Should we Invest in Curing Rare Diseases or Making Them Rarer?

An guest-post from Noor Siddiqui and Nikki Teran of Orchid

Rare diseases cost Americans around 8 trillion dollars a year. About half of that is direct medical costs. If families are lucky, they may go bankrupt paying for treatment of often questionable effectiveness. The unlucky families may go bankrupt just trying to find a cure; unfortunately less relevant as only about 5% of rare diseases have treatments

What can we do to reduce this burden? 

Two options are: 

  1. Incentivize the development of more treatments

or

  1. Reduce the incidence in future generations by screening as early as possible

Towards option one, the FDA created a “golden ticket” to encourage the development of treatments for rare diseases. Their transferable golden ticket (technically a “priority review voucher”) allows its owner to shave four months off the FDA’s review process. Previous vouchers have sold for as high as $350 million. But the program is set to sunset this fall, raising the question of whether the problem of rare diseases will be dealt with at the federal level.

Towards option two, preimplantation genetic testing may provide its own “golden ticket” for preventing rare diseases. Preimplantation genetic testing in concert with in vitro fertilization has already been shown to be cost effective for inherited rare diseases like sickle cell and Huntington’s disease, with cost savings in the millions per individual (not to mention the priceless improvement in quality of life). Advances in whole genome sequencing open up this technology to potentially prevent all rare genetic diseases.

Rare Diseases Aren’t Actually Rare – 10% of Americans are affected 

In the United States, a rare disease is defined as one that affects fewer than 200,000 Americans. Despite each disease affecting no more than .06% of the population, there are about 7,000 different rare diseases, meaning roughly 10% of the U.S. population has a rare disease. 

These numbers may seem large, but it makes sense if you consider the complexity of human genetics and development. Humans have around 20,000 genes. Mutations in some genes are lethal. Mutations in some genes lead to normal human variation; you may not even know the person has a mutation. And mutations in others lead to rare diseases; not lethal at or before birth, but often quite deleterious. Around 80% of rare diseases are genetic and many of these diseases are discovered in children – the mutations are severe enough to be noticed early.

30% of children with rare diseases do not live past the age of 10 

The devastation of rare diseases stems from their chronic, progressive nature and the fact that many involve multi-organ system failure or neurological impairments. For families, this can be unimaginably cruel. Children may be robbed of normal development or, even more brutally for families, regression. In Sanfillipo syndrome, children may develop normally until age four before showing any behavioral changes. They then progressively develop dementia and lose motor function. Most do not make it to adulthood.

The emotional toll is compounded by a profound sense of isolation as healthcare providers often lack expertise with the particular rare condition. Making matters worse, the few treatments that do exist frequently carry price tags in the millions, straining families to the breaking point financially as well as emotionally and physically through caretaking demands.

Just last December a gene therapy treatment was approved for sickle cell disease, which affects around 100,000 Americans and as many as one in every 365 African-Americans. Unfortunately, gene therapy is not a perfect cure. For sickle cell disease, the chemotherapy administered as part of the treatment leads to infertility.

But many rare diseases are too complex for over-the-counter solutions and affect too few people a year to interest drug companies. The market just isn’t there.

The FDA Priority Review Voucher Program Incentivises Orphan Drug Development

The priority review voucher program turns the inefficiencies in the FDA’s approvals process from a bug into a feature. The government created the priority review voucher program to incentivize the development of treatments of certain tropical diseases, rare pediatric diseases, and medical countermeasures against biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear threats. These are known as “orphan” indications as they otherwise lack the financial incentive needed for a pharmaceutical company to invest in research.

The voucher allows for fast-tracked new drug application approval. Time is money for pharmaceutical companies. Being able to jump the approval line and get a drug approved in six months instead of ten can be huge for pharma company’s bottom lines.

The first priority review voucher sale was used by Regerneron Pharmaceuticals to get their PCSK9 inhibitor to market a month ahead of Amgen’s cholesterol lowering drug targeting the same pathway. 

Pharmaceutical patents last 20 years, but that clock starts when the patent is filed, not when the drug is approved. Patents are typically filed during preclinical trials, which can take upwards of two to five years. These are followed by clinical trials (when the drug is actually tested in people). Clinical trials can take upwards of three to ten years. By the time a drug is ready for FDA evaluation, there may only be a handful of years left on the patent.

Some drugs can make billions of dollars per year, meaning it may make financial sense to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on an extra four months of sales.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-251.pdf

Vouchers are sold in more ways than one. Some larger pharma companies will acquire smaller biotechs, or their assets, when the smaller company is going after “voucherable” targets. These acquisitions can help bring to market drugs for orphaned diseases that may not otherwise have had the resources from venture capital to survive.

A friend of mine worked for small drug companies that were pursuing treatments for Ebola primarily because of the priority review voucher program. They weren’t targeting the financial incentive of the antiviral’s sale; they were targeting the voucher itself. 

Unfortunately, the priority review voucher program for neglected tropical diseases has already sunset. Despite (or more realistically due to) the recent pandemic, Congress was unable to reauthorize the Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Act this past fall. The neglected tropical disease and medical countermeasure priority review programs are casualties of congressional dysfunction. Without the financial incentives created by this program, many of these drug pipelines will dry up.

The pediatric rare disease program has a little more time — it’s set to sunset this fall — and its fate will likely be the same. Although the program has successfully contributed to 19 new treatments for rare pediatric diseases, even its continuation wouldn’t be enough. What about the other 6,981 rare diseases? For genetic disorders, prevention may be worth five thousand pounds of cure.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-251.pdf

Preimplantation Genetic Testing (PGT) Can Prevent Many Rare Diseases

During typical in vitro fertilization (IVF), multiple embryos are created and the “highest quality” embryo is implanted. Historically, the “highest quality” embryo was determined subjectively based on appearance (“morphology”). This appearance often correlated with genetic issues and, inversely, later pregnancy success. Today, success can be increased by looking for the genetic issues directly: preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) has been shown to reduce the miscarriage rate from 9.1% to 2.6%. As genetic issues are more common with age, this particularly increases success in older mothers.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8984775/figure/jld220010f2/

Cutting-edge preimplantation genetic testing can read 99.6% of an embryo’s genome, allowing for the identification of mutations that can cause rare diseases. This process works both for mutations that parents may pass on to their children (inherited mutations) and formutations that spontaneously occur (de novo mutations). Orchid performs this cutting-edge version of preimplantation genetic testing. The whole-genome sequencing has provided parents with information on these rare diseases, enabling improved decisions on which embryo to implant. 

Doctors already recommend screening procedures that are similarly priced and arguably less impactful. The chances of a 35 year-old woman having a child with Down syndrome is just under 0.3%. The life expectancy of someone with Down syndrome is 60 years and they generally report living happy, fulfilling lives. In contrast, the combined prevalence of the monogenic disorders Orchid screens for is 3-4%, more than 10 times as likely, and many are fatal at birth. Whole genome screening is able to detect these mutations whether they are inherited from the parents or de novo mutations that are unique to the embryo. Additionally, preimplantation genetic screening also provides information on chromosomal abnormalities like Down syndrome or others that are incompatible with life. Amniocentesis typically costs $4,100 per fetus while Orchid’s whole-genome testing is $2,500 per embryo.

Many of the disorders detectable by whole-genome preimplantation genetic testing carry additional cost beyond just reduced lifespan. 40% of infants in the NICU have a detectable single-gene mutation, meaning many of these babies require intensive care due to their detectable genetic disease. A single day in the NICU costs upwards of $3,500.

Even just alternative forms of diagnosis are comparable to whole-genome preimplantation genetic testing. A 2014 study that looked at neurodevelopmental disorders, which affect more than 3% of children, found the average family spent $19,100 on inconclusive diagnostics alone. That means the families spent nearly $20,000 each on diagnostics, not treatments or other care, before the cost of the test that ultimately provided a diagnosis.

Parents and Patients Should Have As Many Options as Possible

Ideally, biotech companies would have access to priority review vouchers and parents would have access to whole-genome preimplantation genetic testing. The federal government should create policies to maximize the public welfare. The priority review voucher program has encouraged the development of treatments that will change millions of lives. Systematic incentives like the voucher program can only be executed by this sort of top-down approach.

Practically, parents want to provide the best lives possible for their children. Preimplantation genetic testing can prevent monogenic genetic diseases and mitigate risk for chronic diseases like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and diabetes. However, the cost of IVF is an impediment to universal access, as the US does not have as extensive coverage as other countries. The federal government could require insurance to cover both IVF and genetic screening of embryos created through IVF. Parents would then have the necessary information to make their own choices about their children.

The voucher program will not be able to create treatments for all rare diseases and genetic tests may never be able to prevent all rare diseases. But the voucher program may be able to make many conditions minor inconveniences and genetic testing may provide families the opportunity to make informed decisions, making both social and financial sense. 

Authors 

Dr. Nikki Teran has worked in biotech at Pfizer, AncestryDNA, and startups. She earned her bachelor’s degree in Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry from Yale, and her PhD in Genetics from Stanford, focusing on rare disease diagnostics. 

Noor Siddiqui is the CEO of Orchid, a reproductive technology company that built the world’s first whole genome embryo reports. She taught Frontiers in Reproductive Technology at Stanford, where she was an AI and genomics researcher and earned her Master’s and Bachelor’s degrees in Computer Science. 

Nebula Genomics, 12-hour sale

It looks like Nebula Genomics has a 12-hour sale (as of this posting). This means you can get medical-grade 30x sequencing for $299. I do not recommend 100x because that gives you little bang-for-the-buck.

Nebula has had issues with timeliness in the past, so don’t purchase it expecting a rapid turnaround. But this seems like a good opportunity to get whole genome sequencing.

The main reason to do this download the raw data and put it in a lockbox somewhere. You have it for the rest of your life then.

The Great Stagnation, genomics edition


Yaniv Erlich has been talking about the stability of the cost of sequencing for the last few years on Twitter. For what it’s worth, I think the stagnation is probably due to lack of competition. Illumina could surely move the price point further down through squeezing more efficiencies out of the process. In fact, they are surely squeezing more efficiencies out and profiting from that.

What is really striking though is how the period between the end of 2007 and to the beginning of 2010 was like something that we never saw before, and will never see again. Not uncoincidentally this is also when 23andMe also brought direct-to-consumer to a broader audience interested in health.

Veritas’ price drop to $599

For many years friends have been asking me whole genome sequencing retail would be “cheap.”  Well, as Emily Mullin reports, Veritas is now dropping their retail price to $599. You Can Now Get Your Whole Genome Sequenced for Less Than an iPhone:

Veritas Genetics is making a big bet that people want to know what’s in their genome.

The Boston-based company, which started offering whole genome sequencing in 2016 for $999 — the first company to do so below four figures — announced today that it is lowering the price to $599. For much less than the price of the latest iPhone model, consumers can get a full readout of their DNA.

Veritas’ move is a clear signal that genetic sequencing technology is getting cheaper as it becomes more automated — but whether people will want to know about the disease risks that may lurk in their genomes is yet to be seen. But Veritas thinks its new price point will be low enough to convince customers that decoding their entire genome is worth it.

There are still some “gaps” in our knowledge in terms of repetitive areas, as well as the whole area of secondary and tertiary structure and details of gene regulation and epigenetics. But, we’re fast converging on total sequence information.

The growth of human genomics

Citation: Aylwyn Scally

The above figure is from Aylwyn Scally, or as I like to think of him, the Irish Matt Hahn. I’m not going to add any comments as the chart speaks for itself, doesn’t it?

Also, looks like my son is about the 10,000th person in the history of the human race who was whole-genome sequenced. That’s not a shabby record. First prenatal whole-genome sequence of a healthy born individual, and in the first ~0.000125% of the human race alive today to be sequenced.

The Ubiquitous Sequencing Age

Several years ago Yaniv Ehrlich published A Vision for Ubiquitous Sequencing. We’re inching in that direction. In The Atlantic Sarah Zhang has a piece, An Abandoned Baby’s DNA Condemns His Mother, while The New York Times just came out with, Old Rape Kits Finally Got Tested. 64 Attackers Were Convicted:

Still, even with such successes, the problem of untested rape kits persists. Advocates for rape victims estimate that about 250,000 kits remain untested across the country.

Unfortunately, until recently, the ‘forensic genetics’ employed rather primitive 1990s technology. But that’s changing, though both money and expertise need to be brought to bear. Companies such as Gencove and Othram are bringing that expertise to a broader market, with the latter company focusing specifically on the forensic market.

So ubiquitous sequencing is happening. Soon. What does that mean? We need to think about privacy. We need to think about data. We need to reflect on the broader implications of this world beyond specific targeted tasks such as forensic identification.

Laws of engineering are meant to be broken

A reader pointed out a very interesting passage in Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution on the future possibilities of genome sequencing. Since the book was published in the middle of 2009, it is quite possible the passage was written in 2008, or even earlier.

Unfortunately for Dawkins’ prognostication track-record, but fortunately for science, he was writing at the worst time to make a prediction:

…the doubling time [data produced for a given fixed input] is a bit more than two years, where the Moore’s Law doubling time is a bit less than two years. DNA technology is intensely dependent on computers, so it’s a good guess that Hodgkin’s Law is at least partly dependent on Moore’s Law. The arrows on the right indicate the genome sizes of various creatures. If you follow the arrow towards the left until it hits the sloping line of Hodgkin’s Law, you can read off an estimate of when it will be possible to sequence a gnome the same size as the creature concerned for only £1,000 (of today’s money). For the genome the size of yeast’s, we need to wait only till about 2020. For a new mammal genome…the estimated date is just this side of 2040

Obsolete plot from The Greatest Show on Earth

The cost for a sequence here is somewhat fuzzy. The first assembly of a genome sequence of an organism is much more difficult than subsequent alignments of later organisms (though more in computation than in the sequencing). But, the upshot is that Dawkins was writing when “Hodgkin’s Law” was collapsing. From 2008 to 2011 Moore’s Law was destroyed by the sequencing revolution pushed forward by Illumina.

Though you can get a $1,000 consumer human sequence today, the reality is that this is for 30× coverage. For lower coverage, which means you aren’t as sure of the validity of any given variant, the price drops rapidly. And for the type of evolutionary questions Dawkins is interested in, the coverage needed is far lower than 30× (you probably want to get a larger number of samples than a single high-quality sample).

Sequence them all and let God sort it out!

Researchers reboot ambitious effort to sequence all vertebrate genomes, but challenges loom:

In a bid to garner more visibility and support, researchers eager to sequence the genomes of all vertebrates today officially launched the Vertebrate Genomes Project (VGP), releasing 15 very high quality genomes of 14 species. But the group remains far short of raising the funds it will need to document the genomes of the estimated 66,000 vertebrates living on Earth.

The project, which has been underway for 3 years, is a revamp and renaming of an effort begun in 2009 called the Genome 10K Project (G10K), which aimed to decipher the genomes of 10,000 vertebrates. G10K produced about 100 genomes, but they were not very detailed, in part because of the cost of sequencing. Now, however, the cost of high-quality sequencing has dropped to less than $15,000 per billion DNA bases…

Funding remains an obstacle. To date, the VGP has raised $2.5 million of the $6 million needed to sequence a representative species from each of the 260 major branches of the vertebrate family tree. To reach the goal of all 66,000 vertebrates will require about $600 million, Jarvis says.

Though a lot of the details are different (sequencing vs. genotyping, vertebrates vs. humans), many of the general issues that David Mittelman and I brought up in our Genome Biology comment, Consumer genomics will change your life, whether you get tested or not, apply. That is, to some extent this is an area of science where technology and economics are just as important as science in driving progress.

I remember back in graduate school that people were talking about sequencing hundreds of vertebrates. But even in the few years since then, the landscape has shifted. I’m so little a biologist that I actually didn’t know there were only ~66,000 vertebrate species!

And yet this brings up a reasonable question from many scientists who came up in an era of more data scarcity: what are the questions we’re trying to answer here?

Science involves people. It’s not an abstraction. Throwing a whole lot of data out there does not mean that someone will be there to analyze it, or, that we’ll get interesting insights. To be frank, the original Human Genom Project project should probably tell us that, as its short-term benefits were clearly oversold.

In relation to how cheap data storage is and the declining price point of sequencing, I think my assertion that a genome, a sequence, is not a depreciating asset still holds. There is the initial cost of sequencing and assembling and the long term cost of storage, but these are small potatoes. The bigger considerations are the salaries of scientific labor and the opportunity costs. Sequencing tens of thousands of genomes may not get us anywhere, but really we’re not going to lose that much.

Ultimately I side with those who believe that the existence of the data itself will change the landscape of possible questions being asked, and therefore generate novel science. But it’s pretty incredible to even be debating this issue in 2018 of sequencing all vertebrates. That’s something to reflect on.

Apes just being apes

A while back I made fun of bonobos and chimpanzees for being kind of losers for looking across at each other on either side of the Congo river for ~1.5 million years the time elapsed since their diversion. I finally ended up reading the paper from last year, Chimpanzee genomic diversity reveals ancient admixture with bonobos, which reported complex population history between these two species. In other words, “they got it on”.

The key was a reasonable sample size of N=40 and high coverage genomes (>20x), to give them the amount of information necessary to have the power to detect admixture. If you aren’t human and have a reasonable size genome, and all mammals do, get to the back of the line. But the Pan‘s turn finally arrived.

The paper primary result is that over past few hundred thousand years there have been reciprocal gene flow events of small, but detectable, magnitude between chimpanzees and bonobos. Naturally, there was some geographic specificity here, in that chimpanzees from far West Africa lack much evidence of this while those from Central Africa have a great deal. The admixture is directly proportional to proximity to b0nobo range.

To obtain the result their initial focus on high-frequency bonobo derived alleles that were at low to moderate frequencies in chimpanzees. There was a notable excess for this class among Central African chimpanzees. And, these alleles seem to have introgressed recently.

I suppose the major takeway is that hominids do it like they do it on the Discovery Channel.