Impact of gene patents and licensing practices on access to genetic testing for long QT syndrome

Secular trends of health care resource utilization and costs between Brugada syndrome and congenital long QT syndrome: A territory-wide study

BACKGROUND

Health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs are important metrics of health care burden, but they have rarely been explored in the setting of cardiac ion channelopathies.

HYPOTHESIS

This study tested the hypothesis that attendance-related HCRUs and costs differed between patients with Brugada syndrome (BrS) and congenital long QT syndrome (LQTS).

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of consecutive BrS and LQTS patients at public hospitals or clinics in Hong Kong, China. HCRUs and costs (in USD) for Accident and Emergency (A&E), inpatient, general outpatient and specialist outpatient attendances were analyzed between 2001 and 2019 at the cohort level. Comparisons were made using incidence rate ratios (IRRs [95% confidence intervals]).

RESULTS

Over the 19-year period, 516 BrS (median age of initial presentation: 51 [interquartile range: 38-61] years, 92% male) and 134 LQTS (median age of initial presentation: 21 [9-44] years, 32% male) patients were included. Compared to LQTS patients, BrS patients had lower total costs (2 008 126 [2 007 622-2 008 629] vs. 2 343 864 [2 342 828-2 344 900]; IRR: 0.857 [0.855-0.858]), higher costs for A&E attendances (83 113 [83 048-83 177] vs. 70 604 [70 487-70 721]; IRR: 1.177 [1.165-1.189]) and general outpatient services (2,176 [2,166-2,187] vs. 921 [908-935]; IRR: 2.363 [2.187-2.552]), but lower costs for inpatient stay (1 391 624 [1 391 359-1 391 889] vs. 1 713 742 [1 713 166-1 714 319]; IRR: 0.812 [0.810-0.814]) and lower costs for specialist outpatient services (531 213 [531 049-531 376] vs. 558 597 [558268-558926]; IRR: 0.951 [0.947-0.9550]).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, BrS patients consume 14% less health care resources compared to LQTS patients in terms of attendance costs. BrS patients require more A&E and general outpatient services, but less inpatient and specialist outpatient services than LQTS patients.

Predicting Genetic Variation Severity Using Machine Learning to Interpret Molecular Simulations

Distinct missense mutations in a specific gene have been associated with different diseases as well as differing severity of a disease. Current computational methods predict the potential pathogenicity of a missense variant but fail to differentiate between separate disease or severity phenotypes. We have developed a method to overcome this limitation by applying machine learning to features extracted from molecular dynamics simulations, creating a way to predict the effect of novel genetic variants in causing a disease, drug resistance, or another specific trait. As an example, we have applied this novel approach to variants in calmodulin associated with two distinct arrhythmias as well as two different neurodegenerative diseases caused by variants in amyloid-β peptide. The new method successfully predicts the specific disease caused by a gene variant and ranks its severity with more accuracy than existing methods. We call this method molecular dynamics phenotype prediction model.

Gene Patents in Canada: Is There a New Legal Landscape?

In 2016, the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) announced the settlement of its patent lawsuit against US-based Transgenomic, Inc. At issue in the case was CHEO's ability to test for gene mutations associated with long QT syndrome (LQTS) that are described in Transgenomic's patents. CHEO challenged the patents as invalid, and Transgenomic ultimately agreed to license them on a royalty-free basis to CHEO and other healthcare institutions for LQTS testing and research. While widely celebrated in the media, the ethical rhetoric surrounding the settlement has at times obscured the practical and legal context in which it was made and will operate. Here, we provide a nuanced account of the events surrounding the settlement and its implications for research and clinical care. Although the settlement is remarkable for the transparency of its terms and its inclusion of a license intended to benefit unaffiliated test providers, we conclude that another significant implication of the settlement may be its elimination of the opportunity to clarify an increasingly confused area of Canadian law against a backdrop of continued international controversy surrounding the patenting of genes and gene-based diagnostic and therapeutic methods.

Gene patents still alive and kicking: their impact on provision of genetic testing for long QT syndrome in the Canadian public health-care system

PurposeAlthough the Supreme Court of the United States limited their availability in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, gene patents remain important around the world. We examine the situation in Canada, where gene patents continue to exist, in light of recent litigation relating to familial long QT syndrome (LQTS).MethodsWe conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with 25 stakeholders across five Canadian provinces and supplemented this with a case analysis of the litigation.ResultsThe majority of LQTS testing was carried out outside Canada. Rising costs prompted several provinces to attempt to repatriate testing. However, LQTS gene patents stymied efforts, particularly in provinces where testing was more centralized, increasing costs and lowering innovation. It was in this context that a hospital launched a test case against the LQTS patents, resulting in a novel agreement to free Canadian hospitals from the effects of patents.ConclusionOur analysis reveals a rapidly evolving genetic test provision landscape under pressure from gene patents, strained budgets and poor collaboration. The litigation resulted in a blueprint for free public use of gene patents throughout Canada's health-care system, but it will only have value if governments are proactive in its use.

Commercial landscape of noninvasive prenatal testing in the United States

Cell-free fetal DNA-based noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) could significantly change the paradigm of prenatal testing and screening. Intellectual property (IP) and commercialization promise to be important components of the emerging debate about clinical implementation of these technologies. We have assembled information about types of testing, prices, turnaround times, and reimbursement of recently launched commercial tests in the United States from the trade press, news articles, and scientific, legal, and business publications. We also describe the patenting and licensing landscape of technologies underlying these tests and ongoing patent litigation in the United States. Finally, we discuss how IP issues may affect clinical translation of NIPT and their potential implications for stakeholders. Fetal medicine professionals (clinicians and researchers), genetic counselors, insurers, regulators, test developers, and patients may be able to use this information to make informed decisions about clinical implementation of current and emerging noninvasive prenatal tests.

Gene patents and personalized cancer care: impact of the Myriad case on clinical oncology

Genomic discoveries have transformed the practice of oncology and cancer prevention. Diagnostic and therapeutic advances based on cancer genomics developed during a time when it was possible to patent genes. A case before the Supreme Court, Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics, Inc seeks to overturn patents on isolated genes. Although the outcomes are uncertain, it is suggested here that the Supreme Court decision will have few immediate effects on oncology practice or research but may have more significant long-term impact. The Federal Circuit court has already rejected Myriad's broad diagnostic methods claims, and this is not affected by the Supreme Court decision. Isolated DNA patents were already becoming obsolete on scientific grounds, in an era when human DNA sequence is public knowledge and because modern methods of next-generation sequencing need not involve isolated DNA. The Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Supreme Court decision will have limited impact on new drug development, as new drug patents usually involve cellular methods. A nuanced Supreme Court decision acknowledging the scientific distinction between synthetic cDNA and genomic DNA will further mitigate any adverse impact. A Supreme Court decision to include or exclude all types of DNA from patent eligibility could impact future incentives for genomic discovery as well as the future delivery of medical care. Whatever the outcome of this important case, it is important that judicial and legislative actions in this area maximize genomic discovery while also ensuring patients' access to personalized cancer care.

Cystic Fibrosis Patents: A Case Study of Successful Licensing

From 2006-2010, Duke University's Center for Public Genomics prepared eight case studies examining the effects of gene patent licensing practices on clinical access to genetic testing for ten clinical conditions. One of these case studies focused on the successful licensing practices employed by the University of Michigan and the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto for patents covering the CFTR gene and its ΔF508 mutation that causes a majority of cystic fibrosis cases. Since the licensing of these patents has not impeded clinical access to genetic testing, we sought to understand how this successful licensing model was developed and whether it might be applicable to other gene patents. We interviewed four key players who either were involved in the initial discussions regarding the structure of licensing or who have recently managed the licenses and collected related documents. Important features of the licensing planning process included thoughtful consideration of potential uses of the patent; anticipation of future scientific discoveries and technological advances; engagement of relevant stakeholders, including the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation; and using separate licenses for in-house diagnostics versus kit manufacture. These features led to the development of a licensing model that has not only allowed the patent holders to avoid the controversy that has plagued other gene patents, but has also allowed research, development of new therapeutics, and wide-spread dissemination of genetic testing for cystic fibrosis. Although this licensing model may not be applicable to all gene patents, it serves as a model in which gene patent licensing can successfully enable innovation, investment in therapeutics research, and protect intellectual property while respecting the needs of patients, scientists, and public health.

Patents in genomics and human genetics

Genomics and human genetics are scientifically fundamental and commercially valuable. These fields grew to prominence in an era of growth in government and nonprofit research funding, and of even greater growth of privately funded research and development in biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. Patents on DNA technologies are a central feature of this story, illustrating how patent law adapts-and sometimes fails to adapt-to emerging genomic technologies. In instrumentation and for therapeutic proteins, patents have largely played their traditional role of inducing investment in engineering and product development, including expensive post-discovery clinical research to prove safety and efficacy. Patents on methods and DNA sequences relevant to clinical genetic testing show less evidence of benefits and more evidence of problems and impediments, largely attributable to university exclusive licensing practices. Whole-genome sequencing will confront uncertainty about infringing granted patents, but jurisprudence trends away from upholding the broadest and potentially most troublesome patent claims.