Up at 5AM: The 5AM Solutions Blog

Last month, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard University unveiled VirScan, a diagnostic blood test that reveals more than 1000 different strains of viruses that are currently or which have previously afflicted individual patients. Given that VirScan costs about the same as traditional ELISA assays which only detect a limited number of pathogens one-at-a-time, this is a tremendous leap forward toward personalized medicine. Data gleaned from snapshots of patients’ past viral infections can give doctors clues about patients’ present health, and — perhaps — glimpses into the future.

The short answer to our provocative headline is no. But two other recent headlines got us pondering the question. Yesterday, the New York Times, and on Monday, the Journal of the American Medical Association(JAMA) published, respectively,  a story and an opinion piece on the potential downsides to medicine that is aimed at specific genetic profiles.

Although researchers can’t quite toss out their microscopes, two new studies reported in the New England Journal of Medicine show that variations in brain tumors’ genomics can be used to determine the best course of treatment for patients with certain kinds of tumors. For the most part, doctors have analyzed tissue samples to categorize and predict tumors’ potential trajectories. The papers’ authors show that genome scans of patients’ tumors remove several degrees of subjective analysis leading to more accurate diagnostics and earlier, better treatments.

We suspected this all along: people want to be engaged with their own healthcare. Our suspicions were confirmed by researchers in the U.S. in a study published in the European Journal of Human Genetics, as well as by researchers in the U.K. via survey results presented at the annual meeting of the European Society of Human Genetics.

Lil Bub is the internet’s favorite feline. With her perpetually kitten-like features, short legs, and snubbed nose, she’s irresistible. Even to science.

In my last Map of Biomedicine blog post, I talked about the different phases of clinical trials and a little bit about how trials are structured. I mentioned that trial is really just an experiment designed to test a hypothesis. When you studied science in school you learned about the scientific method:

Last week, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST,) working through the  Genome in a Bottle Consortium (GIABC) (a NIST-funded and initiated working group) pushed next generation sequencing (NGS) a little closer to being adopted into regular clinical practice. NIST/GIABC have released a standard for measuring the accuracy of genetic tests. 

The azaleas are in full, colorful blossom in my suburban Washington, DC neighborhood. To me their appearance signals spring marching toward summer; the end of the last of winter's blahs. According to a paper published in Nature Communications last Tuesday, the impact of seasonal changes on human health are much deeper than aesthetic, and in, fact, may be genetic.

Personalized medicine is getting a lot of attention these days. In January, President Obama announced that his 2016 budget includes a $215 million investment in precision medicine.

In my Map of Biomedicine blog posts, so far, I’ve focused on how diagnostics get to market. But you may recall that way back in my first post I discussed the major themes of the map - what I called ‘vignettes’. The first vignette was the development of diagnostic tests, which is what I’ve focused on so far. Those blog posts are being collected and expanded in an e-book which will be released soon, so keep an eye out for that.