Health-related direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a review of companies' policies with regard to genetic testing in minors

Actionability of commercial laboratory sequencing panels for newborn screening and the importance of transparency for parental decision-making

BACKGROUND

Newborn screening aims to identify individual patients who could benefit from early management, treatment, and/or surveillance practices. As sequencing technologies have progressed and we move into the era of precision medicine, genomic sequencing has been introduced to this area with the hopes of detecting variants related to a vastly expanded number of conditions. Though implementation of genomic sequencing for newborn screening in public health and clinical settings is limited, commercial laboratories have begun to offer genomic screening panels for neonates.

METHODS

We examined genes listed on four commercial laboratory genomic screening panels for neonates and assessed their clinical actionability using an established age-based semi-quantitative metric to categorize them. We identified genes that were included on multiple panels or distinct between panels.

RESULTS

Three hundred and nine genes appeared on one or more commercial panels: 74 (23.9%) genes were included in all four commercial panels, 45 (14.6%) were on only three panels, 76 (24.6%) were on only two panels, and 114 (36.9%) genes were listed on only one of the four panels. Eighty-two genes (26.5%) listed on one or more panels were assessed by our method to be inappropriate for newborn screening and to require additional parental decision-making. Conversely, 249 genes that we previously identified as being highly actionable were not listed on any of the four commercial laboratory genomic screening panels.

CONCLUSIONS

Commercial neonatal genomic screening panels have heterogeneous content and may contain some conditions with lower actionability than would be expected for public health newborn screening; conversely, some conditions with higher actionability may be omitted from these panels. The lack of transparency about how conditions are selected suggests a need for greater detail about panel content in order for parents to make informed decisions. The nuanced activity of gene list selection for genomic screening should be iteratively refined with evidence-based approaches to provide maximal benefit and minimal harm to newborns.

Adolescents' and Parents' Genomic Testing Decisions: Associations With Age, Race, and Sex

PURPOSE

Adolescents will increasingly be involved in decisions about the return of genomic results. We examined adolescents' and parents' decisions about learning actual genomic research results for the adolescent and whether choices were associated with participants' demographic factors.

METHODS

Adolescents aged between 13 and 17 years and a parent (dyads) were recruited through flyers, social media, employee emails, and clinic visits at a pediatric hospital. Dyads used a decision tool to independently choose the categories of conditions they wanted to learn about the adolescent. They then came together to discuss their independent decisions and make final joint decisions. Conditions were categorized by preventability, treatability, adult-onset conditions, and carrier status. Participants could make granular choices by including or excluding conditions in each category. Categorical choices were collapsed into the "aggregate choice" to learn all or not all results.

RESULTS

Study visits were completed by 163 dyads. Adolescents were less likely than their parents to independently choose to learn all results (64.4% vs. 76.1%; p = .0056). Parents were less likely to independently choose to learn all results for their daughters than their sons (odds ratio = .41, 95% confidence interval .18-.96; p = .032). Black adolescents were less likely to independently choose to learn all results than white adolescents (odds ratio = .22; 95% confidence interval .08-.55; p = .0015). After making joint decisions, 70.6% of dyads chose to learn all results.

CONCLUSIONS

Adolescents independently wanted to learn less genomic information than their parents. Although adolescents cannot legally make genomic testing decisions without parental permission, adolescents' should be engaged in decisions about the return of genomic results.

Decisional conflict among adolescents and parents making decisions about genomic sequencing results

Genomic testing of adolescents is increasing yet engaging them in decision-making is not routine. We assessed decisional conflict in adolescents and a parent making independent decisions about actual genomic testing results and factors that influenced their choices. We enrolled 163 dyads consisting of an adolescent (13-17 years) not selected based on a specific clinical indication and one parent. After independently choosing categories of conditions to learn for the adolescent, participants completed the validated Decisional Conflict Scale and a survey assessing factors influencing their respective choices. Adolescents had higher decisional conflict scores than parents (15.6 [IQR:4.7-25.6] vs 9.4 [IQR:1.6-21.9]; P = .0007). Adolescents with clinically significant decisional conflict were less likely to choose to learn all results than adolescents with lower decisional conflict (19.6% vs 80.4%; P < .0001) and less likely to report their choices were influenced by actionability of results (33.3% vs 18.9%; P = .044) and feeling confident they can deal with the results (71.2% vs 91.9%; P = .0005). Our findings suggest higher decisional conflict in adolescents may influence the type and amount of genomic results they wish to learn. Additional research assessing decisional conflict and factors influencing testing choices among adolescents in clinical settings are required.

Genetic Test Reporting and Counseling for Melanoma Risk in Minors May Improve Sun Protection Without Inducing Distress

Genetic testing of minors is advised only for conditions in which benefits of early intervention outweigh potential psychological harms. This study investigated whether genetic counseling and test reporting for the CDKN2A/p16 mutation, which confers highly elevated melanoma risk, improved sun protection without inducing distress. Eighteen minors (Mage = 12.4, SD = 1.9) from melanoma-prone families completed measures of protective behavior and distress at baseline, 1 week (distress only), 1 month, and 1 year following test disclosure. Participants and their mothers were individually interviewed on the psychological and behavioral impact of genetic testing 1 month and 1 year post-disclosure. Carriers (n = 9) and noncarriers (n = 9) reported significantly fewer sunburns and a greater proportion reported sun protection adherence between baseline and 1 year post-disclosure; results did not vary by mutation status. Anxiety symptoms remained low post-disclosure, while depressive symptoms and cancer worry decreased. Child and parent interviews corroborated these findings. Mothers indicated that genetic testing was beneficial (100%) because it promoted risk awareness (90.9%) and sun protection (81.8%) without making their children scared (89.9%); several noted their child's greater independent practice of sun protection (45.4%). In this small initial study, minors undergoing CDKN2A/p16 genetic testing reported behavioral improvements and consistently low distress, suggesting such testing may be safely implemented early in life, allowing greater opportunity for risk-reducing lifestyle changes.

Sequencing Newborns: A Call for Nuanced Use of Genomic Technologies

Many scientists and doctors hope that affordable genome sequencing will lead to more personalized medical care and improve public health in ways that will benefit children, families, and society more broadly. One hope in particular is that all newborns could be sequenced at birth, thereby setting the stage for a lifetime of medical care and self-directed preventive actions tailored to each child's genome. Indeed, commentators often suggest that universal genome sequencing is inevitable. Such optimism can come with the presumption that discussing the potential limits, cost, and downsides of widespread application of genomic technologies is pointless, excessively pessimistic, or overly cautious. We disagree. Given the pragmatic challenges associated with determining what sequencing data mean for the health of individuals, the economic costs associated with interpreting and acting on such data, and the psychosocial costs of predicting one's own or one's child's future life plans based on uncertain testing results, we think this hope and optimism deserve to be tempered. In the analysis that follows, we distinguish between two reasons for using sequencing: to diagnose individual infants who have been identified as sick and to screen populations of infants who appear to be healthy. We also distinguish among three contexts in which sequencing for either diagnosis or screening could be deployed: in clinical medicine, in public health programs, and as a direct-to-consumer service. Each of these contexts comes with different professional norms, policy considerations, and public expectations. Finally, we distinguish between two main types of genome sequencing: targeted sequencing, where only specific genes are sequenced or analyzed, and whole-exome or whole-genome sequencing, where all the DNA or all the coding segments of all genes are sequenced and analyzed. In a symptomatic newborn, targeted or genome-wide sequencing can help guide other tests for diagnosis or for specific treatment that is urgently needed. Clinicians use the infant's symptoms (or phenotype) to interrogate the sequencing data. These same complexities and uncertainties, however, limit the usefulness of genome-wide sequencing as a population screening tool. While we recognize considerable benefit in using targeted sequencing to screen for or detect specific conditions that meet the criteria for inclusion in newborn screening panels, use of genome-wide sequencing as a sole screening tool for newborns is at best premature. We conclude that sequencing technology can be beneficially used in newborns when that use is nuanced and attentive to context.

Current ethical and legal issues in health-related direct-to-consumer genetic testing

A variety of health-related genetic testing is currently advertized directly to consumers. This article provides a timely overview of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT) and salient ethical issues, as well as an analysis of the impact of the recently adopted regulation on in vitro diagnostic medical devices on DTC GT. DTC GT companies currently employ new testing approaches, report on a wide spectrum of conditions and target new groups of consumers. Such activities raise ethical issues including the questionable analytic and clinical validity of tests, the adequacy of informed consent, potentially misleading advertizing, testing in children, research uses and commercialization of genomic data. The recently adopted regulation on in vitro diagnostic medical devices may limit the offers of predisposition DTC GT in the EU market.

Paternity testing under the cloak of recreational genetics

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) internet companies are selling widely advertised and highly popular genetic ancestry tests to the broad public. These tests are often classified as falling within the scope of so-called 'recreational genetics', but little is known about the impact of using these services. In this study, a particular focus is whether minors (and under what conditions) should be able to participate in the use of these DTC tests. Current ancestry tests are easily able to reveal whether participants are related and can, therefore, also reveal misattributed paternity, with implications for the minors and adults involved in the testing. We analysed the publicly available privacy policies and terms of services of 43 DTC genetic ancestry companies to assess whether minors are able to participate in testing DTC genetic ancestry, and also whether and how companies ethically account for the potential of paternity inference. Our results indicated that the majority of DTC genetic ancestry testing companies do not specifically address whether minors are able to participate in testing. Furthermore, the majority of the policies and terms of services fail to mention the vulnerability of minors and family members in receiving unexpected information, in particular, in relation to (misattributed) paternity. Therefore, recreational genetics carries both the risk of unintentionally revealing misidentified paternity, and also the risk that fathers will deliberately use these services to test their children's paternity without revealing their intentions to the mother or any other third party.

Raising Genomic Citizens: Adolescents and the Return of Secondary Genomic Findings

Whole genome and exome sequencing (WGS/WES) techniques raise hope for a new scale of diagnosis, prevention, and prediction of genetic conditions, and improved care for children. For these hopes to materialize, extensive genomic research with children will be needed. However, the use of WGS/WES in pediatric research settings raises considerable challenges for families, researchers, and policy development. In particular, the possibility that these techniques will generate genetic findings unrelated to the primary goal of sequencing has stirred intense debate about whether, which, how, and when these secondary or incidental findings (SFs) should be returned to parents and minors. The debate is even more pronounced when the subjects are adolescents, for whom decisions about return of SFs may have particular implications. In this paper, we consider the rise of "genomic citizenship" and the main challenges that arise for these stakeholders: adolescents' involvement in decisions relating to return of genomic SFs, the types of SFs that should be offered, privacy protections, and communication between researchers and adolescents about SFs. We argue that adolescents' involvement in genomic SF-related decisions acknowledges their status as valuable stakeholders without detracting from broader familial interests, and promotes more informed genomic citizens.

Internet-Based Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: A Systematic Review

Background

Direct-to-consumer genetic tests (DTC-GT) are easily purchased through the Internet, independent of a physician referral or approval for testing, allowing the retrieval of genetic information outside the clinical context. There is a broad debate about the testing validity, their impact on individuals, and what people know and perceive about them.

Objective

The aim of this review was to collect evidence on DTC-GT from a comprehensive perspective that unravels the complexity of the phenomenon.

Methods

A systematic search was carried out through PubMed, Web of Knowledge, and Embase, in addition to Google Scholar according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist with the key term “Direct-to-consumer genetic test.”

Results

In the final sample, 118 articles were identified. Articles were summarized in five categories according to their focus on (1) knowledge of, attitude toward use of, and perception of DTC-GT (n=37), (2) the impact of genetic risk information on users (n=37), (3) the opinion of health professionals (n=20), (4) the content of websites selling DTC-GT (n=16), and (5) the scientific evidence and clinical utility of the tests (n=14). Most of the articles analyzed the attitude, knowledge, and perception of DTC-GT, highlighting an interest in using DTC-GT, along with the need for a health care professional to help interpret the results. The articles investigating the content analysis of the websites selling these tests are in agreement that the information provided by the companies about genetic testing is not completely comprehensive for the consumer. Given that risk information can modify consumers’ health behavior, there are surprisingly few studies carried out on actual consumers and they do not confirm the overall concerns on the possible impact of DTC-GT. Data from studies that investigate the quality of the tests offered confirm that they are not informative, have little predictive power, and do not measure genetic risk appropriately.

Conclusions

The impact of DTC-GT on consumers’ health perceptions and behaviors is an emerging concern. However, negative effects on consumers or health benefits have yet to be observed. Nevertheless, since the online market of DTC-GT is expected to grow, it is important to remain aware of a possible impact.

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a systematic review of european guidelines, recommendations, and position statements

BACKGROUND

Personalized healthcare is expected to yield promising results, with a paradigm shift toward more personalization in the practice of medicine. This emerging field has wide-ranging implications for all the stakeholders. Commercial tests in the form of multiplex genetic profiles are currently being provided to consumers, without the physicians' consultation, through the Internet, referred to as direct-to-consumer genetic tests (DTC GT).

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to review all the existing European guidelines on DTC GT, and its associated interventions, to list all the supposed benefits and harms, issues and concerns, and recommendations.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of position statements, policies, guidelines, and recommendations, produced by professional organizations or other relevant bodies for use of DTC GT in Europe.

RESULTS

Seventeen documents met the inclusion criteria, which were subjected to thematic analysis, and the texts were coded for statements related to use of DTC GT.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Professional societies and associations are currently more suggestive of potential disadvantages of DTC GT, recommending improved genetic literacy of both populations and health professionals, and implementation research on the genetic tests to integrate public health genomics into healthcare systems.

How Much Control Do Children and Adolescents Have over Genomic Testing, Parental Access to Their Results, and Parental Communication of Those Results to Others?

Adolescents may often have opinions about whether they want genetic and genomic testing in both the clinic and research and about who should have access to the results. This legal analysis demonstrates that the law provides very little protection to minors' wishes.

Communication is the key. : Part 2 : Direct to consumer genetics in our future daily life ?

The considerable advances of genome sequencing over the past decades have had a profound impact on our daily life and opened up new avenues for the public to have access to their genetic information and learn more about their ancestry, genealogy and other traits that make each of us unique individuals. A very large number of individual single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been associated to diseases whereas others have no known phenotype. For example, among the SNPs mapped within ccn1(cyr61), ccn2(ctgf), ccn3(nov), ccn4(wisp-1), ccn5(wisp-2) and ccn6 (wisp-3), only mutations within ccn4 were associated to PPD (the autosomal recessive skeletal disorder Progressive Pseudorheumatoid Dysplasia). On the occasion of this JCCS special issue on the roles of hormetic responses in adaptation, and response of living species to the modifications of their environment, it appeared that it was a good time to briefly review a topic that has been the subject of passionate discussions for the past few years, that is Direct to Consumer genetic tests (DTC GT). Based on the use of DNA analysis and identification of polymorphisms, DTC GT have been developed by several companies in the USA and in countries where there was no legal obstacle for customers to have direct access to their genetic information and manage their healthcare. Problems that arose and decisions that have been taken by regulatory agencies are presented and discussed in this editorial. The « freeze » of health-oriented DTC GT in the USA neither implies the end of DNA analysis nor « fun » applications, which are not aimed at providing risks estimates for particular illnesses. As shown in the example which is discussed in this editorial, DTC GT for cosmetic applications might be considered a fun application of great interest for companies such as L'Oréal, who recently developed the Makeup Genius mobile application. Other fun applications of DTC GT are discussed but there is no doubt that nothing will stop progress and it is most probable than within a few years from now all the tensions raised about these procedures will vanish to the profit and benefit of consumers. In any case, this will only be possible through an intensive communication effort, because …communication is the key !

Experience, knowledge, and opinions about childhood genetic testing in Batten disease

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Policies for genetic testing in children (GTIC) focus on medical or psychosocial benefit to the child, discouraging or prohibiting carrier testing, and advising caution regarding pre-symptomatic diagnosis if no treatment exists. This study sought to understand parents' perspectives on these issues and determine their experiences and knowledge related to genetic testing for Batten disease - a set of inherited neurodegenerative diseases of childhood onset for which no disease modifying therapies yet exist.

METHODS

Parents of children with Batten disease completed a survey of their knowledge of genetics, experience with genetic testing, and opinions regarding GTIC.

RESULTS

54% had sought genetic testing for non-affected family members, including predictive diagnosis of healthy, at-risk children. Participation in any genetic counseling was associated with greater knowledge on questions about genetics. The majority of parents felt it was better to know ahead of time that a child would develop Batten disease, believed that this knowledge would not alter how they related to their child, and that parents should have the final say in deciding whether to obtain GTIC.

CONCLUSIONS

Parents of children with an inherited disease are knowledgeable about genetics and wish to establish predictive or carrier status of at-risk children.

Is There a Right Time to Know? The Right Not to Know and Genetic Testing in Children

The increasing implementation of next-generation sequencing technologies in the clinical context and the expanding commercial offer of genetic tests directly-toconsumers has increased the availability of previously inaccessible genetic information. A particular concern in both situations is how the volume of novel information will affect the processing of genetic and genomic information from minors. For minors, it is argued that in the provision of genetic testing, their "right not to know" should be respected as much as possible. Testing a minor early in life eliminates the possibility for the minor to make use of his or her "right not to know." The article discusses the theoretical underpinnings of the right not know, analyzes reasons why various direct-to-consumer companies process samples from minors, and discusses the right not to know in relation to common complex disorders in a pediatric population.

Current issues in medically assisted reproduction and genetics in Europe: research, clinical practice, ethics, legal issues and policy. European Society of Human Genetics and European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

In March 2005, a group of experts from the European Society of Human Genetics and European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology met to discuss the interface between genetics and assisted reproductive technology (ART), and published an extended background paper, recommendations and two Editorials. Seven years later, in March 2012, a follow-up interdisciplinary workshop was held, involving representatives of both professional societies, including experts from the European Union Eurogentest2 Coordination Action Project. The main goal of this meeting was to discuss developments at the interface between clinical genetics and ARTs. As more genetic causes of reproductive failure are now recognised and an increasing number of patients undergo testing of their genome before conception, either in regular health care or in the context of direct-to-consumer testing, the need for genetic counselling and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) may increase. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) thus far does not have evidence from randomised clinical trials to substantiate that the technique is both effective and efficient. Whole-genome sequencing may create greater challenges both in the technological and interpretational domains, and requires further reflection about the ethics of genetic testing in ART and PGD/PGS. Diagnostic laboratories should be reporting their results according to internationally accepted accreditation standards (International Standards Organisation - ISO 15189). Further studies are needed in order to address issues related to the impact of ART on epigenetic reprogramming of the early embryo. The legal landscape regarding assisted reproduction is evolving but still remains very heterogeneous and often contradictory. The lack of legal harmonisation and uneven access to infertility treatment and PGD/PGS fosters considerable cross-border reproductive care in Europe and beyond. The aim of this paper is to complement previous publications and provide an update of selected topics that have evolved since 2005.

A new twist on an old problem: primary care physicians and results from direct-to-consumer genetic testing

With the costs of genomic and genetic testing rapidly decreasing, private companies have begun to offer consumers, including minors, the opportunity to receive a genetic analysis of their DNA. The availability of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) will inevitably result in patients approaching their healthcare providers for interpretation of results, referrals for follow-up tests or provision of personalized medicine. As most healthcare systems require a referral for access to a specialist, the patients are likely to approach primary care providers. The issue of what the professional obligations are for the primary care physician in the case where they did not order the test is not new. The growing DTC-GT movement will add a 'new twist to an old problem.' Best practice recommendations regarding the value of DTC-GT, as well as the identification of current ethical, legal and social implications are urgently needed.

Personalizing health care: feasibility and future implications

Considerable variety in how patients respond to treatments, driven by differences in their geno- and/ or phenotypes, calls for a more tailored approach. This is already happening, and will accelerate with developments in personalized medicine. However, its promise has not always translated into improvements in patient care due to the complexities involved. There are also concerns that advice for tests has been reversed, current tests can be costly, there is fragmentation of funding of care, and companies may seek high prices for new targeted drugs. There is a need to integrate current knowledge from a payer's perspective to provide future guidance. Multiple findings including general considerations; influence of pharmacogenomics on response and toxicity of drug therapies; value of biomarker tests; limitations and costs of tests; and potentially high acquisition costs of new targeted therapies help to give guidance on potential ways forward for all stakeholder groups. Overall, personalized medicine has the potential to revolutionize care. However, current challenges and concerns need to be addressed to enhance its uptake and funding to benefit patients.

Growing up in the genomic era: implications of whole-genome sequencing for children, families, and pediatric practice

Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) has advanced to a point where it is beginning to be integrated into pediatric practice. With little consensus on how to maximize the benefits of WGS for children, there is a growing need for focused efforts that connect researchers, clinicians, and families to chart a path forward. To illustrate relevant concerns, two contrasting applications of pediatric WGS are explored: clinical use with children who have undiagnosed conditions, and population-based screening. Specific challenges for health care services, policy development, and the well-being of children are discussed in light of current research. In the interest of ensuring evidence-based pediatric WGS, strategies are identified for advancing our understanding of what it means for children to grow up with WGS results guiding their health care.

Technical report: Ethical and policy issues in genetic testing and screening of children

The genetic testing and genetic screening of children are commonplace. Decisions about whether to offer genetic testing and screening should be driven by the best interest of the child. The growing literature on the psychosocial and clinical effects of such testing and screening can help inform best practices. This technical report provides ethical justification and empirical data in support of the proposed policy recommendations regarding such practices in a myriad of settings.

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing for addiction susceptibility: a premature commercialisation of doubtful validity and value

Genetic research on addiction liability and pharmacogenetic research on treatments for addiction have identified some genetic variants associated with disease risk and treatment. Genetic testing for addiction liability and treatment response has not been used widely in clinical practice because most of the genes identified only modestly predict addiction risk or treatment response. However, many of these genetic tests have been commercialized prematurely and are available direct to the consumer (DTC). The easy availability of DTC tests for addiction liability and lack of regulation over their use raises a number of ethical concerns. Of paramount concern is the limited predictive power and clinical utility of these tests. Many DTC testing companies do not provide the consumer with the necessary genetic counselling to assist them in interpreting and acting on their test results. They may also engage in misleading marketing to entice consumers to purchase their products. Consumers' genetic information may be vulnerable to misuse by third parties, as there are limited standards to protect the privacy of the genetic information. Non-consensual testing and inappropriate testing of minors may also occur. The United States Food and Drug Administration plans to regulate DTC genetic tests. Based on the ethical concerns we discuss below, we believe there is a strong case for regulation of DTC genetic tests for addiction liability and treatment response. We argue that until this occurs, these tests have more potential to cause harm than to contribute to improved prevention and treatment of addiction.

Legislation on direct-to-consumer genetic testing in seven European countries

An increasing number of private companies are now offering direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing services. Although a lot of attention has been devoted to the regulatory framework of DTC genetic testing services in the USA, only limited information about the regulatory framework in Europe is available. We will report on the situation with regard to the national legislation on DTC genetic testing in seven European countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Portugal, France, Germany, the United Kingdom). The paper will address whether these countries have legislation that specifically address the issue of DTC genetic testing or have relevant laws that is pertinent to the regulatory control of these services in their countries. The findings show that France, Germany, Portugal and Switzerland have specific legislation that defines that genetic tests can only be carried out by a medical doctor after the provision of sufficient information concerning the nature, meaning and consequences of the genetic test and after the consent of the person concerned. In the Netherlands, some DTC genetic tests could fall under legislation that provides the Minister the right to refuse to provide a license to operate if a test is scientifically unsound, not in accordance with the professional medical practice standards or if the expected benefit is not in balance with the (potential) health risks. Belgium and the United Kingdom allow the provision of DTC genetic tests.

Is there a doctor in the house? : The presence of physicians in the direct-to-consumer genetic testing context

Over the last couple of years, many commercial companies, the majority of which are based in the USA, have been advertising and offering direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing services outside of the established health care system, and often without any involvement from a health care professional. In the last year, however, a number of DTC genetic testing companies have changed their provision model such that consumers must now contact a health care professional before being able to order the genetic testing service. In discussing the advent of this new model of service provision, this article also reviews the ethical and social issues surrounding DTC genetic testing and addresses the potential motivations for change, some barriers to achieving truly appropriate medical supervision and the present reality of DTC genetic testing for some psychiatric and neurological disorders. Since the advent of these commercial activities, critics have pointed a finger at the lack of medical supervision surrounding these services. The discussion herein, however, reveals how difficult it may be, despite the addition of a physician, to actually achieve adequate medical supervision within the present context of DTC genetic testing.

An exploration of genetic health professionals' experience with direct-to-consumer genetic testing in their clinical practice

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) allows individuals to obtain genetic tests directly from companies without necessarily involving health professionals. This study explores genetic health professionals' opinions of health-related DTC-GT and the reported frequency of individuals presenting to clinical genetics services after undertaking testing. Genetic counsellors and clinical geneticists, members of the Human Genetics Society of Australasia, completed an online survey in mid 2011. The 130 genetic counsellors (estimated response fraction=43%) and 38 clinical geneticists (estimated response fraction=46%) had mixed opinions regarding DTC-GT, with only 7% confident in accurately interpreting and explaining DTC-GT results. Nineteen respondents (11%) reported one or more client(s) referred to them after undertaking DTC-GT. Descriptions of 25 clients were extracted from responses, and respondents reported that all clients were concerned for the health of either themselves or family members. Most clients presented to genetic clinics specifically as a result of their DTC-GT (96%) and were self or GP referred (92%). Respondents perceived that their clients typically undertook DTC-GT because they wanted to identify monogenic conditions, including carrier testing and/or know their susceptibility or predisposition for complex conditions (88%). The majority of clients needed help interpreting DTC-GT results (80%), however in general were not questioning the validity of their DTC-GT results (92%) nor seeking further genetic testing (84%). Currently, DTC-GT is not a major reason for referral to clinical genetics services in Australia and New Zealand and the majority of genetic health professionals lack confidence in being able to accurately interpret and explain DTC-GT results.

Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing

Genetics has fascinated societies since ancient times, and references to traits or behaviors that appear to be shared or different among related individuals have permeated legends, literature, and popular culture. Biomedical advances from the past century, and particularly the discovery of the DNA double helix, the increasing numbers of links that were established between mutations and medical conditions or phenotypes, and technological advances that facilitated the sequencing of the human genome, catalyzed the development of genetic testing. Genetic tests were initially performed in health care facilities, interpreted by health care providers, and included the availability of counseling. Recent years have seen an increased availability of genetic tests that are offered by companies directly to consumers, a phenomenon that became known as direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Tests offered in this setting range from the ones that are also provided in health care establishments to tests known as ‘recreational genomics,’ and consumers directly receive the test results. In addition, testing in this context often does not involve the availability of counseling and, when this is provided, it frequently occurs on-line or over the phone. As a field situated at the interface between biotechnology, biomedical research, and social sciences, direct-to-consumer genetic testing opens multiple challenges that can be appropriately addressed only by developing a complex, inter-disciplinary framework.

Health care providers and direct-to-consumer access and advertising of genetic testing in the United States

Marketing pressures, regulatory policies, clinical guidelines, and consumer demand all affect health care providers' knowledge and use of health-related genetic tests that are sold and/or advertised to consumers. In addition, clinical guidelines, regulatory policies, and educational efforts are needed to promote the informed use of genetic tests that are sold and advertised to consumers and health care providers. A shift in culture regarding the regulation of genetic tests that are sold directly to consumers is suggested: by recent actions taken by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including letters sent to direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing companies stating that their tests meet the definition of medical devices; by public meetings held by the FDA to discuss laboratory developed tests; and by the convening of the Molecular and Clinical Genetics Panel to gather input on scientific issues concerning DTC genetic tests that make medical claims. This review provides a brief overview of DTC advertising and the regulation of pharmaceuticals and genetic tests in the United States. It highlights recent changes in the regulatory culture regarding genetic tests that are sold to consumers, and discusses the impact on health care providers of selling and advertising genetic tests directly to consumers.

Are the kids really all right? Direct-to-consumer genetic testing in children: are company policies clashing with professional norms?

The genetic testing of minors within the direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing (GT) context has been given relatively little attention. The issue of testing healthy children for diseases that would only develop in adulthood raises many important ethical, legal and social issues. As genetic testing is now available outside of the traditional health care system, often without even the intermediate of a health care professional, we surveyed 37 DTC GT companies regarding their policies for testing in children. Although the response rate is relatively low (35%, 13/37), our findings reveal that a clear majority of companies do perform genetic testing in minors. As such, companies testing for adult onset diseases are acting in contradiction of established professional guidelines, which state, among others, that, for predictive genetic testing, the availability of therapeutic or preventive measures is necessary for testing to be performed in asymptomatic minors. The community of stakeholders in children's health care and genetic testing should, therefore, decide which standards need to be upheld by DTC GT companies and ensure that these are met.

Users' motivations to purchase direct-to-consumer genome-wide testing: an exploratory study of personal stories

The relatively rapid growth of the direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing market in the last few years has led to increasing attention from both the scientific community and policy makers. One voice often missing in these debates, however, is that of the actual user of these genetic testing services. In order to gain a better picture of the motivations and expectations that propel individuals to purchase DTC genome-wide testing, we conducted an exploratory study based on users' personal stories. Through qualitative content analysis of users' personal stories found on Internet blogs and DTC genetic testing companies' websites, we identified five major sets of motivations and expectations towards DTC genome-wide testing. These themes are related to (1) health, (2) curiosity and fascination, (3) genealogy, (4) contributing to research, and (5) recreation. Obtaining such information can help us to understand how users consider genome-wide testing and forms the basis for further research.

Parents' attitudes toward pediatric genetic testing for common disease risk

OBJECTIVE

To describe parents' attitudes toward pediatric genetic testing for common, adult-onset health conditions and to identify factors underlying these attitudes.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

Parents (n = 219) enrolled in a large, group-practice health plan were offered a "multiplex" genetic test for susceptibility to 8 common, adult-onset health conditions and completed an online survey assessing attitudes and beliefs about the risks and benefits of the test for their child, their willingness to consider having their child tested, and other psychosocial variables.

RESULTS

Parents viewed the benefits of pediatric testing to outweigh its risks (positive decisional balance) and were moderately interested in pediatric testing. Variables associated with positive decisional balance included greater interest in knowing about gene-health associations in their child, anticipation of less difficulty understanding their child's genetic health risks, and more positive emotional reactions to learning about their child's decreased health risks (adjusted R(2) = 0.33, P < .0001). Similarly, variables associated with greater parental willingness to test were being a mother (versus being a father), greater perceived risk of diseases in their child, greater interest in knowing about gene-health relationships in their child, anticipating less difficulty learning about their child's genetic health risks, anticipating more positive emotional reactions to learning about their child's decreased health risks, and positive decisional balance (adjusted R(2) = 0.57, P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

As genetic susceptibility testing for common, adult-onset health conditions proliferates, pediatricians should anticipate parents' interest in testing children and be prepared to facilitate informed decision making about such testing.

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: an assessment of genetic counselors' knowledge and beliefs

PURPOSE

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing is a new means of obtaining genetic testing outside of a traditional clinical setting. This study assesses genetic counselors' experience, knowledge, and beliefs regarding direct-to-consumer genetic testing for tests that would currently be offered in genetics clinics.

METHODS

Members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors completed a web-administered survey in February 2008.

RESULTS

Response rate was 36%; the final data analysis included 312 respondents. Eighty-three percent of respondents had two or fewer inquiries about direct-to-consumer genetic testing, and 14% had received requests for test interpretation or discussion. Respondents believed that genetic counselors have a professional obligation to be knowledgeable about direct-to-consumer genetic testing (55%) and interpret results (48%). Fifty-one percent of respondents thought genetic testing should be limited to a clinical setting; 56% agreed direct-to-consumer genetic testing is acceptable if genetic counseling is provided. More than 70% of respondents would definitely or possibly consider direct-to-consumer testing for patients who (1) have concerns about genetic discrimination, (2) want anonymous testing, or (3) have geographic constraints.

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate that genetic counselors have limited patient experiences with direct-to-consumer genetic testing and are cautiously considering if and under what circumstances this approach should be used.

Where are you going, where have you been: a recent history of the direct-to-consumer genetic testing market

In recent years, various private companies have been marketing and offering genetic tests directly to consumers. This article reviews the recent history of this commercial phenomenon. In particular, we discuss and describe the following subjects: (1) the factors that allowed for the creation of the direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing (GT) market; (2) information regarding the size and potential success or failure of the DTC GT market; (3) recent changes in the DTC GT market; and (4) the recent events that may have an impact on the regulatory oversight of DTC genetic testing and the future evolution of this market. This review of factors suggests that despite the possibility of a change of business model as well as increased regulation, the commercialization of genetic testing is here to stay. As such it is important to pay close attention not only to the science underlying these tests but also to the ethical, legal, and social issues.

Parent opinions regarding the genetic testing of minors for BRCA1/2

PURPOSE

Although not currently recommended, genetic testing of minors for adult hereditary cancer syndromes, along with risks and benefits, is still being debated. Thus, we evaluated parent opinions regarding BRCA1/2 testing of minors, in general, and hypothetically, for parents' own minor child.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted to assess parent opinions regarding BRCA1/2 testing in minors, along with parent rationale for and factors associated with these opinions.

RESULTS

In total, 246 parents at two academic cancer risk assessment programs who underwent BRCA1/2 testing completed the interview (60% response rate). In response to a dichotomous question, 37% of parents supported testing minors. Responses to an open-ended query suggest that 47% support testing minors in some or all circumstances. Parent negative BRCA1/2 test result (P = .02), parent male sex (P = .03), and minority race (P = .01) were independently associated with support of testing minors. In response to a dichotomous question, 44% of parents reported hypothetical interest in testing their own minor offspring. Responses to an open-ended query suggest that 55% would consider, hypothetically, testing their child in some or all circumstances. Parent negative test result (P = .01), less than a college education (P < .01), and older mean offspring age (P = .05) were associated with interest in testing one's own child.

CONCLUSION

Parents' opinions regarding BRCA1/2 testing of minors are divided. Given the lack of evidence supporting either the permission or restriction of BRCA1/2 testing in minors, further evaluation of the risks and benefits of providing genetic risk information and genetic testing to minors for adult-onset disease is needed to inform clinical practice and guidelines.