We use cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse this site, you accept our cookie policy.×
Skip main navigation
Aging Health
Bioelectronics in Medicine
Biomarkers in Medicine
Breast Cancer Management
CNS Oncology
Colorectal Cancer
Concussion
Epigenomics
Future Cardiology
Future Microbiology
Future Neurology
Future Oncology
Future Rare Diseases
Future Virology
Hepatic Oncology
HIV Therapy
Immunotherapy
International Journal of Endocrine Oncology
International Journal of Hematologic Oncology
Journal of 3D Printing in Medicine
Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
Lung Cancer Management
Melanoma Management
Nanomedicine
Neurodegenerative Disease Management
Pain Management
Pediatric Health
Personalized Medicine
Pharmacogenomics
Regenerative Medicine
Perspective

Personalized medicine: a competitor or an upgrade of evidence-based medicine?

    Daniel Bereczki

    * Author for correspondence

    Deparment of Neurology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Balassa u. 6, H-1083, Hungary.

    Search for more papers by this author

    Email the corresponding author at bereczki@neur.sote.hu

    Published Online:6 Mar 2012https://doi.org/10.2217/pme.11.93

    Abstract

    Evidence-based medicine is a method of healthcare decision-making that intends to combine the most reliable scientific information with individual expertise and patient preferences in order to offer the optimal diagnostic and therapeutic option for the patient. In recent years, the term personalized medicine has been introduced to represent an approach considering differences among individual patients. In modern medicine the most important sources of evidence are clinical trials using epidemiological methods, and molecular biological and genetic methods characterizing individual patients. Responses to a certain therapeutic intervention differ among patients for several reasons. Identifying benefits and harms of an intervention can be handled by two approaches. The first is a statistical approach using the rule of large numbers, resulting in statistically meaningful conclusions. The other approach is personalized: the conclusions are valid for individual patients or subgroups identified by well-defined markers. Whether the evidence is statistical deriving from a large number of clinical observations or personalized based on molecular studies – it should be scientifically sound to apply in clinical practice. Confronting evidence-based medicine with personalized medicine would be justified only if the former is misinterpreted and restricted only to the use of randomized trials and their systematic reviews. The practice of personalized medicine is also based on evidence, and in many instances evidence from molecular research is also statistical in nature. Regarding healthcare decision about an individual patient, whether using evidence from randomized trials or from molecular studies of biomarkers, we have to base our decisions on reliable, good quality evidence. Evidence from molecular and genetic medicine thus improves the armament of evidence-based medicine, and this upgrade yields a more reliable support for our decisions in everyday practice.

    Papers of special note have been highlighted as: ▪ of interest ▪▪ of considerable interest

    References

    • 1  Goldhaber SZ. Optimal duration of anticoagulation after venous thromboembolism: fixed and evidence-based, or flexible and personalized? Ann. Intern. Med.150,644–646 (2009).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 2  Basu S. Personalized versus evidence-based medicine with PET-based imaging. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol.7,665–668 (2010).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 3  Tarantini G, Lanzellotti D. Three-vessel coronary disease in diabetics: personalized versus evidence-based revascularization strategy. Future Cardiol.6,797–809 (2010).Link, Google Scholar
    • 4  Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ312,71–72 (1996).▪▪ Basic article explicitly explaining that evidence-based medicine (EBM) is not restricted to randomized trials and meta-analyses.Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 5  Miles A, Loughlin M, Polychronis A. Evidence-based healthcare, clinical knowledge and the rise of personalised medicine. J. Eval. Clin. Pract.14,621–649 (2008).▪▪ Critical review of the philosophy and the clinical application of EBM.Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 6  Chan IS, Ginsburg GS. Personalized medicine: progress and promise. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet.12,217–244 (2011).▪▪ Thorough review of personalized medicine (PM), with definition of terms.Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 7  Ginsburg GS, Willard HF. Genomic and personalized medicine: foundations and applications. Transl. Res.154,277–287 (2009).▪ Emphasizes that the science behind PM should be evidence based, and also draws attention to regulatory, reimbursement and legislative issues of PM.Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 8  Smith CM. Origin and uses of primum non nocere – above all, do no harm! J. Clin. Pharmacol.45,371–377 (2005).Google Scholar
    • 9  Geiger JC. Concerning elixir of sulfanilamide. Cal. West. Med.47,353 (1937).Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 10  Wax PM. Elixirs, diluents, and the passage of the 1938 Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Ann. Intern. Med.122,456–461 (1995).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 11  De Craen AJ, Kaptchuk TJ, Tijssen JG, Kleijnen J. Placebos and placebo effects in medicine: historical overview. J. R. Soc. Med.92,511–515 (1999).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 12  Dunlop DM, Henderson TL, Inch RS. A survey of 17,301 prescriptions on form E.C. 10. BMJ1(4753),292–295 (1952).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 13  Woollam DH. Thalidomide disaster considered as an experiment in mammalian teratology. BMJ2(5299),236–237 (1962).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 14  Kefauver E, Harris O. Kefauver–Harris amendments of October 10, 1962 to Food and Drug and Cosmetic Act. Code Federal Regulation 1962;1.Google Scholar
    • 15  Beck M, Monroe S. The Tylenol scare: the death of seven people who took the drug triggers a nationwide alert – and a hunt for a madman. Newsweek100(15),32–36 (1982).Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 16  Cochrane AL. Effectiveness and Efficiency. Random Reflections on Health Services. Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, London, UK (1972).Google Scholar
    • 17  Cochrane AL. 1931–1971: a critical review with particular reference to the medical profession. In: Medicines for the Year 2000. Teeling-Smith G (Ed.). Office of Health Economics, London, UK, 1–11 (1979).Google Scholar
    • 18  Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Laupacis A, Sacket DL, Goldberg RJ. Clinical recommendations using levels of evidence for antithrombotic agents. Chest108(Suppl.),227S–230S (1995).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 19  Doody RS, Stevens JC, Beck C et al. Practice parameter: management of dementia (an evidence-based review). Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology.56,1154–1166 (2001).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 20  Brainin M, Barnes M, Baron JC et al. Guideline Standards Subcommittee of the EFNS Scientific Committee. Guidance for the preparation of neurological management guidelines by EFNS scientific task forces--revised recommendations 2004. Eur. J. Neurol.11,577–581 (2004).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 21  Michaud G, McGowan JL, van der Jagt R, Wells G, Tugwell P. Are therapeutic decisions supported by evidence from health care research? Arch. Intern. Med.158,1665–1668 (1998).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 22  Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA268,2420–2425 (1992).▪▪ First article introducing the aims of EBM.Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 23  Lance JW, Goadsby PJ. Mechanism And Management Of Headache, 7th Edition. Elsevier, Butterworth, Heinemann, Oxford, UK (2005).Google Scholar
    • 24  King MM. Dr. John S. Pemberton: originator of Coca-Cola. Pharm. Hist.29,85–89 (1987).Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 25  Horton ST, Peters GA, Blumenthal LS. A new product in the treatment of migraine. Mayo Clin. Proc.20,241–248 (1945).Google Scholar
    • 26  Ensink FB. Subcutaneous sumatriptan in the acute treatment of migraine. Sumatriptan International Study Group. J. Neurol.238(Suppl. 1),S66–S69 (1991).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 27  Jenicek M. The hard art of soft science: evidence based medicine, reasoned medicine or both? J. Eval. Clin. Pract.12,410–419 (2006).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 28  Mulrow CD, Lohr KN. Proof and policy from medical research evidence. J. Health Polit. Policy Law26,249–266 (2001).▪▪ Summarizes several aspects of EBM, with emphasis on legal issues.Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 29  Buetow S, Kenealy T. Evidence-based medicine: the need for a new definition. J. Eval. Clin. Practice6,85–92 (2000).▪ Summarizes the importance of evidence other than scientific evidence in EBM.Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 30  Langreth R, Waldholz M. New era of personalized medicine: targeting drugs for each unique genetic profile. Oncologist4,426–427 (1999).▪▪ Introduces the term PM.Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 31  Fricker J. UK’s adopts systematic approach to personalised cancer medicine. Mol. Oncol.5,217–219 (2011).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 32  Wilffert B, Swen J, Mulder H et al. From evidence based medicine to mechanism based medicine. Reviewing the role of pharmacogenetics. Int. J. Clin. Pharm.33,3–9 (2011).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 33  Camilleri E, Jacquin L, Paganelli F, Bonello L. Personalized antiplatelet therapy: review of the latest clinical evidence. Curr. Cardiol. Rep.13,296–302 (2011).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 34  Brown MJ. Personalised medicine for hypertension. BMJ343,d4697 (2011).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 35  Dowd SE, Wolcott RD, Kennedy J, Jones C, Cox SB. Molecular diagnostics and personalised medicine in wound care: assessment of outcomes. J. Wound Care20(5),232, 234–239 (2011).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 36  Szefler SJ. Personalised medicine for asthma management in pregnancy. Lancet378(9795),963–964 (2011).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 37  Zhu WB, Long XY, Fan LQ. Male fecundity prognosis and infertility diagnosis in the era of personalised medicine. Asian J. Androl.12,463–467 (2010).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 38  Isaacs JD, Ferraccioli G. The need for personalised medicine for rheumatoid arthritis. Ann. Rheum. Dis.70,4–7 (2011).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 39  Miossec P, Verweij CL, Klareskog L et al. on behalf of the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science (GREES). Biomarkers and personalised medicine in rheumatoid arthritis: a proposal for interactions between academia, industry and regulatory bodies. Ann. Rheum. Dis.70,1713–1718 (2011).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 40  Thng TG, Lim KS. Personalised medicine for psoriasis: a real possibility ahead. Ann. Acad. Med. Singapore39,588–590 (2010).Medline, Google Scholar
    • 41  Browman G, Hebert PC, Coutts J, Stanbrook MB, Flegel K, MacDonald N. Personalized medicine: a windfall for science, but what about patients? CMAJ183(18),E1277 (2011).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 42  Clarke A, Thirlaway K. Genetic counselling for personalised medicine. Hum. Genet.130,27–31 (2011).▪ Draws attention to the ethical responsibility of genetic counselors in the era of PM.Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 43  Sconce EA, Khan TI, Wynne HA et al. The impact of CYP2C9 and VKORC1 genetic polymorphism and patient characteristics upon warfarin dose requirements: proposal for a new dosing regimen. Blood106,2329–2333 (2005).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 44  Miller WR, Larionov AA. Bridging the gap between translational research and clinical application. J. Natl Cancer Inst. Monogr.2011,134–137 (2011).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 45  Miller WR, Larionov A, Renshaw L et al. Gene expression profiles differentiating between breast cancers clinically responsive or resistant to letrozole. J. Clin. Oncol.27,1382–1387 (2009).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 46  Nebert DW. Given the complexity of the human genome, can ‘personalised medicine’ or ‘individualised drug therapy’ ever be achieved? Hum. Genomics3,299–300 (2009).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 47  Beckett M, Quiter E, Ryan G et al. Bridging the gap between basic science and clinical practice: the role of organizations in addressing clinician barriers. Implement. Sci.6,35 (2011).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 48  Morgan M, Barry CA, Donovan JL, Sandall J, Wolfe CD, Boaz A. Implementing ‘translational’ biomedical research: convergence and divergence among clinical and basic scientists. Soc. Sci. Med.73,945–952 (2011).▪ Evaluating the use of a ‘research translator’ in the process of translation from ‘bench to bedside’.Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 49  McClain DA. Bridging the gap between basic and clinical investigation. Trends Biochem. Sci.35,187–188 (2010).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 50  Kong HH, Segre JA. Bridging the translational research gap: a successful partnership involving a physician and a basic scientist. J. Invest. Dermatol.130,1478–1480 (2010).▪ Enlists conditions and gives a good practical example to bridge the translational research gap.Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 51  Restifo LL, Phelan GR. The cultural divide: exploring communication barriers between scientists and clinicians. Dis. Model Mech.4,423–426 (2011).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 52  Kahn K, Ryan G, Beckett M et al. Bridging the gap between basic science and clinical practice: a role for community clinicians. Implement. Sci.6,34 (2011).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 53  Sandercock PA, Counsell C, Gubitz GJ, Tseng MC. Antiplatelet therapy for acute ischaemic stroke. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. (3),CD000029 (2008).Medline, Google Scholar
    • 54  Mega JL, Close SL, Wiviott SD et al. Genetic variants in ABCB1 and CYP2C19 and cardiovascular outcomes after treatment with clopidogrel and prasugrel in the TRITON-TIMI 38 Trial: a pharmacogenetic analysis. Lancet376(9749),1312–1319 (2010).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 55  Limdi NA, Wadelius M, Cavallari L et al. International Warfarin Pharmacogenetics Consortium. Warfarin pharmacogenetics: a single VKORC1 polymorphism is predictive of dose across 3 racial groups. Blood115,3827–3834 (2010).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 56  Sackett DL, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB (Eds). Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. Churchill Livingstone, London, UK (1997).▪▪ Basic publication of EBM.Google Scholar
    • 57  Muir Gray JA. Evidence-Based Healthcare. How to Make Health Policy and Management Decisions. Churchill Livingstone, London, UK (1997).Google Scholar
    • 58  Koziol JA. New tricks with old dogs: personalised medicine and clinical trials. Br. J. Cancer105,599–601 (2011).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 59  Guttmacher AE, McGuire AL, Ponder B, Stefansson K. Personalized genomic information: preparing for the future of genetic medicine. Nat. Rev. Genet.11,161–165 (2010).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 60  AMP Whole Genome Analysis Working Group. The Association for Molecular Pathology’s approach to supporting a global agenda to embrace personalized genomic medicine. J. Mol. Diagn.13,249–251 (2011).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 61  Swanton C, Burrell RA, Futreal PA. Breast cancer genome heterogeneity: a challenge to personalised medicine? Breast Cancer Res.13,104 (2011).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 62  Abrahams E. Personalized medicine realizing its promise. Gen. Eng. Biotech. News29,70–73 (2009).Google Scholar
    • 63  Timmermans S, Mauck A. The promises and pitfalls of evidence-based medicine. Health Aff. (Millwood)24,18–28 (2005).▪ Critical evaluation of EBM.Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 64  Laurence J. Getting personal: the promises and pitfalls of personalized medicine. Transl. Res.154,269–271 (2009).▪ Critical evaluation of PM.Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 65  Jenicek M. Evidence-based medicine: fifteen years later. Golem the good, the bad, and the ugly in need of a review? Med. Sci. Monit.12(11),RA241–RA251 (2006).Medline, Google Scholar
    • 66  Khoury MJ. Dealing with the evidence dilemma in genomics and personalized medicine. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.87,635–638 (2010).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 67  Kumar D. The personalised medicine. A paradigm of evidence-based medicine. Ann. Ist Super Sanita47,31–40 (2011).▪ Declares that PM should be evidence based, and discuses the role of genetics and genomics in EBM.Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 68  Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC. The need for evidence-based medicine. J. R. Soc. Med.88,620–624 (1995).Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
    • 69  Jenicek M. A Physician’s Self-Paced Guide to Critical Thinking. American Medical Association (AMA Press), Chicago, IL, USA (2006).Google Scholar
    • 70  Nierenberg AA. Promises, pitfalls, and pleasures of practicing evidence based psychiatry and neurology. CNS Spectr.14,12 (2009).Medline, Google Scholar
    • 71  Jorgensen JT. New era of personalized medicine: a 10-year anniversary. Oncologist14(5),557–558 (2009).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 101  Montori VM. The end of evidence-based medicine. http://videos.med.wisc.edu/videos/1291 (Accessed 2 October 2011)Google Scholar
    • 102  Hippocrates. Epidemics (Book I, Chapter XI). (c. 400 BC). http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/epidemics.1.i.html (Accessed 7 February, 2012)Google Scholar
    • 103  Health Committee of the House of Commons. Patient safety. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmhealth/151/15104.htm (Accessed 24 July 2011)Google Scholar
    • 104  Public Citizen’s Congress Watch. 2002 drug industry profits: hefty pharmaceutical company margins dwarf other industries. Public Citizen’s Publication Office, Washington, DC, USA (2003). www.citizen.org/documents/Pharma_Report.pdf (Accessed 7 February, 2012)Google Scholar
    • 105  Improving public health through human drugs. CDER 2007 update. US Department of Health and Human Services, FDA, CDER (2007). www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/WhatWeDo/UCM121704.pdf (Accessed 7 February, 2012)Google Scholar
    • 106  Wade N, Piccolino M, Simmons A. Portraits of European neuroscientitsts: Erasmus Darwin. http://neuroportraits.eu/portrait/erasmus-darwin (Accessed 6 February 2012)Google Scholar
    • 107  The basics on personalized medicine. http://health.usnews.com(health-conditons/cancer/personalized (Accessed 2 October 2011)Google Scholar