Cancer Pharmacogenomics and Pharmacoepidemiology: Setting a Research Agenda to Accelerate Translation

Recent advances in genomic research have demonstrated a substantial role for genomic factors in predicting response to cancer therapies. Researchers in the fields of cancer pharmacogenomics and pharmacoepidemiology seek to understand why individuals respond differently to drug therapy, in terms of both adverse effects and treatment efficacy. To identify research priorities as well as the resources and infrastructure needed to advance these fields, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) sponsored a workshop titled “Cancer Pharmacogenomics: Setting a Research Agenda to Accelerate Translation” on July 21, 2009, in Bethesda, MD. In this commentary, we summarize and discuss five science-based recommendations and four infrastructure-based recommendations that were identified as a result of discussions held during this workshop. Key recommendations include 1) supporting the routine collection of germline and tumor biospecimens in NCI-sponsored clinical trials and in some observational and population-based studies; 2) incorporating pharmacogenomic markers into clinical trials; 3) addressing the ethical, legal, social, and biospecimen- and data-sharing implications of pharmacogenomic and pharmacoepidemiologic research; and 4) establishing partnerships across NCI, with other federal agencies, and with industry. Together, these recommendations will facilitate the discovery and validation of clinical, sociodemographic, lifestyle, and genomic markers related to cancer treatment response and adverse events, and they will improve both the speed and efficiency by which new pharmacogenomic and pharmacoepidemiologic information is translated into clinical practice

Physician privacy concerns when disclosing patient data for public health purposes during a pandemic influenza outbreak

Background: Privacy concerns by providers have been a barrier to disclosing patient information for public health\ud purposes. This is the case even for mandated notifiable disease reporting. In the context of a pandemic it has been\ud argued that the public good should supersede an individual’s right to privacy. The precise nature of these provider\ud privacy concerns, and whether they are diluted in the context of a pandemic are not known. Our objective was to\ud understand the privacy barriers which could potentially influence family physicians’ reporting of patient-level\ud surveillance data to public health agencies during the Fall 2009 pandemic H1N1 influenza outbreak.\ud Methods: Thirty seven family doctors participated in a series of five focus groups between October 29-31 2009.\ud They also completed a survey about the data they were willing to disclose to public health units. Descriptive\ud statistics were used to summarize the amount of patient detail the participants were willing to disclose, factors that\ud would facilitate data disclosure, and the consensus on those factors. The analysis of the qualitative data was based\ud on grounded theory.\ud Results: The family doctors were reluctant to disclose patient data to public health units. This was due to concerns\ud about the extent to which public health agencies are dependable to protect health information (trusting beliefs),\ud and the possibility of loss due to disclosing health information (risk beliefs). We identified six specific actions that\ud public health units can take which would affect these beliefs, and potentially increase the willingness to disclose\ud patient information for public health purposes.\ud Conclusions: The uncertainty surrounding a pandemic of a new strain of influenza has not changed the privacy\ud concerns of physicians about disclosing patient data. It is important to address these concerns to ensure reliable\ud reporting during future outbreaks.University of Ottawa Open Access Author Fun

“Every ‘Never’ I Ever Said Came True”: Transitions from opioid pills to heroin injecting

This qualitative study documents the pathways to injecting heroin by users in Philadelphia and San Francisco before and during a pharmaceutical opioid pill epidemic. Data was collected through in-depth, semi-structured interviews (conducted between 2010 and 2012) that were, conducted against a background of longer-term participant-observation, ethnographic studies of street-based drug users and dealers in Philadelphia (2007-12) and San Francisco (1994-2007, 2012). Philadelphia and San Francisco were selected for their contrasting political economies, immigration patterns and source type of heroin. In Philadelphia the ethnographers found heroin injectors, usually white users, who had started their opiate using careers with prescription opioids rather than transitioning from other drugs. In both Philadelphia and San Francisco, most of the young heroin injectors interviewed began, their drug-use trajectories with opioid pills--usually Percocet (oxycodone and acetaminophen), generic short acting oxycodone or, OxyContin (long-acting oxycodone)--before transitioning to heroin, usually by nasal inhalation (sniffing) or smoking at first, followed by injecting. While most of the Philadelphia users were born in the city or its suburbs and had started using both opioid pills and heroin there, many of the San Francisco users had initiated their pill and sometimes heroin use elsewhere and had migrated to the city from around the country. Nevertheless, patterns of transition of younger injectors were similar in both cities suggesting an evolving national pattern. In contrast, older users in both Philadelphia and San Francisco were more likely to have graduated to heroin injection from non-opiate drugs such as cannabis, methamphetamine and cocaine. Pharmaceutical opioid initiates typically reported switching to heroin for reasons of cost and ease-of-access to supply after becoming physically and emotionally dependent on opioid pills. Many expressed surprise and dismay at their progression to sniffing and subsequently to injecting heroin. Historically and structurally these users found themselves caught at the intersection of two major developments in the opiate supply: (1) an over 500% increase in opiate pill prescription from 1997 to 2005 resulting in easy access to diverted supplies of less stigmatized opiates than heroin and (2) a heroin supply glut, following the US entry of Colombian-sourced, heroin in the early 1990s, that decreased cost and increased purity at the retail level. A nationwide up-cycle of heroin use may be occurring among young inner city, suburban and rural youth fueled by widespread prescription opioid pill use

European Biotechnology Regulation: Framing the Risk Assessment of a Herbicide-Tolerant Crop

As products of the "new biotechnology," genetically modified organisms have provoked a wide-ranging risk debate on potential harm, especially from herbicide-tolerant crops. In response to this legitimacy problem, the European Community adopted precautionary legislation, which left open the definition of environmental harm. When the U.K. proposed Europe-wide market approval of a herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape (canola), the proposal encountered dissent from some countries and environmentalisi groups. Further debate on normative judgments became necessary to implement the precaution- ary legislation. In dispute were several regulatory boundaries-of administrative re- sponsibility, causality, acceptability, and evidence. The boundary disputes expressed divergent framings of biotechnological risk, each with its implicit model of the socionatu- ral order In this way, the disputes can illuminate the sorts of risk framings that have already become embedded and standardized in other regulatory sectors