header logo image


Page 11234..1020..»

Archive for the ‘Personalized Medicine’ Category

Personalized medicine could transform healthcare – PMC

Thursday, April 24th, 2025

Abstract

Personalized medicine (PM) is about tailoring a treatment as individualized as the disease. The approach relies on identifying genetic, epigenomic, and clinical information that allows the breakthroughs in our understanding of how a person's unique genomic portfolio makes them vulnerable to certain diseases. PM approach is a complete extension of traditional approach (One-Size-Fits-All) to increasing our ability to predict which medical treatments will be safe and effective for individual patient, and which ones will not be, based on the patient's unique genetic profile. Implementation of PM has the potential to reduce financial and time expenditure, and increase quality of life and life extension of patients. Knowledge of PM facilitates earlier disease detection via enhanced use of existing biomarkers and detection of early genomic and epigenomic events in disease development, particularly carcinogenesis. The PM approach predominantly focuses on preventative medicine and favours taking pro-active actions rather than just reactive. This approach delays or prevents the need to apply more severe treatments which are usually less tolerated and with increased quality of life and financial considerations. Increasing healthcare costs have placed additional pressure on government funded healthcare systems globally, especially regarding end of life care. PM may increase the effectiveness of existing treatments and negate the inherent problems associated with non-PM approaches. PM is a young but rapidly expanding field of healthcare where a physician can select a treatment based on a patient's genetic profile that may not only minimize harmful side effects and guarantee a more successful result, but can be less cost effective compared with a trial-and-error approach to disease treatment. The less efficient non-PM (trial-and-error) approach, which can lead to drug toxicity, severe side effects, reactive treatment and misdiagnosis continue to contribute to increasing healthcare costs. Increased patient stratification will allow for the enhanced application of PM and pro-active treatment regimens, resulting in reduced costs and quality of life enhancement.

Keywords: personalized medicine, target therapy, tailored therapy

Personalized medicine (PM) is currently a particularly novel and exciting topic in the medicine and healthcare industries. It is a concept that has the potential to transform medical interventions by providing effective, tailored therapeutic strategies based on the genomic, epigenomic and proteomic profile of an individual, whilst also remaining mindful of a patient's personal situation. The power of PM lies not only in treatment, but in prevention. Increased utilisation of molecular stratification of patients, for example assessing for mutations that give rise to resistance to certain treatments, will provide medical professionals with clear evidence upon which to base treatment strategies for individual patients. With this development, there will no longer be a dependence on the adverse outcomes of trial and error prescribing methods (1,2). Currently, when prescribed medication is not effective, the patient may switch to a different medication. This trial and error approach leads to poorer outcomes for patients, in terms of adverse side effects, drug interaction, potential disease progression whilst effective treatment is delayed and patient dissatisfaction (3).

The 21st century vision of PM is to provide the right drug, with the right dose at the right time to the right patient (4). Effective application of PM relies heavily on the availability of rigorous diagnostic tools which allow for the optimal selection of therapeutic product to improve patient outcomes. The products are fully regulated by manufacturers and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) bodies (5). According to the FDA, the aim of PM is to elevate benefits and reduce risks to patients by targeting prevention and treatment more effectively. PM does not seek to establish novel medication for patients, but to stratify individuals into subpopulations that vary in their response to a therapeutic agent for their specific disease. For example, Herceptin is an extremely useful drug for around 2030% of breast cancer patients who have elevated expression of HER2. However, some patients with elevated HER2 are inherently resistant to Herceptin due to mutations to the HER2 gene. Therefore, intelligent molecular characterisation of breast cancer patients at both a genetic and epigenetic level allows for the optimal use of Herceptin through stratification of patients (6).

The revolution of PM has created a lucrative opportunity for pharmaceutical companies developing molecular-targeted therapeutics, but also through the optimised use and repurposing of existing drugs and combination therapies. Adopting PM will alter the approach to diagnosis and treatment, and will lead to increased participation of the patient during and after treatment. For example, active surveillance in prostate cancer gives patients the choice on if they would like curative treatment immediately, with potential complications and discomfort, or wait until there is signs of disease progression (7). This aspect of PM incorporates the circumstances of the patient as an influence on the appropriate treatment strategy for them as a person, not just as a patient.

The advanced commercialization of molecular medicine has produced the novel concept of pharmacogenetics, the application of which is now acknowledged as PM. Molecular targeted therapies include monoclonal antibody (MAb) based therapeutics like herceptin which targets HER2 in breast cancer but MAb therapies are also used clinically to molecularly target therapies for rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease as well as several types of cancer (8). Currently, we are seeing the translation of immunotherapy research into clinical practice, including highly PM centric ex vivo modification of immune cells. These treatments, such as Sipuleucel (Provenge) extract dendritic cells from a patient's own blood, incubate and mature them in the presence of prostatic acid phosphatase (PAP), which is expressed on the surface of around 95% of prostate cancer cells. When these modified dendritic cells are re-infused to the patient, they are able to present PAP to the patient's immune system, directing the body to attack its own tumour (9). With the advent of CRISPR-Cas9, scientists now have even greater ability to engineer cells at a genetic level (10). Ex vivo modifications using CRISPR-Cas9 to gene edit specific oncogenes is already underway (11) and could be used to create treatments based on the unique tumour evolution path of each specific patient. Clinical trials using CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing have also begun in the USA (12).

To fully realise the potential of PM, pharmaceutical companies will need to invest in development of new diagnostic techniques, that will help to stratify patients at a higher resolution, allowing for optimised therapeutic selection and timing. PM requires coordinated adjustments to each aspect of the value chain, from discovery to development and from commercialization to lifecycle management (13).

PM is considered to be an innovation in the healthcare system; it is preventive, synchronized and proven (1,2). In the current healthcare system, stakeholders and consumers do not yet fully recognise the benefits of PM. Recent studies demonstrate the following challenges to the development of PM: Scientific challenges (wherein genetic markers are the most clinically significant, with a poor understanding of the molecular mechanisms of certain diseases) (14); economic challenges; operational issues (difficulty identifying technology and operational systems that will save costs); and protection of private information during the investigation and development stages (3). Furthermore, there are policy challenges regarding the association between government research and regulatory agencies (15).

PM has the potential to offer improved medication selection and targeted therapy, reduce adverse effects, increase patient compliance, shift the goal of medicine from reaction to prevention, improve cost effectiveness, and increase patient confidence post-marketing by approving novel therapeutic strategies and altering the perception of medicine in the healthcare system (15).

For the development and rapid adoption of PM it is vital that pharmaceutical companies invest in these new technologies and show willingness to work collaboratively with academic research teams. Identification of more stringent biomarkers and are necessary to inform a pro-active approach to PM. One example is the recent development of liquid biopsies, which can be used to detect DNA circulating in the blood. This type of biopsy is non-invasive, much lower risk than traditional biopsy and has been used to detect disease extremely early. One of the first uses of liquid biopsy was a test for Down syndrome is pregnant mothers (16). Now studies such as TRACERx are using ctDNA (circulating tumour DNA) to analyse and predict the tumour evolution of lung cancer (17). Approaches like this will allow medical professionals to apply PM pro-actively by pre-empting the course of tumour evolution and switching patients onto different therapeutics as soon as signs of drug resistance are detected. This may be able to delay the onset of resistance For long-term purposes, pharmaceutical companies must educate themselves in order to be profitable using the novel diagnostic and treatment methods in markedly reduced volumes. Novel drug development is prohibitively expensive and pharmaceutical companies are increasingly keen to repurpose existing drugs. PM allows for optimisation of treatment regimens and therefore increases the utility of existing products.

All pharmaceutical companies implement PM according to their own methods as follows: i) Transitioning from traditional drug methods to PM is not an option, but a necessity. Accept that each molecule in the pipeline will be personalized to precise patient populations, rather than the mass market. ii) PM is an innovative approach towards delivering improved healthcare and reducing overall healthcare costs. This will be achieved by implementing the digitalization of healthcare, by improving the healthcare IT system and with innovative technologies, such as developing single-cell omics, which permits the investigation of different cells in a high throughput manner (18). iii) Embedding PM skills into the existing healthcare system. The implementation of PM requires a united effort of a broad community of stakeholders, all working towards a primary goal of exploiting breakthrough in science to improve patient care (19,20). iv) Biomarkers (an indicator of biological state) are facilitating the support of research and design (R&D) in healthcare industries. R&D is improved by decreasing trial sizes and increasing the speed to market. Support smaller-market therapeutic agents that are more likely to succeed. v) Access novel capabilities by forming partnerships; for example, contact with world-class diagnostics by corporations with assay developers and different industries. vi) Intelligent sales forces with the most up-to-date expertise. Sales teams will be required to have knowledge of patient history, as well as diagnostic and treatment methods. Furthermore, sales teams must understand molecular analysis and disease pathways. vii) Post market surveillance is particularly important in PM to allow more focused clinical trials of pharmaceutical products (21).

In addition, in the coming decades, the demand for PM will increase, as consumers will become more educated about this novel treatment approach. This will encourage the shift from the current medicine module to the novel methods of diagnosis and treatment. Furthermore, currently, clinical trials are time-consuming and require significant manpower; however, in future the concept of clinical trials will be more advanced and easy to accommodate PM with the help of regulatory approval. The development of PM R&D map by improving public/private sector. Establish a simple method of identifying and prioritising the disease, which may benefit from the application of novel technology. Additionally, development of joint venture programmes for validation of study designs and biomarker standardisation (13).

PM has the potential to fulfil the requirement to improve health outcomes by reducing healthcare costs, drug-development costs and time. This revolution in the healthcare system will only be possible to achieve by equal contribution of patient and consumers in participating in clinical trials, entrepreneurs and innovators to develop smart tools and analyze the genetic information, regulators by educating consumers and providers, and support essential revolutions in policy and regulation, physicians to understand the disease at the molecular level, academic researchers by accompanying innovative research to uncover new insights at the molecular basis of disease and supporting target-based drug development, IT sector by creating unique electronic tools to collect and secure patient information, stakeholders, payer and policy makers by exploring new business models, novel diagnostics tools, target therapy and other personalized treatment protocols. PM has the potential to have a positive effect on the healthcare system. In future, with use of the personalized approach, each individual, on the day of their birth, will receive their full genomic information to place into an individual medical record. This information would allow physicians and clinicians to implement more effective healthcare approaches based on patient exposure to different diseases.

Articles from Biomedical Reports are provided here courtesy of Spandidos Publications

View post:
Personalized medicine could transform healthcare - PMC

Read More...

Genomic medicine and personalized treatment: a narrative review

Thursday, April 24th, 2025

Abstract

Genomic medicine, which integrates genomics and bioinformatics into clinical care and diagnostics, is transforming healthcare by enabling personalized treatment approaches. Advances in technologies such as DNA sequencing, proteomics, and computational power have laid the foundation for individualized therapies that account for genetic variations influencing disease risk, progression, and treatment response. This review explores the historical milestones leading to current applications of genomic medicine, such as targeted therapies, gene therapies, and precision medicine, in fields including cardiovascular diseases, oncology, and rare genetic disorders. It highlights the use of next-generation sequencing and third-generation sequencing to improve diagnostic accuracy and treatment outcomes, emphasizing the role of genomic data in advancing personalized treatments. Furthermore, emerging therapies such as CRISPR/Cas-based genome editing and adeno-associated viral vectors showcase the potential of gene therapy in addressing complex diseases, including rare genetic disorders. Despite promising advancements, challenges remain in fully integrating genomic medicine into routine clinical practice, including cost barriers, data interpretation complexities, and the need for widespread genomic literacy among healthcare professionals. The future of genomic medicine holds transformative potential for revolutionizing the diagnosis, treatment, and management of both common and rare diseases.

Keywords: cardiology, genomic medicine, genomics

Genomic medicine refers to genomics and bioinformatics in the context of clinical care and diagnostics[1]. The Human Genome Project was an international collaboration with respect to research that attempted to study the entirety of what is known as the human genome. The human genome is roughly 6 billion DNA base pairs in size and to put it succinctly, contains all the code needed to create what we can call a human being. The fact that different DNA variants being dispersed throughout this genome is what makes an individual different from the rest. Likewise, these DNA variants might also be responsible for causing pathologies that manifest during ones lifetime. Some of these variants can be directly responsible for these pathologies while other variants might be an indicator of how an individuals body will react to a certain treatment. This is where personalized medicine tries to enhance the current scope of medicine[2]. In 1953, Watson and Crick published their first paper on the double helix structure of DNA[3]. In the same year, the sequencing of a biological molecule was completed for the first time via a refined partition chromatography method[4]. At the end of the 1960s, RNA sequencing was still ahead of DNA sequencing[5]. By 1979, the idea of shotgun sequencing was proposed which uses bacterial vectors to clone fragments of a DNA molecule, a procedure allowing sequencing of longer DNA molecules in less time[6]. In 1984, the genome of the Epstein-Barr B95-8 strain was determined[7]. Here-on, a myriad of full-genome screening project was launched and succeeded[5]. GenBank, the US National Institute of Health (NIH) sequence database, was founded in 1982[5]. Advancements in microfabrication, imaging, and computational power led to new sequencing methods. These involve preparing a DNA library by fragmenting DNA, attaching adapters, amplifying it, and then sequencing on a flow cell using massive parallel sequencing[8]. Beginning in the 2010s, third-generation sequencing emerged with the ability to sequence single DNA molecules without amplification. These technologies now produce much longer reads than next-generation sequencing (NGS), ranging from several to hundreds of kilobase pairs[5]. Personalized medicine tailors treatment based on individual patient data, such as genomic and biochemical information, due to significant inter-individual variations. Advances in technologies like DNA sequencing and proteomics have highlighted the need for this approach. Future challenges include enhancing the efficiency of patient characterization and developing effective personalized treatments, although universally effective drugs may still be sought but harder to find[9]. The purpose and objective of this review is to explore the role of genomic medicine in advancing personalized treatment and to assess its current applications, benefits, and challenges.

Genomic medicine integrates genomics and bioinformatics into clinical care and diagnostics, ushering in the era of personalized medicine.

With roots in the groundbreaking discoveries of Watson and Crick in 1953 and the Human Genome Project, advancements in DNA sequencing have revolutionized our understanding of human genetic variation and its role in health and disease.

From early RNA sequencing methods to cutting-edge third-generation sequencing, these innovations have enabled longer and more accurate DNA reads, paving the way for tailored treatments. Personalized medicine leverages genomic and biochemical data to address inter-individual variations, optimizing therapeutic outcomes.

Despite its promise, challenges remain in improving patient characterization and creating effective, individualized treatments, highlighting the ongoing need for innovation in genomic medicine. This review evaluates the transformative impact, current applications, and challenges of genomic medicine in advancing personalized care.

DNA, genes, and genomes constitute the fundamental structural components of an organisms biological framework. DNA double helix with structural base pairing is the most widely recognized DNA structure. It is evident from this structure that DNA is structurally dynamic and capable of adopting alternative secondary structures[3]. A genome is an organisms complete set of DNA sequences. Although people in this world may look different, all human genomes are highly similar[10]. It includes all of an organisms genes and non-coding sequences. Most genomes consist of a linear polymer of DNA wrapped around octameric histone protein complexes to generate a chromatin structure resembling beads on a string[11].

Genetic variations are the changes in the DNA sequences that range from single nucleotide changes to large structural alterations. Some human genetic variations are closely related to certain diseases or individual patient responses to certain medications[12], signifying the need of specific treatment options. These variations could be single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs); the simplest form of DNA variation which may influence promoter activity (gene expression), messenger RNA (mRNA) conformation (stability), and subcellular localization of mRNAs and/or proteins and hence may produce disease[13], short insertions and deletions (INDELs); the second most common type of genetic variations[14] characterized by addition and removal of small nucleotide sequences within the genome, copy number variations (CNVs) that arise from genomic rearrangements, primarily owing to deletion, duplication, insertion, and unbalanced translocation events[15] etc. Some human genetic variations are closely related to certain diseases or individual patient responses to certain medications[12], which makes it possible to opt for the treatment that brings the best outcome for the patients. For example, in precision medicine, physicians can choose different medications to help their patients quit smoking by examining the patients speed of nicotine metabolization[16]. Recent studies on genetic variation have moved from examining genes tied to rare single-gene disorders such as cystic fibrosis to investigating genes involved in multifactorial diseases such as cancer and cardiovascular disorders. Therefore, studying genetic variations is not only enriching our knowledge of different disease mechanisms but is also modifying our diagnostic and therapeutic approaches.

It is a slow process yet advancement in knowledge is increasing the use of genomic data and genomic medicine in clinical care[17]. Advancement in genetics brings genetic medicine and genetic data into clinical practice improving the diagnosis of rare diseases, illness related risk improvement, and treatment efficiency through advanced measurement and methods[18]. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has changed the genomics and not only improve the method but also lowering the costs, can perform rapid genome sequencing and has several medical uses[19].

Genetic testing is important for the detection of inherited and acquired disorders, and also for treatment responses. Multiple genetic tests are used including targeted single-gene assays, gene panels, whole-exome sequencing, and whole-genome sequencing. Chromosomal testing use for detecting changes in chromosomes like additional or missing copies and any large segment modifications[20]. Exome sequencing improves genetic diagnosis and aid in the prenatal identification of structural abnormalities or genetic disorder. Combining copy number variant and single nucleotide variant analyses increases accuracy, whereas low-pass genome sequencing provides higher resolution[21]. Combining copy number variant sequencing and karyotyping improves the identification of prenatal pathogenic chromosomal abnormalities, enhancing the accuracy of prenatal diagnosis[22].

Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) used for detection of tumor-specific genetic variations, enhancing diagnosis and treatment[23]. Genetic testing for prostate cancer, especially in metastatic patients, reveals up to 15% of germline mutations. Pre-test counseling covers inherited risk, diagnostic scope, results, and management options, enhancing personalized care with precision medicine[24]. Myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias resulting from somatic mutations are helped by enhanced genomic testing, like whole-genome sequencing, for accurate diagnosis and evaluation of risk, thus improving personalized treatment and clinical decision-making[25].

Adequate care for epilepsy is difficult due to numerous syndromes and unique responses, however current genetic discoveries have found abnormalities in ion channels and neurotransmitter receptors in many individuals, whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing methods have enhanced our knowledge and led to precision treatment for particular diseases, like Dravet syndrome, pyroxidine-dependent epilepsy, and glucose transporter 1 deficiency[26].

Gene diagnosis in cardiovascular diseases is gaining attention, especially monogenic cardiovascular diseases. These are the diseases that have cardiovascular damage as their phenotype, e.g., cardiomyopathies, cardiac ion channel disease (long QT syndrome, Brugada syndrome, PVTs), inherited hypertension, inherited aortic diseases[27].

There has been established a causal link between risk of DNA methylation at cpg site and various subtypes of CVD, prior MI, atherosclerotic disease in a recent epigenome wide association study (EWAS)[28]. Selenium supplementation has been known to inhibit DNMT2 mediated DNA methylation of glutathione peroxidase 1 gene promoter in cardiomyocytes reducing the reactive oxygen species and toxicity to cardiomyocytes, and thus protecting the heart during its failure[29].

Genetics play an important role in cardiomyopathies. Pathogenic variants in MYH7 gene, MYBPC3 gene are the most common in encoding abnormal sarcomeric proteins causing Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. TTN gene, LMNA gene are the most commonly implicated genes in dilated cardiomyopathy. DSC2, DSG2 genes are implicated in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy. Pathological variant genes testing is implicated to improve prognosis via early screening. Screening of first-degree relatives is also implicated via serial ECGs and echocardiography[30].

Familial hypercholesterolemia is associated with genes such as LDLR, APOB, PCSK9, and APOE. Most of them have autosomal dominant variants and increase the risk of coronary artery disease, atherosclerotic disease, peripheral arterial disease. Early genetic detection can modify the course of disease by early interventions like lifestyle modifications, exercise, blood pressure control, early ignition of statins, and PCSK9 inhibitors [31]. Rather than genome sequencing or exome sequencing, capillary electrophoresis sequencing or next-generation sequencing targeted to known FH gene variants provide a more comprehensive result[32].

Molecular pathophysiology of cardiac diseases can encourage preclinical gene therapy. Adeno-associated viral vector helps in introducing therapeutic genes in heart. Sarcoplasmic reticulum Ca2+ ATPase protein delivery has shown promising result in phase 1 trials to improve cardiac function in heart failure. Crispr/Cas based genome engineering has gained wide recognition for treating cardiovascular disease[33].

Ultrasound targeted micro-bubble (UTM) strategy has gained recognition. Particularly, lipid micro-bubble carrying VEGF and stem cell factor has shown to improve myocardial perfusion and ventricular function in patients with MI[34].

Hypertrophy of ventricles has been shown to reverse with UTM mediated delivery of miR-133 in cardiomyocytes[35]. Anterograde arterial infusion has been indicated in patients with unstable and advanced heart failure, retrograde infusion in patients with impaired coronary artery circulation and limited potential for re-vascularization and direct intramyocardial infusion for focal arrhythmia therapy. Intra-coronary delivery of Ad vector encoding beta2 AR percutaneously, in rabbits, has shown to improve global ventricular systolic and contractility performance[33].

Over the past decade recent advances in genomic medicine has enhanced diagnosis and management of neoplastic diseases by knowing underlying molecular process. Cancer genomic profiling has shown to detect gene amplification, gene deletion mutation, gene fusion of the target genes. These results are interpreted extensively and reflected on treatments. Examples of genomic profiling tests are OncoGuide NCC Oncopanel System, FoundationOne CDx Cancer Genomic Profile, Todai OncoPanel, Oncomine Target Test System. The system used for these tests also functions as a companion diagnostic[36].

Targeted therapies and immunotherapies in oncology like monoclonal antibody against HER 2 which is overexpressed in HER2 positive breast cancer has revolutionized treatment[37]. Osmertinib targeted against EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer has drastically improved disease-free survival[38]. In advanced melanoma, Ipilimumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen (CTLA-4) has improved survival[39].

Denosumab targeted against nuclear factor -B ligand RANK-L, inhibits osteoclastic activation and prevents further growth in giant cell bone tumor[40]. Avelumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, is successfully used in Merkel cell carcinoma, Urothelial carcinoma and Renal cell carcinoma[41].

Targeted gene therapy can help destroy tumor without being aggressive with therapies. A case report on 56years old man with lung adenocarcinoma.

Patients PD-L1 TPS was 70% and patient was started on pembrolizumab but recurrence was evidenced after 6th cycle[42]. Other therapies also failed and led to side effects. Thereafter, the patient was enrolled in clinical study conducted by Japanese advanced medical treatment system and was found to be positive EGFR L858R-K860I doublet mutation. Treatment with oral osimertinib led to partial remission in just one month. Patient tolerated this drug and no side effects were noted[43].

Sometimes targeted therapy can lead to new gene activation and neoplastic transformation. Targeted therapy against triple negative breast cancer can lead to the development of metastatic malignant melanoma[44]. Secondary tumors and T-cell lymphoma can occur after CAR T-cell therapy. For patients who received axicabtagene ciloleucel therapy for diffuse large b cell lymphoma developed lethal T cell lymphoma[45]. Furthermore, In recent studies rigid extracellular matrix of cells (ECM) has demonstrated increased tumorigenesis. Targeting ECM stiffness, can lead to collagen depletion and has emerged as potential cancer therapy[46].

There are a wide variety of rare unexplained genetic disorders and developmental anomalies. Their apt diagnosis can help the patients understand their condition better. Recent advancements with NGS, which includes whole genome sequencing, whole exam sequencing, whole mtDNA sequencing, targeted exam sequencing and RNA sequencing, has countered the limitations of more traditional methods like Sanger method, karyotyping, and chromosomal arrays for rare genetic diseases[46].

Whole exome sequencing was done on~500000 individuals in UK Biobank that identified about 564 distinct genes that had significant trait associations, e.g., CHD2 with chronic lymphocytic leukemias of b-cell type, COL1A1 with bone disorders, SERPINC1 with coagulation defects, etc.[47,48].

Many Mitochondrial disorders have been linked with mutations in mitochondrial DNA or nuclear DNA using next-generation sequencing, e.g., MT-TL1, MT-TN mutation causing progressive external ophthalmoplegia, KearnsSayre syndrome (KSS) caused by single large-scale deletion[49].

A whole exome sequencing (WES) analysis was conducted in Lebanon for neurological diseases in consanguineous families[50]. Thirty-three gene variations were identified among the pre-screened consanguineous families with neurogenic disorders. Most common mutation was miss-sense mutation[51].

Rare genetic disorders affect millions of people across the globe either causing premature deaths or leaving them with prolonged co-morbidities. Genetic therapies are our first line revolutionary treatment options. Classic example is AAV (Aden-associated virus) gene therapy for Cystic Fibrosis[52].

X-linked Retinitis Pigmentosa, which occurs due to mutation in RPGR gene, is another target for gene therapy. Retina is excellent for non-invasive procedures and it limits the immunological systemic spread[53]. AAV vector mediated gene transfer in Hemophilia A and B can be used as a one-time treatment with factors level lasting for years[54].

Use of more advance lentiviral vectors as gene therapy for Primary immunodeficiency, SCID, Wiskot-Aldrich and other Leukodystrophies has improved the biosafety. There have been promising results for the use of Autologous T-cells as an alternate strategy for Primary immunodeficiencies[55]. Stem cell gene therapy for Fanconis Anemia is another genetic approach that uses corrected stem cells to rapidly improve entire hematopoiesis of patient[56]. SMN2 gene splicing modifiers like Nusinersen and Risdiplam, SMN1gene replacement therapy with Zongelsma is used for Spinal muscular atrophy[46].

CRISPR/CAS therapy is the gene therapy of future. It is going to be the therapy of choice for rare genetic diseases in the next 1520years. The technology is being tested for Thalassemia and Sickle cell Anemia, and is showing great potential[57]. Thus, the use of genomic medicine, specifically the gene therapy is going to revolutionize the way we clinically diagnose and manage rare genetic disorders.

Pharmacogenomics leverages genomic biomarkers to predict individual responses to drug efficacy and toxicity. While factors like disease severity, diet, and other medications also influence drug responses, genetic differences significantly impact drug metabolism and action. Despite the growing body of research, replicating findings remains a challenge. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified genetic variations associated with psychiatric disorders and drug responses, but most findings lack consistent replication. The FDA includes pharmacogenomics information in drug labels, highlighting its growing recognition. The Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) aims to translate genetic data into clinical practice, providing guidelines for genome-informed prescribing of antidepressants and antipsychotics[58].

Genetic factors significantly influence the metabolism of lamotrigine (LTG), an antiepileptic drug metabolized mainly by UGT enzymes, particularly UGT1A4. Polymorphisms in these enzymes, such as UGT1A4 and UGT2B7, can affect the drugs plasma concentration and efficacy. Additionally, genetic variations in transporters like OCT1 and ABCG2 also play a role in LTG pharmacokinetics, potentially necessitating dosage adjustments for effective treatment. Further research is needed to fully understand these genetic impacts and to optimize individual treatment plans[59].

A 55-year-old clinical molecular geneticist became a patient after a tumor was detected, leading to a diagnosis of estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer. Initially prescribed tamoxifen, she requested CYP2D6 testing due to concerns about genetic factors affecting the drugs efficacy. The test indicated an intermediate metabolizer status, prompting a switch to anastrozole, in line with CPIC guidelines[60].

P2Y12 inhibitors like clopidogrel and prasugrel are metabolized into active forms by CYP enzymes, notably CYP2C19, which affects their efficacy. Carriers of CYP2C19*2 or 3 alleles, which reduce enzyme function, show decreased drug effectiveness and higher cardiovascular risks. Conversely, the CYP2C1917 allele increases enzyme activity, enhancing drug efficacy and sometimes bleeding risk. Other genetic variants, such as ABCB1 c.3435C>T and CES1, also influence drug metabolism but are not routinely tested[61].

This represents substantial improvements in customized care by offering tailored methods according to the specific genetic characteristics of everyone. One of the main advantages is increased diagnostic accuracy. Comprehending genetics differences allows clinicians to properly diagnose disorders that might otherwise be missed using conventional approaches, resulting in more accurate and earlier disease identification[62]. Enhanced therapeutic efficacy and safety are also significant advantages. Personalized plans based on genomic data can assist in selecting the best medications and dosages, lowering adverse drug reactions and enhancing therapeutic success rates[10]. This personalized approach ensures that therapies are both effective and safe for each patient. Furthermore, enhanced patient results and well-being are significant advantages. individualized. Personalized treatments frequently result in better illness management and prognosis, which can benefit overall patient health and longevity[12]. Patients benefit from therapies that are carefully designed to their unique genetics, resulting in speedier recovery times and an and a higher standard of living. However, putting genomic medicine to use offers its own set of obstacles. These include the requirement for vast genetic data, the complexities of interpreting genetic data and moral questions on genetic privacy and prejudice. Despite these difficulties that genomic medicine seems to be a promising topic regarding the future of individualized therapy.

Incorporating genomics into therapeutic practice requires a dependable bioinformatics infrastructure to manage and interpret vast datasets. This involves developing standardized procedures for the purpose of genome sequencing, analysis, and ensuring compatibility with existing electronic health records[63]. Additionally, there is an urgent requirement for medical personnel to receive comprehensive training in genomics to effectively utilize these perspectives on patient care, bridging the gap between advanced technology and practical application[64].

High price of genome sequencing and related technology is a major obstacle to its broad use, even though sequencing costs have dropped over time, it remains prohibitive for many healthcare systems and patients, particularly in low- and middle-income countries[65].

However, ensuring equitable access to these treatments necessitates significant monetary commitment and supportive policies to subsidize costs and integrate genomic medicine into public healthcare systems.

The gathering, storing, and use of genetic information raise substantial privacy concerns. Making sure patient data are securely stored and used in an ethical manner critical to maintaining public trust in genomic medicine[66]. The ethical implications encompass preventing genetic discrimination and managing the potential psychological impact on patients who discover their risks. Rules and regulations must be established to protect peoples genetic information and discuss the ethical ramifications of using genomic data[67].

Regulating and storing genomic data presents tremendous privacy and security concerns since peoples genetic information is considered sensitive. There is adequate legal protection for genomic data for clinical use, especially where the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) applies. HIPAA outlines the degree of protection provided to such data and restricts access to only personnel in the clinical field. Some states have additional protections, but these vary from state to state, leading to disparities in privacy levels[68].

Genomic data require robust protection from breaches, necessitating strong methods in their storage and transfer. Access to these data must be highly controlled, with monitoring of everyone who seeks access and logging of all actions on the data to properly identify violators. Preventive measures for the protection of genomic data are of utmost importance due to the severe consequences individuals may face from the misuse of their information[68].

Two critical aspects of handling genomic data are consent and confidentiality, aligning with patients concerns about the privacy of their genetic sequences and potential misuse. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), signed into law in 2008, addresses discrimination in insurance and employment based on genetic characteristics but does not cover life, disability, or long-term care insurance.

Privacy is paramount; each patient must know how their genetic details will be utilized, where they will be stored, and who will be allowed access. The HIPAA Privacy Rule generally restricts the disclosure of genetic data without the patients consent, though there may be exceptional cases requiring the disclosure to at-risk relatives based on ethical principles. For instance, physicians might encourage patients to disclose genetic risks to their families while respecting patient privacy and legal guidelines[68].

Lack of equal access to genomic testing and personalized treatments is rampant, with minorities, women, rural patients, uninsured/underinsured patients and those with low education and income levels being most affected. For instance, in the case of breast cancer, non-Hispanic Black women receive low rates of BRCA testing compared to non-Hispanic White women. This is partly because there are fewer conversations about genetic testing with healthcare providers and fewer referrals to genetic counselors among minority-serving physicians. Therefore, these disparities also translate to preventive measures, such as lower risk-reducing surgeries among Black women and fewer cases of cascade screening among Black families with BRCA variants. Furthermore, the underserved population, including racial and ethnic minorities, low-income groups, and women, have barriers in accessing treatments such as PCSK9 inhibitors for FH leading to poor cholesterol control and poor health outcomes[69].

In order to improve health equity for genomic medicine it is necessary to engage participants from non-European decent and other deprived population backgrounds. Increasing rates of utilization of genomic services depends on the ability to make such tests accessible and have acceptable coverage in various settings such as community hospitals or primary care physicians offices. Training of the workforce and infrastructure improvement in MSIs aids in improving culturally sensitive care and research. Sparking collaboration with the local communities and the healthcare providers ensures a mutual understanding between the two that will make genomic research to reflect their perception. Furthermore, the financing of the research facilities in other than academic institutions and in underprivileged regions contributes to a wider deployments and participants integration. Together, these strategies seek to address health disparity and guarantee the equitable improvement of all people through genomic medicine[70].

Genetic discrimination focuses on prejudice against people with specific genetic characteristics which exposes them to serious threats such as loss of insurance, inability to secure a job and social exclusion. The following risks have however been regulated by law especially by the Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act of 2008. GINA offers certain federal anti-discrimination provisions for genetic tests whether from the states and health insurers or employers perspectives as they ban such entities from obtaining or using genetic information for underwriting purposes or employment respectively[71]. However, GINA does not cover life, disability or long-term care insurance and for this void state laws try to provide a solution[71].

Some recommendations to address discrimination in genomic medicine are having general statutes such as the Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act, enacted with an aim of preventing discrimination of individuals based on genetic information. In employment and health insurance decisions, GINA is enforced; however, health insurers cannot use genetic information to underwrite life, disability, or long-term care insurance. Furthermore, there are intentions to increase the consciousness about the protection against genetic non-discrimination and to remove the general distrust thereby impeding genomic research due to apprehension for discrimination. Furthermore, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has also sought to fill gaps by extending provisions that ban the health insurance status discrimination based on pre-existing conditions to include genetic information; thereby supporting GINAs provisions aimed at addressing employment discrimination. Enlarging such protections to encompass all sorts of insurance and ensuring people advocate for a similar system that combines risk might help to avoid discrimination and promote the proper usage of genomic medicine further[72].

Since the Human Genome Projects completion in 2003, DNA sequencing technologies have advanced significantly to fill previously existing gaps[73]. There are primarily two types of DNA sequencing technologies: short-read sequencing and long-read sequencing. Short-read sequencing methods, such as sequence molecule fluorescent sequencing and single-molecule nanopore base sequencing, generate genetic information in 100300 base pairs per read[19]. They are efficient and cost-effective but often miss repetitive regions, duplicated sequences, and complex structural variants, leaving gaps in the data. While long-read sequencing provides better resolution of complex regions and structural variants, it is typically more expensive and has higher error rates. Combining both approaches can enhance genomic analysis[73].

Advancements in pharmacogenomics and the integration of sequenced genomes with medical records, expression profiles, and imaging studies necessitate robust data storage solutions like cloud computing. It is crucial to manage these data while ensuring both accessibility and confidentiality. In the realm of AI, such comprehensive data can significantly enhance the development of genomics and improve outcomes. However, it is vital to apply this knowledge and data judiciously in clinical settings to ensure its effectiveness and ethical use[74,75].

Multi-omics refers to the use of multiple biological omes such as genome, proteome, transcriptome, epigenome, metabolome, radiomics, and microbiome to provide data to achieve a holistic understanding of biological systems and enhance personalized medical treatments[76]. Multi-omics can provide the missing link of information in the study of genomics and help uncover the pathophysiology underlying a disease which will help provide a new approach to its detection, treatment, and prevention[77].This new approach will pave the way for personalized medicine and optimize its clinical outcome based on the uniqueness of an individual[9].

Multi-omics approaches can fill critical gaps in genomic research by providing comprehensive insights into the underlying mechanisms of diseases. By integrating various types of omics data, such as genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics, researchers can better understand disease pathophysiology. This enhanced understanding enables the development of novel strategies for disease detection, treatment, and prevention[77]. The application of these strategies will support the advancement of personalized medicine, which aims to tailor medical interventions to the unique characteristics of each individual. Ultimately, this personalized approach will optimize clinical outcomes and improve patient care by addressing the specific needs and conditions of each patient, leading to more effective and targeted treatments[9].

Precision medicine can categorize individuals based on their clinical features, treatment responses, and prognostic factors[78]. By leveraging multi-omics studies in diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease, various cancers, and lifestyle-related conditions like diabetes, personalized medicine aims to tailor treatments to each persons unique profile. Since pharmacokinetics is closely linked to genetic variations, personalized medicine has the potential to revolutionize genomics and drive the development of new therapies. This approach integrates comprehensive omics data to refine treatment strategies, enhancing their effectiveness and leading to more targeted, individualized healthcare solutions. Ultimately, this method supports more precise and effective management of diverse health conditions, contributing to advancements in medical science and patient care[9].

Artificial intelligence excels at processing multidimentional clinical and biological data, which is critical for precision medicine. It assists in discovering biomarkers via genetic sequencing and other data sources, turning complex data into meaningful insights for tailored treatment strategies[79]. Artificial intelligence algorithms, such as machine learning and deep learning, improve disease daignosis and early detection . This is especially visible in diciplines like oncology and cardiovascular care, where AI helps anticipate disease risk and stratify indiviaduals based on their unique traits[80]. AI gives clinicians additional insight by combining data from many sources, such as electronic health records (EHR), imaging data, and omics data. This integration aids clinical decision-making by increasingthe accuracy of diagnoses and the efficacy of tretmenr strategies[81]. AI is widely employed in oncology for tasks such as tumor identification, therapy planing, and prognosis prediction . It assists in identifying new biomarkers and understanding tumor heterogeneity, resulting in more accurate and effective cancer treatments[82]. AI helps in diagnosis and forecast the prognosis of cardiovascular illnesses. It employs several machine learining models to assess data from EHR, imaging and omics thereby boosting the accuracy of risk prediction and treatment planing[83]. AI has the potential to predict the risks and outcomes of neurodevelopmental diseases by examining genomic variants and other biological markers. However the compexity and variability of these illnesses provide substantial hurdles that AI continues to solve[84].

Personalized medicine in oncology is adapting treatment to individual patient features, especially genomic and molecular markers. This strategy seeks to give the right treatment for the right person at the right time by using genetic information to guide therapeutic decisions[85].

The MINDACT study investigated the use of a 70-gene signature to inform chemotheraphy decisions in early-stage breast cancer.A decision-analytic modeling technique indicates that fewer women may benefit from genomic testing and treatment than previously indicated by the trial, underlining the necessity for personalized decision-making based on genomic risk[86].

The PROMISE study finds that concentrations of hs-cTn and IL-6 were associated with coronary artery disease (CAD) characteristics and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), indicating that myocardial injury and inflamation play a role in CAD pathophysiology. This association was strongest in partipants with non-obstructive CAD, highlighting and opportunity to tailor treatment for this at-risk group[87].

Intensive blood pressure management in older hypertensive persons with sarcopenia was related with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) without an increased risk for adverse events, suggesting potential for indivudualized treatment techniques targeted to this at-risk group[88].

STK11/LKB1 mutations were discovered to be a prominent cause of primary resistance to PD-1 inhibitors in KRAS-mutant lung adenocarcinoma (LUAC). This resistance was demonstrated in numerous clinical cohorts, with different response to PD-1 blocking among LUAC subtypes. These findings suggest that STK11/LKB1 mutations can be employed as a predictive biomarker for PD-1 inhibitor efficacy potentially informing customized treatment options for KRAS-mutant patients[89].

KRAS codon G12 mutations have been identified as biomarkers of resistance to trifluidine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), with patients carrying these mutations showing significantly reduced overall survival benefit from treatment, implying that genomics-based precision medicine could inform chemotherapy selection and improve outcomes for mCRC[90].

The potential of genomics-based tailored treatment, demonstrating that magnesium spplementation can regulate DNA methylation in the TMPRSS2 gene, which is critical for SARS-CoV-2 viral entry. Adjusting magnesium levels in individuals with specific calcium-to-magnesium intake ratios suggests a novel gene-environment interaction that could be leveraged for personalized prevention strategies and treatment of early COVID-19, potentially altering viral susceptibility based on individual genetic and nutritional factors.[91]

Genomic medicine has increased our knowledge of genetic variations, resulting more accurate diagnosis and personalized treatment[18]. DNA sequencing technology, genetic data integration into clinical care, and the use of multi-omics techniques are among the most significant developments.

Future research should focus on increasing access to genetic technology, tackling ethical challenges, and enhancing bioinformatics facilities. Clinical practice needs to change to include these developments, providing fair and efficient individual treatment.

As genomic medicine growing, it will play an increasingly significant part in transforming healthcare. Addressing existing challenges will be important for achieving its full assurance, leading to more customized, precise, and efficient treatments that improves outcomes for patients.

Sponsorships or competing interests that may be relevant to content are disclosed at the end of this article.

Published online 13 February 2025

Adil Khan, Email: dradilkhan17@gmail.com.

Anchal Ramesh Barapatre, Email: anchalbara15@gmail.com.

Nadir Babar, Email: nadirbabar@gmail.com.

Joy Doshi, Email: joydoshi10@gmail.com.

Mohamd Ghaly, Email: Ghalymohamed587@gmail.com.

Kirtan Ghanshyam Patel, Email: pkirtan099@gmail.com.

Shayan Nawaz, Email: shayan7788@outlook.com.

Uswa Hasana, Email: uswah.2501@gmail.com.

Swara Punit Khatri, Email: khatriswara8@gmail.com.

Shilpa Pathange, Email: Shilpa.pathange27@gmail.com.

Abhinya Reddy Pesaru, Email: abhinya2000@gmail.com.

Chaitanya Swaroop Puvvada, Email: chaitanyaswaroop17@gmail.com.

Marium Billoo, Email: Dr.mariumbilloo@hotmail.com.

Usama Jamil, Email: jamilusama719@gmail.com.

Ethical approval was not required for this review.

Informed consent was not required for this review.

None.

A.K.: conception and design of the study, drafting the manuscript, critical revision of the article for important intellectual content, and final approval of the version to be published. A.R.B.: acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting sections of the manuscript, and revising it critically for important intellectual content. N.B. and C.S.P.: acquisition of data, drafting sections of the manuscript, revising it critically for important intellectual content, and providing final approval of the version to be published. J.D.: assistance in data collection, drafting sections of the manuscript, and revising it critically for important intellectual content. M.G. and S.P.: data interpretation, drafting sections of the manuscript, and revising it critically for important intellectual content. K.G. and M.B.: analysis and interpretation of data, drafting sections of the manuscript, and revising it critically for important intellectual content. S.N.: data collection and interpretation, drafting sections of the manuscript, and revising it critically for important intellectual content. U.H.: assistance in data collection, drafting sections of the manuscript, and revising it critically for important intellectual content. S.P.K. and A.R.P: analysis and interpretation of data, drafting sections of the manuscript, and revising it critically for important intellectual content. U.J.: data collection, drafting sections of the manuscript, and revising it critically for important intellectual content.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

None.

Usama Jamil.

None.

None.

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

None.

Articles from Annals of Medicine and Surgery are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

See the original post:
Genomic medicine and personalized treatment: a narrative review

Read More...

Podcast: Ochre Bios Approach To Precision Medicine In Liver Treatment – insights.citeline.com

Thursday, April 24th, 2025

Podcast: Ochre Bios Approach To Precision Medicine In Liver Treatment  insights.citeline.com

Link:
Podcast: Ochre Bios Approach To Precision Medicine In Liver Treatment - insights.citeline.com

Read More...

Reinforcement Learning in Personalized Medicine: A Comprehensive Review of Treatment Optimization Strategies – Cureus

Thursday, April 24th, 2025

Reinforcement Learning in Personalized Medicine: A Comprehensive Review of Treatment Optimization Strategies  Cureus

The rest is here:
Reinforcement Learning in Personalized Medicine: A Comprehensive Review of Treatment Optimization Strategies - Cureus

Read More...

Evolving Biomarkers: Charting the Future of Precision Medicine – MarketScale

Thursday, April 24th, 2025

Evolving Biomarkers: Charting the Future of Precision Medicine  MarketScale

Follow this link:
Evolving Biomarkers: Charting the Future of Precision Medicine - MarketScale

Read More...

Next Generation Tissue Biomarkers Market Size Report 2030 – Grand View Research

Thursday, April 24th, 2025

Next Generation Tissue Biomarkers Market Size Report 2030  Grand View Research

See more here:
Next Generation Tissue Biomarkers Market Size Report 2030 - Grand View Research

Read More...

City of Hope Research on Artificial Intelligence (AI), Precision Medicine, Immunotherapies and Other Topics to be Presented at American Association of…

Thursday, April 24th, 2025

City of Hope Research on Artificial Intelligence (AI), Precision Medicine, Immunotherapies and Other Topics to be Presented at American Association of Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2025  Business Wire

Read the original here:
City of Hope Research on Artificial Intelligence (AI), Precision Medicine, Immunotherapies and Other Topics to be Presented at American Association of...

Read More...

What the Newest mRNA Vaccines Could Do Beyond COVID – News-Medical

Thursday, April 24th, 2025

What the Newest mRNA Vaccines Could Do Beyond COVID  News-Medical

See original here:
What the Newest mRNA Vaccines Could Do Beyond COVID - News-Medical

Read More...

Opinion: Where public health ends and personalised medicine begins – Pulse+IT News

Thursday, April 24th, 2025

Opinion: Where public health ends and personalised medicine begins  Pulse+IT News

Link:
Opinion: Where public health ends and personalised medicine begins - Pulse+IT News

Read More...

The Role of High Throughput Screening in Precision Medicine and Market Growth In New Report – WhaTech

Thursday, April 24th, 2025

The Role of High Throughput Screening in Precision Medicine and Market Growth In New Report  WhaTech

Link:
The Role of High Throughput Screening in Precision Medicine and Market Growth In New Report - WhaTech

Read More...

Crohns Disease Treatment Market to Reach $5.9 Billion by 2034, Driven by Biologics & Precision Medicine – Global Banking | Finance | Review

Thursday, April 24th, 2025

Crohns Disease Treatment Market to Reach $5.9 Billion by 2034, Driven by Biologics & Precision Medicine  Global Banking | Finance | Review

Read the original:
Crohns Disease Treatment Market to Reach $5.9 Billion by 2034, Driven by Biologics & Precision Medicine - Global Banking | Finance | Review

Read More...

Antiviral Chewing Gum May Prevent Flu and Herpes Transmission – Inside Precision Medicine

Monday, April 14th, 2025

Antiviral Chewing Gum May Prevent Flu and Herpes Transmission  Inside Precision Medicine

More here:
Antiviral Chewing Gum May Prevent Flu and Herpes Transmission - Inside Precision Medicine

Read More...

Wisconsin’s role in the next advances in health care – BizTimes

Monday, April 14th, 2025

Wisconsin's role in the next advances in health care  BizTimes

See more here:
Wisconsin's role in the next advances in health care - BizTimes

Read More...

The Future of Pulmonary Fibrosis Management: Precision Medicine, Biomarkers and AI – Managed Healthcare Executive

Monday, April 14th, 2025

The Future of Pulmonary Fibrosis Management: Precision Medicine, Biomarkers and AI  Managed Healthcare Executive

More:
The Future of Pulmonary Fibrosis Management: Precision Medicine, Biomarkers and AI - Managed Healthcare Executive

Read More...

Leading Driver In The Jetrea Market 2025: Rise Of Personalized Medicine Fueling Growth – EIN News

Sunday, March 9th, 2025

Leading Driver In The Jetrea Market 2025: Rise Of Personalized Medicine Fueling Growth  EIN News

See original here:
Leading Driver In The Jetrea Market 2025: Rise Of Personalized Medicine Fueling Growth - EIN News

Read More...

Personalized Medicine Market Overview 2024-2025 & 2030: Oncology, Neurology, and Cardiology Lead Expansion, ext-Generation Sequencing and AI…

Sunday, March 9th, 2025

Personalized Medicine Market Overview 2024-2025 & 2030: Oncology, Neurology, and Cardiology Lead Expansion, ext-Generation Sequencing and AI Revolutionize Tailored Treatment Approaches  Yahoo Finance

Visit link:
Personalized Medicine Market Overview 2024-2025 & 2030: Oncology, Neurology, and Cardiology Lead Expansion, ext-Generation Sequencing and AI...

Read More...

Innovations in core-shell nanoparticles advance drug delivery and precision medicine – Phys.org

Sunday, March 9th, 2025

Innovations in core-shell nanoparticles advance drug delivery and precision medicine  Phys.org

Go here to read the rest:
Innovations in core-shell nanoparticles advance drug delivery and precision medicine - Phys.org

Read More...

Personalized Medicine: Motivation, Challenges and Progress

Monday, February 24th, 2025

Abstract

There is a great deal of hype surrounding the concept of personalized medicine. Personalized medicine is rooted in the belief that since individuals possess nuanced and unique characteristics at the molecular, physiological, environmental exposure and behavioral levels, they may need to have interventions provided to them for diseases they possess that are tailored to these nuanced and unique characteristics. This belief has been verified to some degree through the application of emerging technologies such as DNA sequencing, proteomics, imaging protocols, and wireless health monitoring devices, which have revealed great inter-individual variation in disease processes. In this review, we consider the motivation for personalized medicine, its historical precedents, the emerging technologies that are enabling it, some recent experiences including successes and setbacks, ways of vetting and deploying personalized medicines, and future directions, including potential ways of treating individuals with fertility and sterility issues. We also consider current limitations of personalized medicine. We ultimately argue that since aspects of personalized medicine are rooted in biological realities, personalized medicine practices in certain contexts are likely to be an inevitability, especially as relevant assays and deployment strategies become more efficient and cost-effective.

Keywords: Precision medicine, biomarkers, patient monitoring, genomics

The application of emerging, high-throughput, data-intensive biomedical assays, such as DNA sequencing, proteomics, imaging protocols, and wireless monitoring devices, has revealed a great deal of inter-individual variation with respect to the effects of, and mechanisms and factors that contribute to, disease processes. This has raised questions about the degree to which this inter-individual variation should impact decisions about the optimal way to treat, monitor, or prevent a disease for an individual. In fact, it is now widely believed that the underlying heterogeneity of many disease processes suggests that strategies for treating an individual with a disease, and possibly monitoring or preventing that disease, must be tailored or personalized to that individual's unique biochemical, physiological, environmental exposure, and behavioral profile. A number of excellent reviews on personalized medicine have been written, including a growing number of textbooks on the subject meant for medical students and clinicians. It should be noted that although many use the term personalized medicine interchangeably with the terms individualized and precision medicine (as we do here), many have argued that there are some important, though often subtle, distinctions between them.(1, 2))

There are a number of challenges associated with personalized medicines, especially with respect to obtaining their approval for routine use from various regulatory agencies. In addition, there have many issues associated with the broad acceptance of personalized medicines on the part of different health care stakeholders, such as physicians, health care executives, insurance companies, and, ultimately, patients. Almost all of these challenges revolve around a need to prove that personalized medicine strategies simply outperform traditional medicine strategies, especially since many tailored or personalized therapies, such as autologous CAR-T cell transplant therapies for certain types of cancer(3) and mutation-specific medicines such as ivacaftor to treat cystic fibrosis (4, 5), can be very expensive(6). In this review we consider the history and motivation of personalized medicine and provide some context on what personalized medicines strategies have emerged in the last few decades, what limitations are slowing their advance, and what is on the horizon. We also consider strategies for proving that personalized medicine protocols and strategies can outperform traditional medicine protocols and strategies. Importantly, we distinguish examples and challenges associated with personalized disease prevention, personalized health monitoring, and personalized treatment of overt disease.

There is much in the history of western medicine that anticipates the emergence of personalized medicine. For reasons of brevity, we will not focus on all of these events, but rather only a few that we feel encompass the most basic themes behind personalized medicine. More than a century ago Archibald Garrod, an English physician, began studying in earnest diseases that would later become known as inborn errors of metabolism. Garrod studied a number of rare diseases with overt, visible phenotypic manifestations including alkaptonuria, albinism, cystinuria and pentosuria. Of these, his focused work on alkaptonuria led to some notoriety when he observed that some members of families exhibiting alkaptonuria showed measurably outlying values for certain basic biochemical assays, e.g., from urine, relative to the values of family members who did not possess alkaptonuria. This led him to conclude that alkaptonuria was due to a specific altered course of metabolism among affected individuals, which was subsequently proven correct.(7) Further, in considering other rare diseases like alkaptonuria, Garrod argued that the thought naturally presents itself that these [conditions] are merely extreme examples of variation of chemical behavior which are probably everywhere present in minor degrees and that just as no two individuals of a species are absolutely identical in bodily structure neither are their chemical processes carried out on exactly the same lines. This more than hints at his belief that, at least with respect to metabolism, humans vary widely and that these differences in metabolism could help explain overt phenotypic differences between individuals, such as their varying susceptibilities to diseases and the ways in which they manifest diseases.(8, 9)

Garrod was working in the backdrop of a great deal of debate about the emerging field of genetics. Although the specific entities we now routinely refer to as genes (i.e., stretches of DNA sequence that code for a protein and related regulatory elements), were unknown to Garrod and his contemporaries, he and others often referred to factors influencing disease possessed by certain individuals that were consistent with the modern notion of genes. Claims about the very presence of such factors were born out of discussions rooted in the findings of Mendel (later, it would be shown that many of the metabolic outliers Garrod observed in people with diseases like alkaptonuria were due to defects in genes possessed by people with those diseases). Mendel observed consistent connections between the emergence of very specific phenotypes only when certain breeding protocols were followed in peas that anticipated the modern field of genetics.(10) Essentially, as discussed in an excellent book by William Provine,(11) many in the research community at the time debated how genes or factors of the type Garrod and others were considering could explain the broad variation in phenotypic expression observed in nature. One group of academics and researchers, referred to as the Mendelians in the historical literature, which included William Bateson and Hugo de Vries, focused on the discrete nature of the factors likely to be responsible for many observable inheritance patterns (such as those of focus in Mendel's studies and observations like Garrod's in the context of rare disease). In opposition to the Mendelians were the Biometricians, represented most notably by Karl Pearson, whose focus on continuous or graded phenotypes, like height, gave them concerns about how to reconcile such continuous variation with the overtly discrete (either/or) factors and inheritance patterns considered by the Mendelians and researchers like Garrod.

The Mendelian vs. Biometrician debate was resolved to a great extent by the statistician Ronald Fisher in a series of seminal papers. Fisher argued that one could reconcile continuous phenotypic variation with discrete, heritable factors that contribute to this variation by suggesting that many factors (i.e., genes) might contribute in a small way to a particular phenotype. The collective effect, or sum total, of these factors could then create variation in phenotypes that give the appearance of continuity in the population at large (e.g., an individual who inherited only 1 of 25 genetic variants known to increase height would be shorter on average than someone who inherited 10 or 12, and much shorter, relatively speaking, than an individual who inherited 22 or 25).(12) The belief that there might be many genes that contribute to phenotypic expression broadly, some with more pronounced effects and some with less pronounced effects, that interact and collectively contribute to a phenotype in a myriad of ways, has been validated through the application of modern high-throughput genetic technologies such as genotyping chips and DNA sequencing. As a result, much of the contemporary focus on personalized medicine is rooted in the findings of genetic studies, as it has been shown that individuals do in fact vary widely as each individual possesses subsets of literally many millions of genetic variants that exist in the human population as a whole. In addition, subsets of these genetic variants may have arisen as de novo mutations and hence may be unique to an individual. These extreme genetic variation explains, in part, why individuals vary so much with respect to phenotypes, in particular their susceptibilities to disease and their responses to interventions.(13) It should be emphasized that although personalized medicine has its roots in the results of genetic studies, it is widely accepted that other factors, e.g., environmental exposures, developmental phenomena and epigenetic changes, and behaviors, all need to be taken into account when determining the optimal way to treat an individual patient (see Figure 1).(14-16)

Graphical depiction of elements in need of integration and assessment in pursuing truly personalized medicine. Access to health care is important since some individuals may not be able to access expertise and technologies due to geographic or economic barriers and therefore interventions might need to be crafted for those individuals with this in mind. Inherited genetic information is really only predictive or diagnostic in nature however somatic changes to DNA can provide valuable insight into pathogenic processes. Tissue biomarkers (e.g., routine blood-based clinical chemistry panels) are useful for detecting changes in health status, as are imaging and radiology exams as well as data collected routinely via wireless monitors. Environmental exposures and behaviors can really impact the success of an intervention and exhibit great inter-individual variability. Epigenetic phenomena reshape gene function based on exposures and developmental or stochastic phenomena and should be monitored as well as indicators of a health status change.

Another, sadly more obscure, publication was also prescient for personalized medicine, although this publication bears more on the need for clinical practices that are consistent with personalized medicine rather than a scientific justification of personalized medicine. More than 60 years ago Hogben and Sim considered how clinical practice needs to pay attention to nuanced characteristics of patients in order to determine an appropriate intervention for them.(17-19) Although more will be discussed about their paper in the section on Testing Personalized Medicines, suffice it to say that the authors believed that in order to determine an optimal course of action for an individual patient in the absence of any a priori understanding of how best to treat that patient given his or her characteristics or profile, a number of items would need to be obtained. Thus, greater information about that patient would have to be gathered, a plan to vet the utility of an intervention chosen on the basis of that information would have to be pursued, and a strategy for incorporating the results of the patient-oriented study into future care would have to be crafted. Although simple in theory, the practical issues surrounding gathering more information about a patient and pursuing an the empirical assessment of a personalized intervention can be daunting. For example, questions surrounding how one can know that a chosen intervention works unless meticulous patient follow-up information is kept, how one would know if a patient satisfied with what they are experiencing with the intervention, and how one could assess the difference between other interventions that could have been chosen and the chosen personalized intervention, would all need to be addressed. In fact, practical issues surrounding the implementation of personalized medicine that Hogben and Sim considered are often overlooked in contemporary discussions about personalized medicine, especially since different technologies for profiling patients are constantly being developed and refined, and more and more evidence for inter-individual variation in factors associated with diseases (from technologies such as DNA sequencing, proteomics, sophisticated imaging protocols, etc.) is emerging.

There have been a great many examples of interventions tailored to individual patient profiles, virtually all of them based on genetic profiles. Before providing a few classic examples, it should be emphasized that personalized medicine can be practiced not only for the treatment of disease, but also for the early detection and prevention of disease. We provide some historical examples of personalized disease treatments here and consider early detection and prevention in the next section, as developments in personalized disease detection and prevention are much more recent.

The human body deals with traditional pharmacotherapies (i.e., drugs) to treat disease in two general ways. Initially, the body must respond to a drug. This response occurs in steps, with the first step involving the absorption of the drug by the body. The drug must then be distributed throughout the body (during this process the drug might be biotransformed or metabolized into useful components) and then begin to elicit effects. Finally, any remaining drug or drug components are excreted. These processes are often lumped under the heading of pharmacokinetics and collectively referred to as the ADME of a drug (Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism and Excretion). Pharmacokinetic activity is often under the control of a unique set of genes (e.g., drug metabolizing enzymes) that could harbor naturally-occurring genetic variants (or polymorphisms) that influence their function and hence how the body ultimately deals with a particular drug. Once a drug is within the body, how it interacts with its target (typically a gene or protein encoded by a gene) to elicit an effect is known as its pharmacodynamic properties. These properties include the affinity the drug has for its target(s), the drug's ability to modulate the target(s) (or its efficacy), and the potency of the drug, or how much of the drug is needed to induce a certain change in its target. Pharmacodynamic properties of a drug are also under genetic control.

Many early examples of personalized medicines were associated with genetically-mediated pharmacokinetic aspects of drugs. This was due in part to the biomedical science community's understanding of drug metabolizing enzymes and the role they play in the body's response to drugs. An excellent introduction to pharmacogenetic properties of drugs, as well genetic variants in genes that influence the efficacy and side effects of drugs (especially with respect to genetic variants in drug metabolizing enzymes) is the book by Weber.(20) Warfarin is a widely used blood thinning medication that, if not dosed properly, could cause a potentially life-threatening adverse drug reaction. Warfarin targets a particular gene, VKORC1, and is metabolized in part by the gene CYP2C9. Naturally-occurring genetic variation in both the VKORC1 and CYP2C9 genes leads to variation in the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of Warfarin across individuals, ultimately creating variation in individuals' responses to warfarin. The US Food and Drug Administration has therefore recommended that dosing for warfarin take into consideration an individual's genotype (i.e., the dose must be personalized to an individual based on the specific genetic variants they possess in the VKORC1 and CYP2C9 genes).(21)

Another classic example of a drug that should only be provided to individuals with a certain genetic profile is primaquine (PQ). PQ has been used to manage malaria with some success in parts of the world where malaria is endemic. However, military doctors working in the past observed that some of the soldiers they treated for malaria that were provided the drug became jaundiced and anemic, and ultimately exhibited symptoms of what would later be termed acute haemolytic anaemia (AHA). It was later shown that the individuals exhibiting AHA after PQ administration carried variants in the G6PD gene.(22) Current clinical practice with PQ therefore calls for the genotyping of individual patients to see if they carry relevant variants in the G6PD gene that might discourage PQ use for them.

A final, often-cited example of a personalized medicine is the drug imatinib.(23) Imatinib is used to treat chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). Imatinib inhibits an enzyme, tyrosine kinase, that is increased by the formation of a fusion of two genomic regions, one encompassing the Abelson proto-oncogene (abl) and the other the breakpoint cluster region (bcr). This fusion event arises in many tumors contributing to the development of CML and is referred to as the bcr-abl fusion or Philadelphia chromosome. However, not all individuals with CML have tumors harboring the bcr-abl fusion mutation. Therefore, imatinib is typically given only to individual CML patients with this fusion event.

Drugs like warfarin, PQ and imatinib that appear to only work or only work without side effects when a patient possesses a certain genetic profile, have generated tremendous interest in identifying factors, such as genetic variants, that influence an individual patient's response to any number of drugs and interventions. This interest in crafting personalized medicines to treat diseases has expanded into personalized disease surveillance (i.e., early detection protocols) and personalized disease prevention strategies as well. We briefly describe a few very recent examples of this activity.

Instead of developing a drug and then identifying factors that mitigate its efficacy or side effects through observational studies on individuals provided the drug, as with warfarin, PQ and imatinib, there are now attempts to identify, e.g., genetic profiles possessed by patients and then craft therapies that uniquely target those profiles. For example, the drug ivacaftor mentioned earlier was designed to treat individuals with cystic fibrosis (CF) that have very specific pathogenic mutations in the gene CFTR.(4) The CFTR gene has many functions, but one set of functions is dictated by a gate-like structure in the CFTR gene's encoded protein that can open and close to control the movement of salts in and out of cells. If the CFTR gene is dysfunctional, then the gate is closed, causing a build-up of mucus and other material in the lungs. Different mutations in the CFTR gene cause different types of dysfunction. For example, some mutations simply cause the CFTR gene to not produce anything, whether the gate is open or not. Other mutations cause the gate mechanism to dysfunction. Ivacaftor is designed to open the gate for longer periods of time in the presence of certain mutations that tend to cause the gate to be closed. Therefore, ivacaftor is only useful for the small subset of CF patients whose CFTR mutations lead to this specific gating problem. Connections between genetic variants and drug efficacy and side effects are growing in number, and in fact the US FDA provides a list of approved drug-based interventions that require a test to determine their appropriateness for an individual: https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ScienceResearch/ucm572698.htm. Other publications consider the practical implications of approved personalized medicine interventions, such as the report produced by the Personalized Medicine Coalition (PMC).(24)

A second example involves the emerging set of cancer treatments known as immunotherapies.(25) Although there are many types of immunotherapies, all of them seek to prime or trigger an individual's own immune system to attack a cancer. One type of immunotherapy exploits potentially unique sets of genetic alterations that arise in a cancer patient's tumor cells, known as neo-antigens, which are often capable of raising an immune response if recognized properly by the host's immune cells. Essentially, this type of immunotherapy works by harvesting cells from a patient that mediate that patient's immune reactions, such as T cells, then modifying those cells to specifically recognize and target the neo-antigens found to be present in the patient's tumor. These modified cells are then put back in the patient's body so these cells can attack the tumor cells giving off the neo-antigen signals. Cytotoxic T cell therapies like this, as well as immunotherapies in general, have had notable successes, but can be very patient-specific for two reasons. First, the neo-antigen profile of a patient might be very unique, such that cytotoxic T cells made to recognize and attack a specific set of neo-antigens will not work in someone whose tumor does not have those neo-antigens. Second, if autologous constructs are used, then the patient's own T cells are modified, and hence not likely to work as well in another patient, although attempts to make allogeneic constructs in which one individual's T cells are modified and introduced into another patient's body are being pursued aggressively.(25)

If an individual is susceptible to a disease, or susceptible to recurrence of a disease, then that individual should be monitored. It is now believed that such monitoring should be pursued with use of personal thresholds, as opposed to population thresholds, to make claims about evidence or signs of disease or a pathogenic process.(26) Population thresholds are derived from epidemiologic data and population surveys and include, for example, cholesterol levels > 200 being an indicator for risk of heart disease, or systolic blood pressure > 140 being an indicator of hypertension, risk of stroke or heart disease. Personal thresholds are established from legacy values of a measure collected on an individual over time that used to gauge how deviant future values of that measure might be for that individual. Significant deviations from historical or average legacy values are taken as a sign of a health status change, irrespective of whether or not those values are beyond a population threshold.(27) As an example, Drescher et al.(26) explored the utility of personal thresholds applied to longitudinal CA125 levels collected on a number of women, a subset of whom developed ovarian cancer. The authors found that in all but one instance, the application of personal thresholds would have captured the presence of ovarian cancer at the same time as, or importantly earlier than, the application of population thresholds. Further, the authors showed that the use of personal thresholds could have captured the ovarian cancer almost a year earlier, on average, then the use of population thresholds. As the costs and convenience associated with monitoring assays and technologies improves (i.e., they become cheap and non-intrusive, if not transparent, to an individual user, say through an easily implantable wireless device), then the use of personal thresholds will likely become the rule rather than the exception in health monitoring protocols.

The use of genetic information to develop personalized disease prevention strategies is now well established in the scientific community, but not yet widely adopted in clinical practice. There are many excellent examples of how the use of genetic information can lead to both a decreased risk of disease development as well as decreased complications from standard treatment and screening strategies. A prime example relates to colorectal cancer, which remains the third leading cause of cancer deaths despite being a highly preventable illness. In 2012 Liao et al. reported an improvement in overall survival and a decreased risk for cancer-specific deaths in patients taking postoperative aspirin if they exhibited a somatic mutation in the PIK3CA gene in their colorectal cancers compared with patients whose cancers had the wild-type PIK3CA gene.(28) In 2015, Nan et al. reported varying effects of aspirin use on risk for development of colorectal cancer depending on an individual's genotype, with individuals possessing different genotypes having either lower, higher or no change in their risk of colorectal cancer development with aspirin use.(29) Given that aspirin use can have serious side effects associated with intestinal and intracranial bleeding, it would be ideal to limit the use of this medication for those individuals predicted to have a side effect, based on genotype.

As another example, in 2018, Jeon et al. reported the use of expanded risk prediction models for determining when to begin colorectal cancer screening. Currently the guidelines use only age and family history as variables. Jeon et al. showed that by using information about an individual's environmental exposure and genetic profile, specifically the presence of colorectal cancer associated genetic variants, recommendations for when to start screening could change by 12 years for men and 14 years for women.(30) The accuracy of relevant predictions about an individual's risk for colorectal cancer has been studied and suggests that the area under the curve (AUC) value for a model including environmental and genetic factors, where an AUC of 1.0 would suggest a model with perfect predictive accuracy, was 0.63 for men and 0.62 for women. This is compared to an AUC value of 0.53 (men) 0.54 (women) when only family history information was considered. Although there is still room for improvement given the AUCs were only 0.62 for the model with patient environmental exposure and genetic information, the considerable improvement over models that did not include genetic or environmental information justifies their use.

Although we have argued that personalized medicine is rooted in a great number of legacy insights and historical precedents, mostly related to genetics and rare diseases, its recognition as a paradigm that should be embraced broadly by the biomedical research and clinical communities is relatively recent. This suggests that not enough time has elapsed since the time of this recognition for researchers to show that personalized medicine actually works in a wide enough variety of settings to motivate its broad adoption. In this light, questions of how the community can vet or test the utility of personalized medicine arise. We describe three emerging strategies for vetting personalized medicines below, including N-of-1 clinical trials, intervention-matching trials, and adaptive clinical trials, and argue that although these strategies borrow elements from traditional randomized clinical trials (RCTs), they deviate significantly from historical population-based RCTs that were prominent in the past.

If there is no reason to believe that any one of a set of different interventions matches an individual's profile (e.g., genomic, behavioral, etc.) better than others, then there is equipoise among those interventions. In this case it becomes an empirical question as to which intervention might be optimal for the individual in question. Trials focusing on an individual's response to different interventions to determine an optimal intervention are referred to as N-of-1 or single subject trials. N-of-1 trials often exploit a simple cross-over design or even a repeated crossover designs, such as ABABAB designs, where A and B refer to different interventions, and the sequence ABABAB refers to the order in which the interventions are provided to a patient. Alternating interventions, and collecting data on the individual's response to those interventions, allows comparisons of those interventions (for example between a test intervention and a comparator, or placebo, intervention. Randomization, blinding, washout periods, multiple endpoints, and many other design elements can be used in N-of-1 trials.(27, 31, 32)

N-of-1 trials involving the provision of different interventions in sequence to an individual and evaluating outcomes for each, need to accommodate serial correlation between the observations, as well as possible carry-over effects from one intervention to another, but these issues can largely be overcome with appropriate analytical methods and study design.(32) Cross-over based N-of-1 trials are impractical, if not unethical, in settings where an individual is suffering from an acute or life-threatening condition, since switching from one intervention to another may exacerbate that individual's condition. However, sequential N-of-1 designs, in which measures are continuously monitored in real time to determine if an intervention is causing harm or working, have been proposed for these situations.(27) Given that the focus of an N-of-1 trial is on the identification of an optimal intervention for an individual, rather than on the average response to an intervention in the population at large (which is often the focus of traditional RCTs), they may be most appropriate to conduct in actual clinical practice when a physician is faced with equipoise, as considered by Hogen and Sim.(33, 34)

If evidence is found that certain features in individual patients' profiles can be used to identify interventions that might work for each of them, then a question arises as to how to test that the hypothesis that providing interventions to those individuals based on these matches leads to better outcomes than providing those individuals interventions based on some other scheme or strategy. One could test each individual match, but this may require pursuing many small clinical trials, which may be logistically complicated and hard to find financial support and infrastructure to implement. As an alternative, one could test an entire matching strategy against an alternative way of providing interventions (e.g., giving everyone the same intervention). This is more or less the motivation behind basket and umbrella trials currently in use, primarily in oncology settings.(35, 36) In oncology contexts, basket and umbrella trials enroll multiple individual patients into a trial knowing that they each might have unique features in their profile that could indicate that different interventions are appropriate. Basket trials enroll individuals without regard to the specific tissue affected by cancer (e.g., lung, breast and colorectal cancer patients can be enrolled) whereas umbrella trials only consider a single tissue (only lung cancer patients are enrolled). Each patient's tumor is profiled, usually via DNA sequencing. The tumor genome is analyzed to see if there are actionable driver perturbations in the tumor, such as mutations affecting particular genes, that are likely contributing to the growth of the tumor. If the mechanisms of action of a group of interventions (i.e., cancer drugs) are understood well enough, it may be possible to match those drugs to the perturbations in the tumor (e.g., if the EGFR gene is mutated and overexpressed in the tumor, then using a drug like cetuximab, which inhibits the EGFR gene, would be logical). Thus, each patient is steered towards a particular intervention basket (e.g., the EGFR inhibitor basket). The trial then seeks to test the hypothesis that the use of the different intervention baskets based on the matching scheme results in better outcomes than interventions provided to individual patients based on some other scheme that does not involve tumor profiling and matching.

If the trial is a failure (i.e., the matching scheme doesn't lead to better outcomes than something else), then an argument could be made that the matching scheme was flawed and not necessarily that the interventions considered in the trial are flawed. It would also be wrong to assume that the concept of personalized medicine is flawed as a result of a failure of a basket or bucket trial if in fact the matching scheme was found to be flawed. Some basket trials only have a single basket and no comparison group, but rely on determining which patient profiles appear to be associated with better outcomes for the intervention being tested.(37) Intervention matching schemes are likely to become the rule rather than the exception in medicine, especially since the introduction of computational environments like IBM's Watson system. Essentially, Watson is system that includes a very large database extracted in part from the vast medical literature, providing links between information about a patient (e.g., genetic profiles, age, sex, etc.) to outcomes (such as drug response). These links have been enhanced by leveraging statistical methods to further assess relationships between patient profiles and outcomes. For example, Watson has been trained to identify and establish links about perturbations often observed in a tumor and how those perturbations might be combatted by available drugs and interventions generally. Thus, if Watson was provided a patient profile, it could look up the best possible intervention given the current state of the science reflected in the literature and Watson's methods for establishing links between profiles and outcomes. The use of IBM's Watson system in actual clinical settings has led to discussions about how best to test and deploy such as a system as a way of supporting, as opposed to replacing, physicians' decisions about an intervention choice for individual patients.(38)

Adaptive and sequential clinical trials have been used for decades but their consideration and use in personalized medicine contexts is much more recent.(35) Essentially, adaptive trials have as one of their focal points a desire to minimize the amount of time a patient is on what is likely to be an inferior therapy. In the context of personalized medicine, if there is equipoise with respect to available interventions or between an untested and a conventional intervention for an individual patient, then the evaluation of the effects of each intervention on an individual to determine the best one for that individual (as in a very elaborate N-of-1 study) might be impractical or cause more harm than good. This is the case because some, if not all, of the interventions might not actually benefit that individual. In this light, it makes sense to implement studies in which biomarkers reflecting response or adverse effects are collected on an individual trial participant and monitoring of those biomarkers is pursued to determine if there are signs an intervention is not working. If there are, e.g., signs that an intervention is not working, the individual could cross-over to a new intervention. Although adaptive designs can be difficult to implement given their real-time evaluation and updating components, and can also produce data that might be more complicated to analyze than data from fixed, non-adaptive trials, they are often seen as more ethical. In addition, adding adaptive components to N-of-1 and aggregated N-of-1 trials as well as intervention-matching trials is possible. Although there are a growing number of papers describing adaptive trials, the work of Murphy and colleagues has received a great deal of attention because of its focus on minimizing the amount of time a patient is on an inferior treatment.(39-41)

There are a number of very recent research and clinical activities that are charting new territory for personalized medicine. We focus on four of these activities in the following, providing a brief overview of each. These activities include the use of patient-derived cell and organoid avatars for determining the best therapies for that patient, the use of intense individualized diagnostic and monitoring protocols to detect signs of disease, the development of personalized digital therapeutics, and the use of personalized medicine approaches in treating patients with fertility issues.

It is now possible to harvest cells from individuals and use pluripotency induction (i.e., induced pluripotent stem cell or iPSC) methods on those cells to generate additional cell types of relevance to a patient's condition without having to directly biopsy the affected tissue. This allows researchers to essentially develop a disease in a dish cellular model of a patient's condition.(42-44) These in vitro cellular avatars can be studied to identify key molecular pathologies that might give an indication as to how best to treat an individual patient of interest. The use of iPSC technologies in this manner can be extended with a few additional, very recently developed, technologies to create even better models of an individual's condition. For example, if the patient has a known mutation causing his or her condition, it is possible to use assays based on, e.g., Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) and related constructs to create isogenic cells in which some cells have the mutation in question and some do not. Comparison of these cells allows direct insight into the effects of the mutation while controlling for all relevant genetic background effects associated with the patient's genome.(45, 46) In addition, it is possible to create partial organs or organoids from cells obtained from an individual.(47) Organoids can provide greater insight into molecular pathologies associated with an individual patient's condition since they can model cell:cell interactions and more global tissue function.(48)

To achieve truly personalized medical care, the use of patient avatars derived from their own cells could be integrated with other pieces of information about a patient, as well as protocols for acting on that information. Schork and Nazor describe the motivation and integration of different aspects of patient diagnosis, intervention choice, and monitoring, using, among other things, patient avatars.(49) One important aspect of the use of cell-based patient avatars in personalized medicine is that they can accommodate personalized drug screening: literally testing thousands of drugs and compounds against a patient's cells (or organoids, possibly modified with CRISPR technologies) to identify drugs or compounds that uniquely correct the patient's molecular defects. If the drug or compound has actually been approved for use, possibly for another condition, then it could be tested for efficacy with the patient in question under an approved drug repurposing protocol. The use of patient-derived cells in personalized drug screening initiatives has shown some success in cancer settings, as tumor biopsies can yield appropriate material for drug screening.(48, 50) The biggest concern with this approach revolves around the question of whether or not the in vitro models capture relevant in vivo pathobiology and drug response information that may impact a patient's response to a chosen drug. A more direct strategy for in vivo experimental cancer intervention choice could involve implanting a device into a patient's tumor in vivo and then delivering different drugs through that device to see which ones have an effect.(51, 52)

The availability of inexpensive genotyping and sequencing technologies is allowing individuals and their health care providers to assess their genetically-mediated risk for disease and/or make a genetic diagnosis if they are already diseased. In addition, given the availability of health monitoring devices, online-ordered blood-based clinical assays, inexpensive imaging devices, etc. it is possible to continuously, or near continuously, monitor aspects of an individual's health (see Figure 1 and see the articles associated with the quantified self movement: http://quantifiedself.com)(53, 54). With this in mind, combining genetic risk or diagnostic assessment with intense health monitoring makes sense. A number of individuals with unique diseases and conditions have benefitted from a genetic diagnosis, as it uncovered potential genetically-mediated pathogenic mechanisms or revealed potential targets for pharmacotherapies for them.(49) In addition, a number of individuals have monitored their health intensely for the express purpose of identifying signs of a health status changes, some of which might be attributable to genetic susceptibilities.(55) Table 1 lists examples of published studies exploring the utility of genetic assays in generating a diagnosis for individuals with idiopathic conditions (or what have been referred to as diagnostic odysseys) as well as published studies exploring the utility of near continuous monitoring to identify evidence for a health status change in an individual. Such diagnoses and monitoring are highly personalized by definition.(15, 16, 56)

Monitoring individuals for health status changes is not trivial, however, if the measures being collected have not been evaluated in a population. This is because there will be no established norms that can be contrasted to the measures collected on an individual to know if those measures are abnormal. However, the community is quickly recognizing the utility of establishing personal thresholds for measures as opposed to population thresholds, as discussed in the Personalizing Early Detection Strategies section above (26, 27) As noted, population thresholds are established from epidemiologic and population survey data and include often-used thresholds for determining disease status such as a cholesterol level greater than 200 for heart disease or a systolic blood pressure greater than 140 mmHg for hypertension. Personal thresholds are established from longitudinal or legacy values of a measure collected on an individual and may be unique to the individual in question and their use in some settings suggests that they work better than population thresholds.(26)

The ubiquity of smart phones has attracted the interest of many researchers in the health professions as a vehicle for not only collecting health data through various apps but also to provide advice, feedback, coaching, imagery, music, text-messages, or connections with other resources, that could benefit an individual with a particular condition or disease. This has led to the emergence of the concept of a digital therapeutic: a smart phone app designed to treat and bring relief to an individual affected by a medical or psychological condition.(57) The content provided by a digital therapeutic app to an individual could vary depending on what is learned about that individual and his or her response to content provided in the app. In this way, the app can be personalized.(58) Many digital therapeutics have undergone evaluation for their ability to engage users and benefit them.(59) The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has created guidelines for registering digital therapeutics as bona-fide, insurance-reimbursable, approved health technologies, and has begun evaluating and approving many of them. The first approved digital therapeutic an app for substance abuse was approved by the FDA in 2017.(60) How easily digital therapeutics will be assimilated into the care stream is an open question.(61)

Personalized medicine strategies and approaches can be applied to treatments for fertility, as many researchers have proposed. For example, it has been suggested that one could leverage real world data of the type collected routinely on patients visiting reproductive medicine and fertility clinics (from, e.g., Electronic Medical Record (EMR) systems established at many hospitals and clinics), and use these data to in analyses exploring patterns, patient subgroups and individual patient profiles that could shed light on variation in fertility rates, responses to interventions to enhance fertility, etc. The results of these analyses could then guide future care for patients with fertility issues.(62) In the context of the use of digital medicine, proposals to develop smart phone apps that could provide personalized coaching content to enhance pregnancy have been put forth.(63). Genetic variants known to influence fertility have also been identified and could be used to support diagnoses or personalized intervention plans.(64)(65) Finally, adaptive trial designs have been proposed that could be used to assess the utility of personalized approaches to raising awareness about time to conception and fertility.(66)

In addition to these more traditional approaches to personalizing fertility interventions, there are a number of emerging strategies to enhance fertility in women that go beyond traditional ways of stimulating ovaries.(67) For example, it is now possible to cryopreserve a set oocytes and ovarian tissue samples from a woman and then implant them in her at a later time that may suit her desire to become pregnant.(68) Such a procedure would be highly personalized, since it would work with an individual's own cells and accommodate her preferences for becoming pregnant. However, this procedure would only work if the preserved tissues were viable and not damaged, although relevant cells in those tissues could, in theory, be corrected for genetic defects using gene editing techniques.(69) A more futuristic and controversial personalized fertility intervention, involves the concept that one could use cell reprogramming technologies to generate sperm and egg cells from other cells obtained from an individual (e.g., skin cells) that could be edited to generate de novo gametes for fertilization a concept known as in vitro gametogenesis.(70)

Personalized Medicine, or the practice of characterizing an individual patient on a number of levels (e.g., genomic, biochemical, behavioral, etc.) that might shed light on their response to an intervention, and then treating them accordingly, is a necessity given the fact that clinically meaningful inter-individual variation has, and will continue to be, identified. The availability of modern biomedical technologies such as DNA sequencing, proteomics, and wireless monitoring devices, has enabled the identification of this variation, essentially exposing the need for the personalization of medicine at some level. The future challenges associated with this reality will be to not only improve the efficiency in the way in which individuals are characterized, but also in the way in personalized medicines are crafted and vetted to show their utility. This is not to say that interventions that work ubiquitously (i.e., the traditional single agent block buster drugs) should be ignored if identified, but rather that they might be very hard to identify going forward.

There are a few other issues associated with personalized medicine that may hard to overcome in the near term. For example, the need for large data collections in order to identify factors that discriminate groups of individuals that might benefit more from one or another intervention, could create concerns about privacy and the data about those individuals possibly being used for nefarious purposes.(71-73) Fortunately, this issue is not necessarily unique to health care settings, whether current or future, as it has plagued many other industries including the banking, marketing, and social media industries. Strategies exploited in these other industries could be used in health care settings as well. In addition, developing more efficient ways of developing personalized medicines (for example, with respect to cell replacement therapies or mutation-specific drugs that work for a small fraction of patients) is crucial to meet the demands of all patients. Also, paying for personalized medicine practices in the future may be complicated given that they might be initially more expensive.(74) Finally, in order for various stakeholders to embrace personalized medicine, better strategies to educate and train health care professionals about personalized medicine must be developed and implemented.

Dr. Schork and his lab are funded in part by US National Institutes of Health Grants UL1TR001442 (CTSA), U24AG051129, U19G023122, as well as a contract from the Allen Institute for Brain Science (note that the content of this manuscript is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH).

LHG and NJS have no conflicts to declare with respect to this article.

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Read this article:
Personalized Medicine: Motivation, Challenges and Progress

Read More...

Healthcare innovations in predictive analytics, AI, and personalized medicine – HealthLeaders Media

Monday, February 24th, 2025

Healthcare innovations in predictive analytics, AI, and personalized medicine  HealthLeaders Media

Originally posted here:
Healthcare innovations in predictive analytics, AI, and personalized medicine - HealthLeaders Media

Read More...

Healthcare innovations in predictive analytics, AI, and personalized medicine – Fast Company

Monday, February 24th, 2025

Healthcare innovations in predictive analytics, AI, and personalized medicine  Fast Company

The rest is here:
Healthcare innovations in predictive analytics, AI, and personalized medicine - Fast Company

Read More...

Page 11234..1020..»


2025 © StemCell Therapy is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) Comments (RSS) | Violinesth by Patrick