Marketing Genetic Tests: Empowerment or Snake Oil?

Utility and Diversity: Challenges for Genomic Medicine

Genomic information is poised to play an increasing role in clinical care, extending beyond highly penetrant genetic conditions to less penetrant genotypes and common disorders. But with this shift, the question of clinical utility becomes a major challenge. A collaborative effort is necessary to determine the information needed to evaluate different uses of genomic information and then acquire that information. Another challenge must also be addressed if that process is to provide equitable benefits: the lack of diversity of genomic data. Current genomic knowledge comes primarily from populations of European descent, which poses the risk that most of the human population will be shortchanged when health benefits of genomics emerge. These two challenges have defined my career as a geneticist and have taught me that solutions must start with dialogue across disciplinary and social divides.

Factors associated with genetic counseling and BRCA testing in a population-based sample of young Black women with breast cancer

Concerns about the potential for genomic advances to increase health disparities have been raised. Thus, it is important to assess referral and uptake of genetic counseling (GC) and testing in minority populations at high risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). Black women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer ≤age 50 in 2009-2012 were recruited through the Florida State Cancer Registry 6-18 months following diagnosis and completed a baseline questionnaire. Summary statistics, Chi-square tests, and path modeling were conducted to examine which demographic and clinical variables were associated with referral and access to genetic services. Of the 440 participants, all met national criteria for GC, yet only 224 (51 %) were referred for or received GC and/or HBOC testing. Variables most strongly associated with healthcare provider referral for GC included having a college education (OR 2.1), diagnosis at or below age 45 (OR 2.0), and triple negative tumor receptor status (OR 1.7). The strongest association with receipt of GC and/or HBOC testing was healthcare provider referral (OR 7.9), followed by private health insurance at diagnosis (OR 2.8), and household income greater than $35,000 in the year prior to diagnosis (OR 2.0). Study findings suggest efforts are needed to improve genetic services access among a population-based sample of high-risk Black women. These results indicate that socioeconomic factors and physician referral patterns contribute to disparities in access to genetic services within this underserved minority population.

Conceptions on genetics in a group of college students

The purpose of this study was to investigate awareness, beliefs, and opinions on genetics in a group of Brazilian college students from several courses. The study used the focus group technique with the participation of 19 students, divided into four groups. Also, it used the isotopic reading technique to analyze the material. The results were divided in four themes: the basic knowledge of genetics, the "new genetics," including molecular biology and testing, genetic manipulation, and genetics and the media. The participants showed reasonable knowledge on the subject, obtained from various sources, including the printed press, the internet, documentaries, and fictional TV shows. Ethical issues were discussed comprehensively and the groups showed awareness on the hazards brought by genetic reductionism and the need to have some type of regulation regarding genetic manipulation and testing. It is necessary to broaden the debate about the progress in genetics because some of them will affect a significant number of people. This debate should include the lay public, which has been actively participating in decisions involving research and the use of new technologies.

Misuse (and abuse?) of the Concept of Empowerment.The Case of Online Offer of Predictive Direct-to-consumer Genetic Tests

Using the field of direct-to-consumer genetic tests as a case in point, this paper argues against the misuse of the term empowerment, and calls for a regulation of its usage. The misleading assumption under certain current usages of the concept of empowerment is that it is enhanced by the provision of health information. While the information-empowerment correlation is misleading, if not wrong, the feeling of being empowered imposes an increasing burden of critical thinking on those people (patients and consumers) who have to evaluate that information and act for the benefit of their health.

Perception of direct-to-consumer genetic testing and direct-to-consumer advertising of genetic tests among members of a large managed care organization

This small qualitative study was designed to determine possible attitudes toward and understanding of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing among members of a large managed care organization, and whether differences might exist between population groups. Ten focus groups were conducted by population type (high risk, White, African American, Hispanic/Latino) to determine knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about DTC genetics. Focus group transcripts were coded for attitudes toward and framing of the issue. Study results found participants were negative towards DTC genetic testing but they also found some aspects useful. Participants framed the issue mainly in terms of disease prevention and uncertainty of reaction to results, with some variation between population types. The concept of an "Informed Consumer," or process to seek information when the issue becomes personally relevant, emerged. This concept suggests that individuals may seek additional assistance to make personally-appropriate choices when faced with a DTC advertisement or genetic test.

Genetics, genomics, and cancer risk assessment: State of the Art and Future Directions in the Era of Personalized Medicine

Scientific and technologic advances are revolutionizing our approach to genetic cancer risk assessment, cancer screening and prevention, and targeted therapy, fulfilling the promise of personalized medicine. In this monograph, we review the evolution of scientific discovery in cancer genetics and genomics, and describe current approaches, benefits, and barriers to the translation of this information to the practice of preventive medicine. Summaries of known hereditary cancer syndromes and highly penetrant genes are provided and contrasted with recently discovered genomic variants associated with modest increases in cancer risk. We describe the scope of knowledge, tools, and expertise required for the translation of complex genetic and genomic test information into clinical practice. The challenges of genomic counseling include the need for genetics and genomics professional education and multidisciplinary team training, the need for evidence-based information regarding the clinical utility of testing for genomic variants, the potential dangers posed by premature marketing of first-generation genomic profiles, and the need for new clinical models to improve access to and responsible communication of complex disease risk information. We conclude that given the experiences and lessons learned in the genetics era, the multidisciplinary model of genetic cancer risk assessment and management will serve as a solid foundation to support the integration of personalized genomic information into the practice of cancer medicine.

Personal genome testing: test characteristics to clarify the discourse on ethical, legal and societal issues

Background

As genetics technology proceeds, practices of genetic testing have become more heterogeneous: many different types of tests are finding their way to the public in different settings and for a variety of purposes. This diversification is relevant to the discourse on ethical, legal and societal issues (ELSI) surrounding genetic testing, which must evolve to encompass these differences. One important development is the rise of personal genome testing on the basis of genetic profiling: the testing of multiple genetic variants simultaneously for the prediction of common multifactorial diseases. Currently, an increasing number of companies are offering personal genome tests directly to consumers and are spurring ELSI-discussions, which stand in need of clarification. This paper presents a systematic approach to the ELSI-evaluation of personal genome testing for multifactorial diseases along the lines of its test characteristics.

Discussion

This paper addresses four test characteristics of personal genome testing: its being a non-targeted type of testing, its high analytical validity, low clinical validity and problematic clinical utility. These characteristics raise their own specific ELSI, for example: non-targeted genetic profiling poses serious problems for information provision and informed consent. Questions about the quantity and quality of the necessary information, as well as about moral responsibilities with regard to the provision of information are therefore becoming central themes within ELSI-discussions of personal genome testing. Further, the current low level of clinical validity of genetic profiles raises questions concerning societal risks and regulatory requirements, whereas simultaneously it causes traditional ELSI-issues of clinical genetics, such as psychological and health risks, discrimination, and stigmatization, to lose part of their relevance. Also, classic notions of clinical utility are challenged by the newer notion of 'personal utility.'

Summary

Consideration of test characteristics is essential to any valuable discourse on the ELSI of personal genome testing for multifactorial diseases. Four key characteristics of the test - targeted/non-targeted testing, analytical validity, clinical validity and clinical utility - together determine the applicability and the relevance of ELSI to specific tests. The paper identifies and discusses four areas of interest for the ELSI-debate on personal genome testing: informational problems, risks, regulatory issues, and the notion of personal utility.

Informed Choice in Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing for Alzheimer and Other Diseases: Lessons from Two Cases

Health-related direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing has been a controversial practice. Especially problematic is predictive testing for Alzheimer disease (AD), since the disease is incurable, prevention is inconclusive, and testing does not definitively predict an individual's future disease status. In this paper, I examine two contrasting cases of subjects who learn through genetic testing that they have an elevated risk of developing AD later in life. In these cases, the subject's emotional response to the result is related to how well prepared she was for the real-life personal implications of possible test results. Analysis leads to the conclusion that when groups of health-related genetic tests are offered as packages by DTC companies, informed consumer choice is rendered impossible. Moreover, I argue, this marketing approach contravenes U.S. Federal Trade Commission policies for non-deceptive commercial communications. I conclude by suggesting ways to improve the prospects for informed consumer choice in DTC testing.

Canadian health care professionals' knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of nutritional genomics

Nutritional genomics has reached the public through applications of the Human Genome Project offered direct to consumers (DTC). The ability to pursue nutrigenetic testing without the involvement of a health care professional has received considerable attention from academic and policy commentators. To better understand the knowledge and attitudes of Canadian health care professionals regarding nutritional genomics and nutrigenetic testing, qualitative research in the form of focus group discussions was undertaken. Four key themes emerged: (1) concerns over DTC testing; (2) lack of health care professional competency; (3) genetic scepticism and inevitability; (4) expectation of regulation. Together, they indicate that health care professionals have little knowledge about nutritional genomics and hold contradictory attitudes towards genomics in general, and to nutritional genomics in particular. Respondents argue in favour of a delivery model where health care professionals act as intermediaries. They are also aware of their lack of competency to provide such services. To ensure greater public protection, respondents cite the importance of more stringent regulatory oversight of DTC genetic testing. Whether such an approach is necessary to address the various ethical and social issues raised by nutrigenetic testing remains an open debate.

Awareness and use of direct-to-consumer nutrigenomic tests, United States, 2006

PURPOSE

Direct-to-consumer genetic tests are increasingly available and may improve confidentiality, convenience, and accessibility. Amid ethical concerns and an uncertain regulatory landscape, the future of this mode of delivery is unclear. One class of products, nutrigenomic tests, is used to analyze DNA and lifestyle habits to assess health risks. Little information is available regarding awareness or use of such tests among consumers or physicians.

METHODS

We assessed consumers' awareness and use of nutrigenomic tests in the 2006 HealthStyles national survey (5250 respondents) and awareness among physicians in the 2006 DocStyles national survey (1250 respondents).

RESULTS

In the HealthStyles survey, 14% of respondents were aware of nutrigenomic tests, and 0.6% overall had used these tests. Respondents who were aware of nutrigenomic tests tended to be young and educated with a high income. Many physicians (44%) were aware of nutrigenomic tests, although 41% of these physicians had never had a patient ask about such tests, and most (74%) had never discussed the results of a nutrigenomic test with a patient.

CONCLUSIONS

These results provide insight into current trends in public demand and interest in nutrigenomic tests and will aid in assessing the impact of policies, efforts at public or provider education, and the evolution of the availability and demand for such tests.

Public awareness and use of direct-to-consumer genetic tests: results from 3 state population-based surveys, 2006

We conducted population-based surveys on direct-to-consumer nutrigenomic testing in Michigan, Oregon, and Utah as part of the 2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Awareness of the tests was highest in Oregon (24.4%) and lowest in Michigan (7.6%). Predictors of awareness were more education, higher income, and increasing age, except among those 65 years or older. Less than 1% had used a health-related direct-to-consumer genetic test. Public health systems should increase consumer and provider education and continue surveillance on direct-to-consumer genetic tests.

Public health genomics and genetic test evaluation: the challenge of conducting behavioural research on the utility of lifestyle-genetic tests

Human genetics research is increasingly concerned with multifactorial conditions such as diabetes and heart disease, which are influenced not only by genetic but also lifestyle factors such as diet and smoking. Although the results of 'lifestyle-genetic' tests using this information could conceivably motivate lifestyle changes in the future, companies are already selling such tests and related lifestyle advice commercially. Some academics and lobby groups have condemned the companies for selling these tests in advance of scientific support. Others are concerned that the tests may not motivate lifestyle improvements, instead causing distress in people receiving adverse test results and complacency in those receiving reassuring results. There is currently no regulatory oversight of genetic test utility, despite consensus in the Public Health Genomics community that clinical utility (including psychological and behavioural impact) of all emerging genetic tests should be evaluated before being introduced for individual use. Clearly, empirical data in this area is much needed, to inform understanding of the potential utility of these tests, and of whether stricter regulation of commercial exploitation is needed. In this article, we review the current situation regarding lifestyle-genetic tests, and discuss the challenges inherent in conducting this kind of behavioural research in the genomics era.