fact this has been outlawed as long as it's their decision. There can be no huge FDA backlash because making them do an entire clinical series on the genetic aspect also will make drugs take even longer than the present too many years to get to market and cost yet another digit of price when they do. And when it is said and done, all medicine (after the gigantic increases in a few areas get smoothed out by filtering them through the industry) and treatment will cost more. How much more?

Enough to make up for what they'll lose in the coming health care 'reform' if they don't. This is, in effect, the health care industry acknowledging they lost the first battle in the war. They tried to say that prices and premiums would go up for the insured if this reform went through; they were called down on it since they are the one who set prices, making their statements essentially threats. That marketoid scheme backfired and cost them the battle. Now they're firing over our bow a tactic with which they can discredit as contrary to their stated purpose of saving consumer's money anyone who tries to stand between them and consumers, thereby forcing the appearance (at first) of alliance between them and consumers, stealing consumer hearts and minds back from the consumer advocacy groups and the few government officials that actually were trying to change things for the better. Once they're recaptured, re-enslaved and re-addicted enough consumers they can set this alternative plan in motion, and let the 'reform' go through. The alternative will allow them to make even greater profits within this new structure, polish their tarnished images in the public eye, forge new and reforge damaged bonds between themselves and key government agencies and

Re:Tailoring Medicine to Genes: What took so long?

[mcgrew]

If evolution produces "mutant freaks" than every member of every species is a mutant freak. Lactose tolerance evolved because of a lack of food. Those able to drink milk further into their lives had a better chance of not starving to death before they procreated.

That adult mammals (including the other ape species) are covered in thick fur is also the norm, does that mean all humans are mutant freaks?