Physician Experience with Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Testing in Kaiser Permanente

Compassion and equity-focused clinical genomics training for health professional learners

There remains an urgent need for expanded genomics training in undergraduate medical education, especially as genetic and genomic assessments become increasingly important in primary care and routine clinical practice across specialties. Physician trainees continue to report feeling poorly prepared to provide effective consultation or interpretation of genomic test results. Here we report on the development, pilot implementation, and evaluation of an elective offering for pre-clinical medical students called the Sanford Precision Health Scholars Immersive Learning Experience (PHS), which was designed leveraging genetic counseling expertise as one means to address this need. This 9-week course, piloted in Fall 2021 at UC San Diego, afforded students the opportunity to build technical skills and competencies in clinical genomics while identifying, addressing, and engaging with pervasive health disparities in genomics. Interactive exercises focused students' learning on strategies for empathic and compassionate patient interactions while supporting the application of concepts and knowledge to future practice. Upon completion of the course, participants reported increases in confidence related to skills required for clinical genomics practice. Drawing on learnings from this pilot implementation, recommendations for refining the program include deepening pedagogical engagement with ethical issues, expanding the offering to trainees across health professions, including pharmacy students, and incorporating an optional experiential learning component. Educational offerings, like PHS, that are designed with the input of genetic counseling expertise may ease pressures on the genetic counseling profession by building a more genomic-literate healthcare workforce that can better support efforts to expand access for patients.

The Landscape of Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Testing in Reproductive Health Contexts: An Analytical Framework of Stakeholders and Their Competing Motivations

We propose a theoretical framework that identifies (a) the different categories of stakeholders and (b) the normative values that drive their attitudes toward direct-to-consumer genetic testing, with an emphasis on the reproductive health contexts. We conducted a literature search using varied combinations of search terms, including direct-to-consumer genetic testing, decision-making, reproductive health, and policy. Using a grounded theory approach to existing literature and in combination with a narrative review, we present a systematic framework of five categories of stakeholders (i.e., genome-driven stakeholders, industry-driven stakeholders, history-driven stakeholders, value-driven stakeholders, and social justice-driven stakeholders) that shape the public's discourse. Moving beyond the dialectical ethics that have governed the public discourse, we also identify the normative values and interests that motivate different stakeholders' attitudes and decision-making through theoretical sampling under the grounded theory. We investigate the competing and conflicting values within the same category of stakeholders. For example, despite being industry-driven stakeholders, medical professionals' attitudes are driven by concerns about standards of care; in contrast, health insurance companies' concerns are centered on profit. We further explore the tensions between these stakeholders that impact their strategic alliances and pose challenges to the practices of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Finally, we examine how these stakeholders and their corresponding values may shape future development and policies of direct-to-consumer genetic testing in the context of reproductive health.

Implementation of pharmacogenomics: Where are we now?

Pharmacogenomics (PGx), examining the effect of genetic variation on interpatient variation in drug disposition and response, has been widely studied for several decades. However, as cost, as well as turnaround time associated with PGx testing, has significantly improved, the use of PGx in the clinical setting has been gaining momentum. Nevertheless, challenges have emerged in the broader clinical implementation of PGx. In this review, we will outline current models of PGx delivery and methodologies of evaluation, and discuss clinically relevant PGx tests and associated medications. Additionally, we will describe our approach for the broad implementation of pre-emptive DPYD genotyping in patients taking fluoropyrimidines in Ontario, Canada, as an example of clinically actionable PGx testing with sufficient clinical evidence of patient benefit that can become a new standard of patient care. We will highlight challenges associated with PGx testing, including a lack of diversity in PGx studies as well as general limitations that impact the broad adoption of PGx testing. Lastly, we examine the future of PGx, discussing new clinical targets, methodologies and analysis approaches.

Should Commercial Diagnostic Testing Be Stimulated or Discouraged? Analyzing Willingness-to-Pay and Market Externalities of Three Commercial Diagnostic Tests in The Netherlands

INTRODUCTION

Consumers may purchase commercial diagnostic tests (CDT) without prior doctor consultation. This paper analyzes three CDT markets-commercial cholesterol tests (CCT), direct-to-consumer genetic health tests (DGT) and total body scans (TBS)-in the context of the universal, collectively financed health care system of the Netherlands.

METHODS

An online willingness-to-pay (WTP) questionnaire was sent to a representative sample of 1500 Dutch consumers. Using contingent valuation (CV) methodology, an array of bids for three self-tests were presented to the respondents. The results were extrapolated to the Dutch population and compared to current prices and follow-up medical utilization, allowing analysis from a societal perspective.

RESULTS

Overall, 880 of 1500 respondents completed the questionnaire (response rate 59%). Of the respondents, 26-44% were willing to pay a positive amount for the CDT. Willingness-to-pay was correlated to age and household income, but not to health status or prior experience with these tests. At mean current prices of €29 for CCT, €229 for DGT and €1,650 for TBS, 3.3%, 2.5%, and 1.1%, were willing to purchase a CCT, DGT, and TBS, respectively. All three CDT resulted in net costs to the health system, estimated at €5, €16, and €44 per test, respectively. Reducing volumes by 90,000 CCTs (19%), 19,000 DGTs (5%) and 4,000 TBSs (2.5%) in 2019 would optimize welfare.

CONCLUSION

Most respondents were unwilling to consume CDT at any price or only if the CDT were provided for free. However, for a small group of consumers, societal costs exceed private benefits. Therefore, CDT regulation could provide small welfare gains.

Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: A Comprehensive Review

Emerged in the early 2000s, direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing has helped consumers access and understand their genetic information without the involvement of a healthcare provider. Unlike traditional clinical-based testing, in which a healthcare provider is responsible for ordering, testing, interpreting, and communicating the results, DTC testing provides valuable insights directly to individuals about their genetic information. It empowers consumers and their families to be proactive about their health and lifestyle. The online testing format has become increasingly popular due to its accessibility and affordability. However, it raises concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the results, data security and how to ensure privacy for consumers and regulators. A hybrid model combining elements from both DTC and clinical-based genetic testing has surfaced in the market recently. In the US, current health-related DTC genetic tests are not recognized for diagnostic purposes; instead, these tests are intended to provide genetic information that is associated with certain conditions, which may encourage consumers to take the opportunity to discuss the results and their implications with a healthcare provider. This DTC genetic testing review focuses on the fundamental concepts, applications, benefits, limitations, risks, and consumer concerns, as well as the state of the DTC framework compared with the clinical-based and hybrid models. Additionally, the regulatory oversight, data protection, and healthcare professional perspective on DTC genetic testing in the US will be discussed, including current policies and regulations.

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: an updated systematic review of healthcare professionals' knowledge and views, and ethical and legal concerns

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) is becoming increasingly widespread. The aim of this research was to systematically review the literature published on healthcare professionals' knowledge and views about DTC-GT, as an update to a 2012 systematic review. The secondary aim was to assess the knowledge and views of healthcare professionals on the ethical and legal issues pertaining to DTC-GT. A systematic search was performed to identify all relevant studies that have been conducted since 2012. Studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria if they were primary research papers conducted on healthcare professionals about their knowledge and views on health-related DTC-GT. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Medline databases were searched from 2012 to May 2021. Title and abstract were screened, and full texts were reviewed by two study authors independently. New papers included were appraised and data were extracted on study characteristics, knowledge and views on DTC-GT, and ethical and legal issues. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Nineteen new papers were included, along with eight papers from the previous review. There was considerable variation in study participants with differing views, awareness levels, and levels of knowledge about DTC-GT. Genetic counsellors and clinical geneticists generally had more concerns, experience, and knowledge regarding DTC-GT. Ten ethical concerns and four legal concerns were identified. Healthcare professionals' knowledge and experience of DTC-GT, including awareness of DTC-GT ethical and legal concerns, have only minimally improved since the previous review. This emphasises the need for further medical learning opportunities to improve the gaps in knowledge amongst healthcare professionals about DTC-GT.

Precision medicine: Opportunities for health-system pharmacists

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

Direct to consumer genetic testing in Denmark-public knowledge, use, and attitudes

Direct to consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) is offered by commercial companies, but the use in the general population has only been sparsely investigated. A questionnaire was sent to 2013 representative Danish citizens asking about their awareness and use of DTC-GT. Individuals who had undergone a genetic test were interviewed to determine if the results had been understood correctly. A pilot study with 2469 questionnaires was performed before this study. In total, 45.4% of the individuals (n = 913/2013) had knowledge about DTC-GT and 2.5% (n = (18 + 5)/913) previously had a genetic test by a private company and 5.8% through the public health care system (n = (48 + 5)/913). Curiosity about own genetic information was the most frequent motivation (40.9%, n = 9/22) as well as knowledge of ancestry (36.4%, n = 8/22) and advice about lifestyle, exercise, or diet (36.4%, n = 8/22). Test of own disease risk was given as a reason in 27.3% (n = 6/22) and seeking possible explanation of specific symptoms in 13.6% (n = 3/22). 50% (n = 11/22) answered that they had become concerned after the test, and 17.4% (n = 4/23) had consulted their GP. Interviews in a subset of respondents from the pilot study revealed problems with understanding the results. One problem was how to interpret the genetic test results with respect to individual risk for a disease. For example, the difference between disease causing genetic variants in monogenetic diseases versus statistical risks by SNPs in multifactorial diseases was not understood by the respondents.

The Need for Education and Clinical Best Practice Guidelines in the Era of Direct-to-Consumer Genomic Testing

Many people share the results of their direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing (DTC-PGT) within the primary care setting, seeking interpretation of and counsel about the results. However, most primary care physicians (PCPs) are not trained to interpret and communicate about DTC-PGT results. New guidelines must be developed to help PCPs maximize the potential of emerging DTC-PGT technologies.

Healthcare Professional Clinical Actions following Nutrigenomics Testing in Practice

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Clinical demand for nutrigenomics testing (NGT) is increasing, underscoring the importance of assessing healthcare professional (HCP) competence and clinical actions with NGT in practice. While previous studies have explored HCP perceptions of NGT, no study has examined real HCP experiences with NGT in practice. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical experience of providing NGT among early adopter HCPs who have used NGT in their practice. We hypothesized that HCP clinical actions after NGT would differ according to HCP personal experience undergoing genetic testing (GT) as well as years in practice. <b><i>Design:</i></b> An online survey questionnaire was administered to HCPs (<i>n</i> = 70) who have provided NGT in practice. χ² tests, tests for trend, and logistic regression were used to compare HCP characteristics with post-NGT outcomes. <b><i>Results:</i></b> HCPs with fewest years in practice (&#x3c;5 years) comprised the lowest proportion of respondents (16%). Most HCPs reported good understanding of NGT results and 92% made genetic-based dietary recommendations to patients following NGT. HCP personal use of GT increased significantly with increasing years in practice (&#x3c;5 years: 36%, 5–10 years: 53%, 11–20 years: 70%, and &#x3e;20 years: 85%, <i>p</i> trend = 0.003). Requesting patient bloodwork because of NGT results increased significantly with HCP years in practice when HCPs with &#x3c;5 years in practice were not considered (5–10 years: 19%, 11–20 years: 28%, and &#x3e;20 years: 60%, <i>p</i> trend = 0.010). A near significant difference was observed where a greater proportion of HCPs who had personally undergone GT reported requesting patient bloodwork (personal use: 46% vs. no personal use: 23%, <i>p</i>-χ² = 0.066). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Early HCP adopters of NGT utilize the test results to provide genetic-based dietary recommendations to patients. Clinical action after NGT currently appears to be driven by HCP years in practice, but HCP personal use of GT may also be a factor.

Primary Care Physician Experiences with Integrated Population-Scale Genetic Testing: A Mixed-Methods Assessment

The scalable delivery of genomic medicine requires collaboration between genetics and non-genetics providers. Thus, it is essential to investigate and address the perceived value of and barriers to incorporating genetic testing into the clinical practice of primary care providers (PCPs). We used a mixed-methods approach of qualitative interviews and surveys to explore the experience of PCPs involved in the pilot DNA-10K population genetic testing program. Similar to previous research, PCPs reported low confidence with tasks related to ordering, interpreting and managing the results of genetic tests, and identified the need for additional education. PCPs endorsed high levels of utility for patients and their families but noted logistical challenges to incorporating genetic testing into their practice. Overall PCPs were not familiar with the United States' Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act and they expressed high levels of concern for patient data privacy and potential insurance discrimination. This PCP feedback led to the development and implementation of several processes to improve the PCP experience with the DNA-10K program. These results contribute to the knowledge base regarding genomic implementation using a mixed provider model and may be beneficial for institutions developing similar clinical programs.

Identifying rare, medically relevant variation via population-based genomic screening in Alabama: opportunities and pitfalls

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness and specificity of population-based genomic screening in Alabama.

METHODS

The Alabama Genomic Health Initiative (AGHI) has enrolled and evaluated 5369 participants for the presence of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants using the Illumina Global Screening Array (GSA), with validation of all P/LP variants via Sanger sequencing in a CLIA-certified laboratory before return of results.

RESULTS

Among 131 variants identified by the GSA that were evaluated by Sanger sequencing, 67 (51%) were false positives (FP). For 39 of the 67 FP variants, a benign/likely benign variant was present at or near the targeted P/LP variant. Variants detected within African American individuals were significantly enriched for FPs, likely due to a higher rate of nontargeted alternative alleles close to array-targeted P/LP variants.

CONCLUSION

In AGHI, we have implemented an array-based process to screen for highly penetrant genetic variants in actionable disease genes. We demonstrate the need for clinical validation of array-identified variants in direct-to-consumer or population testing, especially for diverse populations.

Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: Value and Risk

Although the explosive growth of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing has moderated, a substantial number of patients are choosing to undergo genetic testing outside the purview of their regular healthcare providers. Further, many industry leaders have been expanding reports to cover many more genes, as well as partnering with employers and others to expand access. This review addresses continuing concerns about DTC genetic testing quality, psychosocial impact, integration with medical practice, effects on the healthcare system, and privacy, as well as emerging concerns about third-party interpretation services and non-health-related uses such as investigative genetic genealogy. It concludes with an examination of two possible futures for DTC genetic testing: merger with traditional modes of healthcare delivery or continuation as a parallel system for patient-driven generation of health-relevant information. Each possibility is associated with distinctive questions related to value and risk.