By Turna Ray

After the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute held a meeting this week to gather public input on its comparative effectiveness research priorities, personalized medicine stakeholders are still uncertain to what degree the institute will fund studies that aim to define how well drugs work in molecularly distinct patient groups or if it will mostly fund research to gauge how interventions work in the general population.

Another unknown as PCORI further defines its CER framework is whether "patient-centered research" a term the institute has been working to define with public input will explicitly mention personalized medicine principles. Whether it does or not could signal whether comparisons of genomic medicine to the standard of care will be a major focus of PCORI's CER efforts.

PCORI, a non-profit organization formed by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, has issued a draft document outlining the research areas in which it wants to conduct studies comparing the safety and efficacy of medical interventions, healthcare delivery models, and infrastructure. The findings from such CER, PCORI hopes, will help drive informed healthcare decision making, improve patient outcomes, and reduce unnecessary spending in healthcare.

The public was invited to discuss the preliminary research agenda with PCORI and key stakeholders at a meeting this week. PCORI is also accepting written comments on its draft research agenda until March 15.

PCORI is planning to spend $122 million for research activities in 2012, and it's possible that some of this money may go toward funding CER on molecularly targeted personalized medicine products. According to PCORIs statutory purpose, the research the institute supports must consider how disease can be prevented, diagnosed, and treated in patient subpopulations, which could include groups defined by molecular subtypes.

Regardless, some believe that the focus areas outlined in PCORI's draft research agenda are too broad, and personalized medicine principles, which are still new and evolving, can very easily get lost in the mix.

"PCORI was designed to address specific, practical questions of national importance," Amy Miller, vice president of public policy for the advocacy organization Personalized Medicine Coalition, said at the meeting according to prepared comments provided to PGx Reporter. "However, the broad and vague drafting of the research priorities is more appropriate for traditional, investigator-driven research, which may or may not address the types of questions PCORI must answer."

In addition, "since broad drafting does not allow for an examination of individual research proposals, topics, or research questions, it is not possible to say whether PCORIs work will support personalized medicine or not," Miller said.

Since PCORI was formed, the PMC has been trying to remind the institute's leaders that their charge isn't just to look at whether most people respond better to one drug over another, but to investigate how and why treatments work best in some people with a unique set of characteristics. "It is not enough, in the PMCs opinion, to say that one therapy works for most people in the aggregate," Miller said. "To enable personalized medicine, research must explain why a therapy works and for what types of patients."

View post:
Will PCORI's Patient-Centered Comparative Effectiveness Research Track with Personalized Rx?