The Need for Vigilance in the Marketing of Genomic Tests in Psychiatry

Roles of genetics and blood type in clinical responses to COVID-19: ethical and policy concerns

Recently, several genetic variants have been associated with increased or decreased risks of becoming infected and/or seriously ill with COVID-19-not only offering important potential medical benefits but also posing critical ethical questions. These genetic factors, some of which are associated with blood type, may account for variations in observed responses to COVID-19. Hence, assessments of these genetic differences and blood type could provide possible benefits in gauging patients' risks of disease acquisition and prioritising allocation of interventions or vaccines, if supplies are limited. The media has widely reported these findings, and people online are now discussing their blood type and its possible effects on their COVID-19 risks, but several ethical concerns arise. Individuals possessing genetic variants or blood types associated with lower risk may engage in 'risk compensation', erroneously assuming that they can protect themselves less, and hence less frequently wearing masks or washing hands. Given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, many physicians, hospitals, patients, policymakers, members of the public, testing companies and others may well consider these factors in making critical prevention/treatment decisions. Researchers, providers and others should thus begin to address these concerns. Increased awareness and education aimed at providers, patients, family members, public health officials, political leaders and the public-at-large are critical. Attitudinal research is vital to examine how providers, patients and the public understand these findings. Ethical frameworks and guidelines are needed, addressing whether such genetic information should be incorporated into decisions regarding allocation of scarce resources-including hospital and ICU beds, ventilators, medications (eg, remdesivir) and vaccines-and if so, how.

Integrating Genomics into Psychiatric Practice: Ethical and Legal Challenges for Clinicians

Psychiatric genomics is a rapidly growing field that holds much promise for improving risk prediction, prevention, diagnosis, treatment selection, and understanding of the pathogenesis of patients' symptoms. The field of psychiatry (i.e., professional organizations, mental health clinicians, educational institutions), however, needs to address numerous challenges to promote the responsible translation of genomic technologies and knowledge into psychiatric practice. The goal of this article is to review how clinicians currently encounter and use genomics in the clinic, to summarize the existing literature on how clinicians feel about the use of genomics in psychiatry, and to analyze foreseeable ethical and legal challenges for the responsible integration of genomics into psychiatric care at the structural and clinic levels. Structural challenges are defined as aspects of the larger system of psychiatric practice that constitute potential barriers to the responsible integration of genomics for the purposes of psychiatric care and prevention. These structural challenges exist at a level where professional groups can intervene to set standards and regulate the practice of psychiatry and genomics. Clinic-level challenges are day-to-day issues clinicians face when managing genomic tests in the clinic. We discuss the need for action to mitigate these challenges and maximize the clinical and social utility of psychiatric genomics, including the following: expanding genomics training among mental health clinicians; establishing practice guidelines that consider potential clinical, psychological, and social implications of psychiatric genomics; promoting an integrated care model for managing genomics in psychiatry; emphasizing patient engagement and informed consent when managing genomic testing in psychiatric care.

Medical Marketing in the United States, 1997-2016

IMPORTANCE

Manufacturers, companies, and health care professionals and organizations use an array of promotional activities to sell and increase market share of their products and services. These activities seek to shape public and clinician beliefs about laboratory testing, the benefits and harms of prescription drugs, and some disease definitions.

OBJECTIVE

To review the marketing of prescription drugs, disease awareness campaigns, health services, and laboratory tests and the related consequences and regulation in the United States over a 20-year period (1997-2016).

EVIDENCE

Analysis (1997-2016) of consumer advertising (Kantar Media data for spending and number of ads); professional marketing (IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, Open Payments Data [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services]); regulations and legal actions of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), state attorneys general, and US Department of Justice; and searches (1975-2018) of peer-reviewed medical literature (PubMed), business journals (Business Source Ultimate), and news media (Lexis Nexis) for articles about expenditures, content, and consequences and regulation of consumer and professional medical marketing. Spending is reported in 2016 dollars.

FINDINGS

From 1997 through 2016, spending on medical marketing of drugs, disease awareness campaigns, health services, and laboratory testing increased from $17.7 to $29.9 billion. The most rapid increase was in direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising, which increased from $2.1 billion (11.9%) of total spending in 1997 to $9.6 billion (32.0%) of total spending in 2016. DTC prescription drug advertising increased from $1.3 billion (79 000 ads) to $6 billion (4.6 million ads [including 663 000 TV commercials]), with a shift toward advertising high-cost biologics and cancer immunotherapies. Pharmaceutical companies increased DTC marketing about diseases treated by their drugs with increases in disease awareness campaigns from 44 to 401 and in spending from $177 million to $430 million. DTC advertising for health services increased from $542 million to $2.9 billion, with the largest spending increases by hospitals, dental centers, cancer centers, mental health and addiction clinics, and medical services (eg, home health). DTC spending on advertising for laboratory tests (such as genetic testing) increased from $75.4 million to $82.6 million, although the number of ads increased more substantially (from 14 100 to 255 300), reflecting an increase in less expensive electronic media advertising. Marketing to health care professionals by pharmaceutical companies accounted for most promotional spending and increased from $15.6 billion to $20.3 billion, including $5.6 billion for prescriber detailing, $13.5 billion for free samples, $979 million for direct physician payments (eg, speaking fees, meals) related to specific drugs, and $59 million for disease education. Manufacturers of FDA-approved laboratory tests paid $12.9 million to professionals in 2016. From 1997 through 2016, the number of consumer and professional drug promotional materials that companies submitted for FDA review increased from 34 182 to 97 252, while FDA violation letters for misleading drug marketing decreased from 156 to 11. Since 1997, 103 financial settlements between drug companies and federal and state governments resulted in more than $11 billion in fines for off-label or deceptive marketing practices. The FTC has acted against misleading marketing by a single for-profit cancer center.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Medical marketing increased substantially from 1997 through 2016, especially DTC advertising for prescription drugs and health services. Pharmaceutical marketing to health professionals accounted for most spending and remains high even with new policies to limit industry influence. Despite the increase in marketing over 20 years, regulatory oversight remains limited.

Gatekeepers for infertility treatment? Views of ART providers concerning referrals by non-ART providers

Many patients who might benefit from treatment using assisted reproductive technology (ART) do not receive it, raising critical questions of why, and how best to overcome existing barriers. In-depth interviews of approximately 1 h each were conducted with 27 ART providers (17 physicians and 10 other healthcare providers). These interviewees suggest that non-ART providers may serve as gatekeepers in a complex system, involving not only individual-level, but also dyadic and institutional, processes and factors related to provider-patient relationships. Differences emerge concerning 'who' refers patients for ART (e.g. what types of provider), 'how' (amount, type and specificity of information offered), 'when' (delayed or not) and 'why or why not', and how patients respond to referrals, once made. At least seven types of clinician (general practitioners, obstetricians/gynaecologists, paediatricians, geneticists, psychologists and oncologists) may refer patients. Barriers to referral include indistinct boundaries between specialties and provider discomfort discussing reproduction and sex. These data, the first to explore dynamic factors and processes related to provider-patient relationships and interactions in referrals of patients for ART, suggest several key issues (e.g. non-ART providers' roles as gatekeepers), and implications for future education, practice, guidelines and research, highlighting a research agenda, and the need for targeted education for different groups of clinicians.