The Disruptive Rivalry of Immature CDx Markets | Diaceutics

The Disruptive Rivalry of Immature CDx Markets

July 7th, 2014

Peter Keeling

Peter Keeling of Diaceutics discusses competition in companion diagnostic markets and suggests that diagnostic adoption rules learned only recently will not be so dependable.

We all knew it was coming, we just didn’t know when. Specifically, the shift into an era of unpredictable diagnostic market events derived from pharma-fuelled test battles, sample access battles, quintupling of disease-based molecular testing costs and rapid stakeholder bewilderment. This era will illustrate that just recently learned diagnostic adoption rules will not be so dependable.

We all knew it was coming because the last decade of personalized medicine and CDx introduction, principally in oncology, has been conducted for the most part in a market model of every man for himself, or rather, every asset team within pharma, for itself.

Decisions about specific biomarker commercialization could be taken in isolation of the broader market landscape because there wasn’t any competitive rivalry. Of course, HER2 testing served Herceptin and Tykerb, EGFRm testing served IRESSA and Tarceva, KRAS testing served Erbitux and Vectibix, however these were single biomarkers with binary treatment choices.  Driving test adoption and managing the often naïve infrastructure gaps around reimbursement and regulatory grey zones have been frustrating, but surmountable. In short, we have all deployed the classic ‘work arounds’ to remove testing hurdles to ‘right drug – right patient’. At the same time, the consequence of this rather myopic real estate grab has been an increasingly fragmented and fragile diagnostic marketplace.

Yet, it is into this very same fragmented and fragile companion testing market, where patient, physician and pathologist/laboratorian and payer confusion are now well-established[i], that the collective personalized medicine community is just about to launch some serious CDx weaponry. Take NSCLC as an example; currently in the US [2014] we have four commercial biomarkers[ii]  competing for physician, patient, pathologist and payer attention. Within 36 months, this could treble[iii]. If every one of these biomarkers is priced at $200 a pop and deserves a first line testing status, we will have moved the potential cost of efficiently testing the NSCLC patient community in the US from $52 million to $150 million in the blink of an eye.

Laboratories are already creaking under the gaps in sample management[iv], with up to 30 per cent of diagnostic accuracy at risk in the pre-analytical sampling handling steps alone. Remember, diagnostic companies have no incentive to focus on these pre-analytical steps! Yet, it is to underdeveloped quality infrastructure that we will add a myriad of biomarkers on different platforms. Take the much-vaulted therapy arms race underway in PD-L1. There are 4 to 6 different drugs, 4 to 6 different tests (each potentially with different cut-off points)  and 4 to 5 different diagnostic companies marching forth into the market. A significant question for us should be, ‘How do we collectively avoid the impending confusion?’.

Up until now, pharma has somewhat disregarded the biomarker confusion profusion triggered by the ‘every asset for itself approach’. After all, doctors are used to testing, so what is one more in the mix? But listen to the recent real words from one high prescriber in the US who told us, “I feel like there is a biomarker juggernaut coming towards us and nobody cares”.

Actually, she was wrong in this statement! We, at Diaceutics, are pretty sure pharma does care about the confusion profusion, but caring and cooperating to prevent are two wholly different things.

Consider flying from Seattle to Frankfurt, where you traverse four international air spaces. The ‘freedom of the skies’ agreement born of a mature air travel market allows different airlines to compete on service and target marketing but cooperate to create an air traffic control infrastructure which serves all. The diagnostic infrastructure in personalized medicine deserves some similar cooperative structures. However, I am pretty sure we will have to live through a decade of disruptive rivalry before we have our very own ‘freedom of the biomarker’ agreements.

 


[i][php snippet=34 param=”title=Physicians’ Lag in Understanding of Personalized Medicine: Pharma’s Opportunity&id=999″]

[ii]In NSCLC  therapies are  currently  targeting EGFRm, ALK, BRAF EGFR

[iii]In NSCLC pipeline therapies are targeting PDL1,ROS 1 mTOR,, PIK3a, AKT1, PTEN, FGFR1, β-catenin, RET and DDR2

[iv][php snippet=34 param=”title=A Dose of Reality: Laboratories Need to be A Key Priority in Companion Diagnostics&id=1019″]

Blogs

View all blogs

Webinars & Podcasts

August 9th, 2018
Podcast: Oncology Patient Research
Why do we need to talk biomarkers with patients? Senior Director of Market Research at Diaceutics, Marianne Fillion, recently spearheaded an effort to gather insights directly from oncology patients to get an understanding of what they know about ...
April 20th, 2018
Podcast: PM Readiness Report 2018
Peter Keeling discusses the landscape and challenges for precision medicine, companion diagnostics, CDx or biomarker and conduit diagnostics are discussed including global laboratory test data analysis and forecasts for budget impact and value.
View all

Expert Insights

April 19th, 2018
The CMS National Coverage Decision on NGS
I. Introduction On March 16, 2018, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized a National Coverage Determination (NCD) that cove...
January 19th, 2018
What does the EU IVD Regulation mean for companion diagnostics and LDTs?
Dave Smart, PhD, Director at Diaceutics, discusses the introduction of the EU IVD Regulation. While it is considered a necessary step, the Regulati...
View all expert insights

Competitive Benchmarking Reports

March 16th, 2018
PM Readiness Report 2018 Summary
March 14th, 2017
Pharma Readiness for Diagnostic Integration 2017
View all reports

Case Studies

View all case studies

Publications

September 11th, 2018
BRAF mutation testing in melanoma – Poster presented at European Congress of Pathology 2018
BRAF mutation testing in melanoma: a study including Austria, Germany and UK, highlighting concordance for current technologies, and potential requirement of more sensitive technologies in future applications.
August 3rd, 2018
A Way Forward: Leveraging Advanced Diagnostic Testing to Unlock the Value of Precision Medicine
Read about how advanced diagnostic testing, ensuring that right patient gets the right therapy, at the right time, particularly with respect to therapies where the test result determines whether or not the therapy should be used (precision medicin...
View all publications
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
LinkedIn