Blog: Medical Research Council, Stephen Holgate, "The precision medicine revolution: putting the patient first"

Might be of interest to some.

https://www.insight.mrc.ac.uk/2017/...edicine-revolution-putting-the-patient-first/

 

He seems to prefer imprecision medicine for ME patients

 

Surely in a deterministic universe our health was determined, along with what drugs we will take, what treatment we will receive, and what will end up dispatching us, as well as what we will eat for breakfast, around 14 billion years ago - or by god, whichever belief system you subscribe to.

It's all gonna happen, it will/have happened, relax, unless it was predetermined at the beginning of time, it's not your fault, and if it was, it can't possibly be.

So it's all "good" for a given value of "it's"

 

So he's saying that you should ask the patient every now and then whether the drugs you're prescribing and helping or not. Wow - who would have thought of that?

 

This is almost nonsense, we do not have the technology to get to medicine at this level. That said we will one day and its not a terrible idea, but if we dump money on it now in a few generations we would get to this level. At this point there is far greater return in spending limited money elsewhere, this is worth pursuing but its promise is not likely to come around in a grand way in our lifetime, though i would expect some small advances over time

 

Not nonsense. My daughter is currently doing a masters in " stratified medicine", having done a degree in chemistry.

This course has been running for a few years and is funded by Scottish government - illness/ genetics/ business/personalised care. In Scotland there are a huge amount of chronic illnesses, and Celtic genes can play a part.

Its aim is to kick start personalised medicine; key aspects are drug development and business models - particularly keen on the entrepreneurial small companies working up new ideas - effectively outsourcing some R+D for specialist niches.

One of the more innovative Edinburgh versions of these has been bought out- they outsourced their whole process by reading research to determine potential for specialist molecules, hired chemists and labs to test and develop , then sold onto larger company for further development. This suits post uni start ups - biochemistry is quite strong here.

Yes, usual subjects will be heart disease and cancer, but MS is higher here too, and metabolic research is done at Dundee and Glasgow.

 

I did say almost nonsense, Its near term potential is not very high except for a few niche areas. In a few generations it will be huge and the longest journey does start with a single step, so i support such research but would not direct huge amounts of resources away from other research to this assuming it will pan out any time soon.

 

@Amw66, a lot of what you describe sounds like business hubris. Can you explain the part that is individualised? Is it the actual treatment, or is it more the trimmings?

 

I agree with Alvin's point, in that if anyone thinks this idea is 'new' they are unlikely to be much use at medical research.

Those of us who have been productive in producing new treatments would regard the general idea as so bloody obvious that we have been doing it for decades. And as Alvin says, most of the time it makes no real difference and main efforts should be elsewhere. Of course one looks for differences between individuals. But Holgate does not even understand disease causation, repeating the old mistake of 'genes and environment'. If he had looked at a book he would have discovered that it is more complicated than that. This is dumbing down for commercial reasons and is the main reason why biomedical science is getting more or less nowhere at present other than lining the pockets of commercial sharks with buzz words.

 

Indeed
I have heard of a few instances where blood tests or genetic tests can determine if a medication will be tolerated or what doses to start with but this type of medicine is more star trek-ish then realistic so far. By the time the Enterprise is built i expect ME/CFS will have been cured

I have a relative with Parkinsons and i have been (morbidly) fascinated with how his progression deviates from the norm and have wondered why but in the end if research money was spent on figuring that out instead of finding the disease mechanism, cause and cure then we are only wasting money and time.

 

Yes, there is a lot of truth in @Alvin and @JonathanEdwards' view - this will enable bigpharma to continue to outsource risk and produce " soundbite" medicine.

But as i understand it ( and i could be wrong), there is also an interest in being able to deliver the right drug at the right time based on an understanding of the individual's needs and genomics.

For ME, this will take time, as the mechanisms are still to be unravelled, but given some similarities with other illnesses, ( for some)this may act as a catalyst..it could provide treatment for aspects of the condition , and/ or build up genomic info - enable targeted research.

For MS/ RA/ heart diseases etc it would potentially offer more effective treatment/ ability to manage longterm conditions far better. This is the aspect that Scottish government are interested in.

Her thesis last year was based on developing a biochemical probe molecule to help unravel mechanisms for complex 1 in mitochondria - as ever given we are in Scotland -to understand and later develop drug research for ischemic reperfusion injury . It was/ is interesting stuff, but at the stage where i just checked grammar!

 

As @Jonathan Edwards said, this is simplistic to the point of being complete nonsense. I would also argue that emphasizing lifestyle in this manner is inappropriate. Lifestyle very rarely causes poor health - more typically it merely has a minor impact in how poor health is managed:

I also suspect Holgate is still pushing for MEGA in this blog, much as Crawley was in her recent TEDx talk, also without mentioning it by name. In which case we're still at the stage where they need to sincerely acknowledge the damned symptoms, not try to figure out which specific form or combination of CBT/GET and an antidepressant is most effective for "fatigue".

 

Absolutely, but there has been ever since I was a medical student fifty years ago and before that. How could one not have an interest in this? Giving it a special name is just an admission by Holgate that he hasn't encountered something called common sense.

 

Sadly altogether too true for many....
We live in hope ( and numerous other cliches)