Given the ever-increasing advances in science and research related to genetics and genomics, it’s not surprising that discussions about personalized (or precision) medicine among care providers, industry, regulators, patient advocacy groups and Congress are heating up.

Personalized medicine has evolved rapidly over the last few years—particularly in oncology—as these advancements have armed us with tools to better know our patients. Genetic and molecular finger printing can point the way to more precise diagnosis, treatment and prevention.

Over the next decade, it is very likely that personalized medicine will play a larger role in the care of patients with certain cardiovascular disorders. Professional organizations and societies can lead the way in developing guidelines that address personalized medicine. We already have registry tools to track and measure outcomes and inform patients of risks, benefits and/or alternatives. This “phenotypic” repository should help catalyze efforts to link genome discoveries with physical traits and predisposition to disease. While there is significant potential for widespread clinical implementation of personalized medicine, there is some uncertainty over the current value of genetic testing from both therapeutic and financial perspectives.

This week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee brought together key players in health care for an open discussion about the advancements in and barriers to personalized medicine and its role in improving patient care moving forward. I had the opportunity to share some insight about how personalized medicine will impact the practice of cardiovascular medicine in the future while on Capitol Hill.

There’s no doubt that personalized medicine will have a significant impact on the way patients are diagnosed and treated in the coming years and decades. The question is: how do we place this kind of technology in context and how do we make it real and useable at the point of care? The current reality is that cardiovascular clinicians are many years removed from the potential applicability of this science in their daily practices. Although we have made enormous strides in identifying single gene defects that result in some forms of cardiomyopathy and sudden cardiac death risk in relatively small numbers of patients, the chronic, polygenic diseases with which we deal (atherosclerosis, hypertension, etc.) are far more complicated in their expression, time course of development, and interaction with environmental influences.

During the congressional roundtable, I underscored that shared decision making between clinicians and patients is essential to the successful development and application of personalized medicine. While this is a very exciting field, physician and patient education is the key to successful implementation. During my time on the Hill, I called for harmonization across regulatory agencies; funding for information technology and science; and proper reimbursement for diagnostic tests and counseling of patients. I do not see the basic and translational sciences as the obstacles here. We need parallel efforts to manage the enormous troves of information that can now be derived from genetic and physiologic observations on individual patients.

I would like to thank the Energy and Commerce Committee for providing a forum for discussion on this important topic. Next week, health care experts will take part in a House Small Business Committee meeting on the benefits and barriers to increased use of telemedicine. Meetings such as these are crucial to ensuring that the voice of cardiology is heard loud and clear on Capitol Hill. I hope also to see you in Washington, DC, Sept. 14-16 for ACC’s Legislative Conference.

< Back to Listings