Genetic testing study 'could help personalise treatments for patients'

A new study aims to show how genetic testing could help personalise treatments by boosting medication response and reducing harmful side effects.
The landmark trial will recruit up to 4,000 patients over the next two years in the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde area, to investigate how an individual's genetic profile affects their response to 60 common medications.
It is hoped the Phoenix Study will to lead to wider implementation of genetic testing across Scotland, making 'precision medicine' routine, for the first time.
Researchers hope it will pave the way for tailored prescribing across cardiology, stroke, surgery, orthopaedics, geriatrics, gynaecology, ENT, rheumatology, respiratory, neurology, psychiatry and other specialities.
The trial will take place at the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital (QEUH) in Glasgow.
Pharmacogenomics (PGx) – the study of how genes influence individual responses to drugs – has not been routinely used in clinical practice in the UK, amid hopes evidence will lead to change.
Genetic test results will be sent to clinicians, allowing for treatment decisions to be adjusted, and patients will be followed up regularly to monitor the effects of any changes, to ensure they receive the highest standard of care.
Patients will undergo a simple genetic test to analyse their DNA and the results, returned within days, will help doctors determine whether each patient is receiving the most suitable drug and dosage based on their genetic make-up.
Around 15% are expected to carry genetic variants that may reduce the effectiveness of a medication or increase the risk of side-effects.
In some cases, the prescribed drug may be ineffective, or a different dosage may be needed.
The trial is open to adult in-patients in the QEUH and patients will be randomly assigned to either receive the pharmacogenomic test immediately, or at three months, which will allow the researchers to establish evidence of benefit.
Without prior testing, these issues can go unnoticed, often leading to a trial-and-error approach to treatment, according to researchers.
It is led by Sandosh Padmanabhan, Pontecorvo chair of Pharmacogenomics at the University of Glasgow, in partnership with the University of Glasgow's Living Laboratory, the NHSGGC-hosted West of Scotland Innovation Hub, and industry partners MyDNA and Agena Bioscience.
Patient Eric Balish was asked to take part by consultants, after having a heart attack and subsequent surgery.
He was immediately prescribed clopidogrel, one of the 60 drugs included in the study, but has since had his medication changed a number of times.
Mr Balish said: 'I knew a bit about personalised medicine previously, and so when I was asked to take part in the Phoenix Study I was happy to do it.
'If you're asked to participate and support long-term research like this, then it's no great hardship to give something back and just do the right thing. I am hopeful my information can be of use to the trial and in the future.'
Prof Padmanabhan, a consultant at the QEUH, said: 'Physicians and pharmacists increasingly recognise that PGx-informed prescribing and dispensing improves both the efficacy and safety of drug treatment.
'The primary goal of this trial is to evaluate the clinical and health-economic impact of PGx-guided prescribing.
'Specifically, we want to determine if a PGx-guided approach to prescribing can significantly reduce the incidence and severity of drug related side-effects and/or treatment failures.
'This evaluation will compare the outcomes of participants who receive PGx-guided medication management to those receiving standard care.'
Dr Katriona Brooksbank, research and innovation lead for NHSGGC and the West of Scotland Innovation Hub, said: 'We are incredibly excited to be supporting this trial, which could have a major impact on the treatments patients are prescribed based on their own genetics.
'It will put precision medicine into action as researchers look to determine how a person's own genetic make-up can affect the drugs they are given as treatments.
'This could allow clinicians to reduce adverse reactions and side effects, ensuring the best possible outcomes for patients.'
Allan Sheffield, co-founder of MyDNA, said: 'For MyDNA, the Phoenix Study embodies the future of healthcare.
'Our unique combination of pharmacogenomic clinical decision support and in-house Gene by Gene accredited testing empowers clinicians to move beyond guesswork.
'This trial will demonstrate the profound impact of precision medicine, paving the way for a future where this approach routinely drives better patient outcomes.'
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Telegraph

18 minutes ago

• Telegraph

Wes Streeting: NHS cannot afford assisted dying

Wes Streeting has warned that the NHS cannot afford legalising assisted dying. The Health Secretary, who opposed the legislation in the Commons, warned that assisted dying would take 'time and money' away from other parts of the health service. He said better end-of-life care was needed to prevent terminally ill people feeling they had no alternative but to end their own life. Writing on his Facebook page, Mr Streeting said he could not ignore the concerns 'about the risks that come with this Bill' raised by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians, the Association for Palliative Medicine and charities representing under-privileged groups. The Government is neutral on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill which cleared the Commons with a majority of 23 votes on Friday. Mr Streeting, who was one of the most senior opponents of the legislation, said: 'Gordon Brown wrote this week that 'there is no effective freedom to choose if the alternative option, the freedom to draw on high-quality end-of-life care, is not available. 'Neither is there real freedom to choose if, as many fear, patients will feel under pressure to relieve their relatives of the burden of caring for them, a form of coercion that prioritising good end-of-life care would diminish.' He is right. 'The truth is that creating those conditions will take time and money. 'Even with the savings that might come from assisted dying if people take up the service – and it feels uncomfortable talking about savings in this context to be honest – setting up this service will also take time and money that is in short supply. 'There isn't a budget for this. Politics is about prioritising. It is a daily series of choices and trade-offs. I fear we've made the wrong one.' Mr Streeting said the Department of Health and Social Care 'will continue to work constructively with Parliament to assist on technical aspects of the Bill' as it goes through the House of Lords. Dame Esther Rantzen, an assisted dying campaigner, urged peers not to block the landmark legislation. Dame Esther told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'I don't need to teach the House of Lords how to do their job. 'They know it very well, and they know that laws are produced by the elected chamber. 'Their job is to scrutinise, to ask questions, but not to oppose. 'So yes, people who are adamantly opposed to this Bill, and they have a perfect right to oppose it, will try and stop it going through the Lords, but the Lords themselves, their duty is to make sure that law is actually created by the elected chamber, which is the House of Commons who have voted this through.' Dame Esther, who turns 85 on Sunday and has terminal cancer, acknowledged the legislation would probably not become law in time for her to use it and she would have to 'buzz off to Zurich' to use the Dignitas clinic. Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, a Paralympian and crossbench peer, told BBC Breakfast: 'We're getting ready for it to come to the Lords and from my personal point of view, about amending it to make it stronger. 'We've been told it's the strongest Bill in the world, but to be honest, it's not a very high bar for other legislation. 'So I do think there are a lot more safeguards that could be put in.' Conservative peer and disability rights campaigner, Lord Shinkwin, said the narrow Commons majority underlined the need for peers to take a close look at the legislation. He told Today: 'I think the House of Lords has a duty to expose and to subject this Bill to forensic scrutiny' but 'I don't think it's a question of blocking it so much as performing our duty as a revising chamber'. Lord Shinkwin added: 'The margin yesterday was so close that many MPs would appreciate the opportunity to look at this again in respect of safeguards as they relate to those who feel vulnerable, whether that's disabled people or older people.' Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who steered the Bill through the Commons, told the PA news agency she hoped peers would not seek to derail the legislation, which could run out of parliamentary time if it is held up in the Lords. She said: 'I would be upset to think that anybody was playing games with such an important and such an emotional issue.'

Daily Mail​

43 minutes ago

• Daily Mail​

Revealed: The most eye-wateringly pricey drugs that the NHS is paying some £3million a dose for...while dementia and cancer patients are denied cheaper treatments

NHS bosses are paying millions of pounds for just a single dose of medication to treat some of the most devastating health conditions in the world. The drugs—some of which cost just shy of £3million per patient—can revolutionise and even save the lives of a handful of people born with rare illnesses each year. But it comes as Government officials have deemed cheaper treatments for far more common conditions like dementia and breast cancer as not worth the money. Libmeldy is widely cited as the most expensive drug available on the NHS, coming in at an eye-watering £2.875million per dose. It's used to treat babies with a fatal genetic disease called metachromatic leukodystrophy (MLD). While born seemingly perfectly healthy, children with MLD have a faulty gene that leads to a destructive build-up of fat around their nerves. Over time, this severely damages their brain and nervous system, with parents forced to watch helplessly as their child gradually stops walking, talking and then eating. Roughly four babies are born with MLD every year in the UK, and have a life expectancy of just five to eight years. But Libmeldy, a one-off treatment administered as an IV drip in hospital, uses a specially designed harmless virus to alter a patients' cells and remove the faulty gene that drives MLD. It's a bespoke treatment that uses a patient's individual cells, meaning a dose is unique to each individual. Another treatment that works in a similar way is Hemgenix, which MailOnline revealed was administered for the first time by the NHS earlier week. The drug —which costs an estimated £2.6million per patient—is also a gene therapy, delivered as one-off IV drip. It is the only treatment of its kind for haemophilia B, a bleeding disorder where the body doesn't make enough—or any—of a vital protein critical to clotting. Clotting stops wounds from bleeding, so those with the disorder risk suffering severe and even life-threatening blood loss from even minor injuries. Patients also run the risk of what are called 'spontaneous bleeds', which can be triggered without a direct injury and even prove deadly if they occur in a vital organ. Prior to Hemgenix, all haemophilia B patients needed regular weekly injections of an artificial clotting agent to keep their risk of catastrophic injury to a minimum. This meant many patients were effectively tethered to their scheduled injections, unable to live their lives without worry and anxiety about every potential nick and scrape. Similar to Libmeldy, Hemgenix works by replacing a patient's defective gene—which is incapable of producing the clotting protein—with one that can, eliminating the need for regular injections. Studies suggest the protective effect lasts for at least three years, but the hope is that it could work for even longer. There are approximately 2,000 people with haemophilia B in the UK. Yet, only around 260 with 'moderately severe or severe haemophilia B' are currently eligible for Hemgenix on the NHS. This puts the potential total bill to the taxpayer at roughly £676million. While a cost of £2.6million per patient may seem prohibitive, medics claim the treating patients this way actually saves the NHS money in the long term. The lifetime cost of providing a patient the alternative weekly clotting injections has been estimated to be £8million. This sum doesn't include the cost of life-saving interventions and surgeries haemophilia B patients may also need. Another multi-million drug approved for use on the NHS is Zolgensma, which comes in at £1.8million per dose. It's designed to help babies with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), a genetic disease that typically kills within two years if left untreated. Around 56 babies are born with SMA each year, with the condition caused by a defective gene that plays a critical role in allowing nerves in the spinal cord to control muscles movement. SMA causes muscles to waste and gets worse over time, making it difficult for patients to breathe, move and eat. Nine in 10 of those who have the most severe form of the disease, known as type 1, die by the age of two if they do not receive treatment. Zolgensma is given as one off infusion—that like the previously discussed gene therapies—also fixes the faulty gene that drives SMA. Gene therapies are incredibly expensive medications due to the intense design and manufacturing process that goes into their creation. Additionally, because many of them benefit rare health conditions with small patient populations there is an argument that companies need to charge high prices to recoup costs given the drug may only be used a handful of times per year. But exactly how much the NHS pays for these drugs isn't clear. While the companies which make the drugs do charge millions for them, the health service often acquires the medications at an undisclosed discount, so the actual cost is likely to be less than it first appears. Which drugs get funded on the NHS in England and Wales is determined by the NHS spending watchdog, The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). In making its decisions, NICE considers a multitude of factors. These include a drug's clinical impact—how much it improves or alleviates a patient's condition—as well as risk of side effects, practical issues like specialist storage, if there are alternatives, and, critically, how much it costs. It then judges if funding the drug will overall provides value for taxpayer money. This is often summarised using a metric called a quality-adjusted life year (QALY), essentially how much it costs to give a patient a healthy year of life. Lecanemab (pictured) and donanemab are currently only available to Brits who can afford to pay around £60,000 privately every year at select clinics Generally, if a drug costs about £20,000 to £30,000 per QALY NICE usually assesses it as a good use of taxpayer funding. This isn't a hard limit. The watchdog can rule drugs that are expensive and only work for a limited time, like end-of-life medications as worth the cost, recognising small amounts of time can be worth a lot to patients and their families. However, this process isn't an an exact science and can attract controversy. For example, the breast cancer drug Enhertu, described as a lifeline by campaigners, has been deemed too expensive by NICE for what it does. However, Scotland's equivalent of NICE—the Scottish Medicines Consortium—has deemed the £10,000 per patient per month drug as value for money. Research suggests Enhertu extends the lives of patients with one of the hardest to treat forms of breast cancer, buying them an extra year or more of life. Given as an infusion, it helps patients with an aggressive and fast-growing type of the cancer called HER2-positive. NICE previously accused the firm behind the drug, AstraZeneca, of refusing to 'offer a fair price'. About 57,000 cases of breast cancer are diagnosed in the UK each year with HER2-positive cancers accounting for roughly one in five of these, some 11,500. Other drugs that have attracted controversy after being rejected by NICE are donanemab and lecanemab. Both medications are designed slow down the early stages of Alzheimer's disease, the leading cause of dementia. The drugs bind to amyloid, a protein which builds up in the brains of people living with Alzheimer's, helping to clear out the substance and slowing cognitive decline. However—in its most recent ruling—NICE said while the treatments worked they only delayed the progression from mild to moderate Alzheimer's by four to six months. As such, the body ruled the medications cannot be provided on the NHS because they are not good value for money and 'only provide modest benefits at best'. Charities described the decision as 'disappointing' and a 'painful setback' for patients, while the firms Lilly, which makes donanemab, and Eisai, which makes lecanemab, said they would appeal the ruling. Alzheimer's is the most common cause of dementia in the UK with 944,000 Britons estimated to be living with the memory robbing disorder. NHS England published a briefing paper last year suggesting the cost of bringing the drugs to the health service could be £500 million to £1 billion per year. While multi-million purchases of single dose drugs using taxpayer funds—as people with far more common condition are denied cheaper medications—may raise eyebrows, the cost is worth putting into context. The NHS purchasing a one off dose of a £2.875million to save a child who would otherwise die, costs roughly 4p per person in the UK. This sum is about half of £5million the NHS in England spends on dishing out the over-the-counter painkiller paracetamol every month, despite the health service banning GPs from prescribing such cheap drugs to patients in 2018.

Daily Mirror

an hour ago

• Daily Mirror

Wes Streeting says there 'isn't a budget' in NHS for assisted dying law

The Health Secretary - one of the top opponents of the legislation - said assisted dying would take 'time and money' away from other parts of the health service Wes Streeting has claimed there "isn't a budget" in the NHS for assisted dying services after a historic Commons vote on the issue. The Health Secretary - one of the most senior opponents of the legislation - said it would take "time and money" away from other parts of the health service. On Friday the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was passed by MPs with a majority of 23 in a move championed by campaigners. ‌ Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves voted for the legislation, which would allow terminally ill adults with six months left to live the option to end their life early. The application would be approved by two doctors and an expert panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. ‌ But Mr Streeting was among several Cabinet ministers, including Deputy PM Angela Rayner and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, to vote against the bill. In a post on his Facebook page over the weekend, said he had "no doubt that this is a major and profound social change for our NHS and our country". READ MORE: Assisted dying law PASSES Commons in historic moment - see how your MP voted He said the Department of Health and Social Care "will continue to work constructively with Parliament to assist on technical aspects of the Bill" as it goes through the House of Lords. But he warned: "Even with the savings that might come from assisted dying if people take up the service - and it feels uncomfortable talking about savings in this context to be honest - setting up this service will also take time and money that is in short supply. "There isn't a budget for this. Politics is about prioritising. It is a daily series of choices and trade-offs. I fear we've made the wrong one." Assisted dying campaigner Dame Esther Rantzen also urged peers not to block the landmark legislation. Dame Esther told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Saturday: "I don't need to teach the House of Lords how to do their job. ‌ "They know it very well, and they know that laws are produced by the elected chamber. Their job is to scrutinise, to ask questions, but not to oppose. "So yes, people who are adamantly opposed to this Bill, and they have a perfect right to oppose it, will try and stop it going through the Lords, but the Lords themselves, their duty is to make sure that law is actually created by the elected chamber, which is the House of Commons who have voted this through." Dame Esther, who has terminal cancer, acknowledged the legislation would probably not become law in time for her to use it and she would have to "buzz off to Zurich" to use the Dignitas clinic.