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
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
9 minutes ago
- The Independent
MP claims assisted dying could be ‘trojan horse that breaks the NHS'
An opponent of the assisted dying Bill has claimed such a service 'could become the trojan horse that breaks the NHS' after Health Secretary Wes Streeting was questioned about the availability of money to fund it. It is expected MPs will have a vote on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on Friday, which could see it either progress to the House of Lords or fall. It will be the first time the Bill has been voted on in its entirety since November's historic yes vote, when MPs supported the principle of assisted dying for England and Wales by a majority of 55. While supporters of the Bill say it is coming back to the Commons with better safeguards after more than 90 hours of parliamentary time spent on it to date, opponents claim the process has been rushed and that the Bill is now weaker than it was when first introduced last year. A key change was the replacing of a High Court judge requirement for sign-off of applications from terminally ill people, with a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. As it stands, the proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and the three-member panel. While the Bill has the backing of some MPs from medical backgrounds, concerns have also been raised by the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Psychiatrists. Disability campaigners have voiced worries about coercion and how vulnerable people could be caught up in any new law, although the proposed legislation is supported by MP and disability rights advocate Marie Tidball as well as former director of public prosecutions Sir Max Hill. On Tuesday, Mr Streeting confirmed no money has yet been allocated for the setting up of an assisted dying service and reiterated the Government is neutral on the Bill. Mr Streeting voted no last year and has since indicated he remains opposed to the Bill. MPs are entitled to have a free vote on the Bill and any amendments, meaning they decide according to their conscience rather than along party lines. He was asked by Labour MP Katrina Murray, who also voted no in November, whether the NHS has the money to fund assisted dying on top of its other priorities. She said: 'If passed, the assisted dying Bill would make thousands of terminally ill people every year eligible to end their lives on the NHS. 'Does our health service have the money to fund this service as well as its priority of bringing down waiting lists?' Mr Streeting responded: 'Of course, the Government is neutral (on assisted dying). It's for the House to decide. 'There isn't money allocated to set up the service in the Bill at present, but it's for members of this House and the Lords, should the Bill proceed, to decide whether or not to proceed and that's a decision that this Government will respect either way.' Mr Streeting said last year that there were 'choices and trade-offs', adding 'any new service comes at the expense of other competing pressures and priorities'. Dame Siobhain McDonagh, fellow Labour MP who is also opposed to the Bill, claimed an assisted dying service could 'rob our stretched NHS of much needed resources'. She said: 'When asked today in the House of Commons the Secretary of State for Health made clear to MPs that there is no money allocated to the NHS to fund the assisted dying Bill. 'It's now clear that the assisted dying Bill will rob our stretched NHS of much needed resources and could become the trojan horse that breaks the NHS, the proudest institution and the proudest measure in our Labour Party's history. 'We already know from the impact assessment that this new system could cost tens if not hundreds of millions of pounds making our mission to cut waiting times and rebuild our NHS harder. 'I urge Labour MPs not to vote for the assisted dying Bill to protect the vulnerable and our NHS.' An impact assessment published by the Government last month estimated that the establishment of a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner and the three-member expert panels would cost an average of between £10.9 million and £13.6 million per year, although overall implementation costs of a service were not possible to work out yet. While noting that cutting end-of-life care costs 'is not stated as an objective of the policy', the assessment estimated that such costs could be reduced by as much as an estimated £10 million in the first year and almost £60 million after 10 years. Bill sponsor Kim Leadbeater has said the proposed legislation is about giving dying people choice at the end of their lives, saying it is 'about the human cost' and 'not about pounds and pence'. She has described her Bill as the 'most robust piece of legislation in this area in the world'. Dozens of Labour MPs called for Friday's overall vote to be delayed, asking Commons Leader Lucy Powell for more time to scrutinise a Bill they say is 'perhaps the most consequential piece of legislation that has appeared before the House in generations'. But a Government spokesperson pointed out that it is a Private Members' Bill and 'the amount of time for debate is therefore a matter for the House'.
Daily Mail
37 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
The NHS must fund services like fracture clinics that can save money and boost productivity: RUTH SUNDERLAND
In her Spending Review, Rachel Reeves announced £29billion for the National Health Service to finance a ten year plan. The plan aims to reduce pressure on hospitals, promote early intervention to slow down or stop people's health problems getting worse, to emphasise prevention and to move the clunky manual admin to digital. Improving the nation's health is a moral imperative in its own right. It is also one of the keys to unlocking the productivity that has eluded the UK since the financial crisis. More than nine million people of working age are economically inactive, around 2.8million of them because they are long-term sick. This is a drain on the welfare budget and a vast waste of potential and talent. Simply throwing money into the ravenous mouth of the NHS will not solve the problem. But there are intelligent, targeted moves health secretary Wes Streeting could make. Chief among these is to honour his promise to provide fracture clinics that would save the NHS a fortune on the costs of osteoporosis and also result in big benefits for employers. Osteoporosis is a very widespread bone condition affecting around 3million Britons. It costs the NHS multiple millions to treat and it costs the economy dearly, because many victims are forced to give up their jobs while others have to give up work to look after a relative with the disease. The good news is that these costs could be dramatically reduced, if Streeting has the good sense to make good on a promise he made to roll out Fracture Liaison Services (FLS) to every NHS Trust in the UK. Campaigners are hoping this will feature in the ten year plan and bring an end to a cruel postcode lottery. Where they exist, FLS clinics offer people over 50 who arrive at A&E with a fracture an assessment for osteoporosis. Patients who are found to have the condition, which means their bones are weak and prone to break, are then offered treatment and advice. It would cost around £30m a year to set up and staff a universal service, plus another £12m annually on the cost of drugs. But over five years this would create savings of £440m for the NHS in terms of the cost of treating fractures, according to the Royal Osteoporosis Society (ROS). Ending the FLS postcode lottery would also be a huge benefit to business. Broken bones caused by osteoporosis have cost firms £142m and 1.5million lost work days during Labour's first year in power, independent research for the ROS has found. Musculoskeletal conditions, including osteoporosis, are the single biggest contributor to those lost work days, and the percentage of sickness absence caused has been increasing in recent years. I have personally spoken to some of the people behind the statistics. Stephen Robinson from North Yorkshire had no fewer than ten spinal fractures but because there was no FLS near his home, these were not diagnosed. The final fracture was caused by a sneeze. He had to pay £3,500 for a private diagnosis before he could gain access to treatment and he was forced to give up his job as a forklift truck driver. This experience is, unfortunately not isolated. This is why the Mail has been running a War on Osteoporosis campaign and why we will be watching closely to see if universal FLS is included in the ten year plan. But it is not just osteoporosis. In my own experience physiotherapy services are over-stretched, as is after care for cancer patients and mental health provision. Readers will no doubt be aware of more. The slow pace on helping osteoporosis sufferers is just one example of false economies in the NHS, where patients are denied valuable services that would more than pay for themselves in the name of short-term penny pinching. So come on Wes, show us you care.
Rhyl Journal
37 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
MP claims assisted dying could be ‘trojan horse that breaks the NHS'
It is expected MPs will have a vote on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on Friday, which could see it either progress to the House of Lords or fall. It will be the first time the Bill has been voted on in its entirety since November's historic yes vote, when MPs supported the principle of assisted dying for England and Wales by a majority of 55. While supporters of the Bill say it is coming back to the Commons with better safeguards after more than 90 hours of parliamentary time spent on it to date, opponents claim the process has been rushed and that the Bill is now weaker than it was when first introduced last year. A key change was the replacing of a High Court judge requirement for sign-off of applications from terminally ill people, with a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. As it stands, the proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and the three-member panel. While the Bill has the backing of some MPs from medical backgrounds, concerns have also been raised by the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Psychiatrists. Disability campaigners have voiced worries about coercion and how vulnerable people could be caught up in any new law, although the proposed legislation is supported by MP and disability rights advocate Marie Tidball as well as former director of public prosecutions Sir Max Hill. On Tuesday, Mr Streeting confirmed no money has yet been allocated for the setting up of an assisted dying service and reiterated the Government is neutral on the Bill. Mr Streeting voted no last year and has since indicated he remains opposed to the Bill. MPs are entitled to have a free vote on the Bill and any amendments, meaning they decide according to their conscience rather than along party lines. He was asked by Labour MP Katrina Murray, who also voted no in November, whether the NHS has the money to fund assisted dying on top of its other priorities. She said: 'If passed, the assisted dying Bill would make thousands of terminally ill people every year eligible to end their lives on the NHS. 'Does our health service have the money to fund this service as well as its priority of bringing down waiting lists?' Mr Streeting responded: 'Of course, the Government is neutral (on assisted dying). It's for the House to decide. 'There isn't money allocated to set up the service in the Bill at present, but it's for members of this House and the Lords, should the Bill proceed, to decide whether or not to proceed and that's a decision that this Government will respect either way.' Mr Streeting said last year that there were 'choices and trade-offs', adding 'any new service comes at the expense of other competing pressures and priorities'. Dame Siobhain McDonagh, fellow Labour MP who is also opposed to the Bill, claimed an assisted dying service could 'rob our stretched NHS of much needed resources'. She said: 'When asked today in the House of Commons the Secretary of State for Health made clear to MPs that there is no money allocated to the NHS to fund the assisted dying Bill. 'It's now clear that the assisted dying Bill will rob our stretched NHS of much needed resources and could become the trojan horse that breaks the NHS, the proudest institution and the proudest measure in our Labour Party's history. 'We already know from the impact assessment that this new system could cost tens if not hundreds of millions of pounds making our mission to cut waiting times and rebuild our NHS harder. 'I urge Labour MPs not to vote for the assisted dying Bill to protect the vulnerable and our NHS.' An impact assessment published by the Government last month estimated that the establishment of a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner and the three-member expert panels would cost an average of between £10.9 million and £13.6 million per year, although overall implementation costs of a service were not possible to work out yet. While noting that cutting end-of-life care costs 'is not stated as an objective of the policy', the assessment estimated that such costs could be reduced by as much as an estimated £10 million in the first year and almost £60 million after 10 years. Bill sponsor Kim Leadbeater has said the proposed legislation is about giving dying people choice at the end of their lives, saying it is 'about the human cost' and 'not about pounds and pence'. She has described her Bill as the 'most robust piece of legislation in this area in the world'. Dozens of Labour MPs called for Friday's overall vote to be delayed, asking Commons Leader Lucy Powell for more time to scrutinise a Bill they say is 'perhaps the most consequential piece of legislation that has appeared before the House in generations'. But a Government spokesperson pointed out that it is a Private Members' Bill and 'the amount of time for debate is therefore a matter for the House'.
