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

Genetic screening and democracy: lessons from debating genetic screening criteria in the Netherlands

Recent decades have witnessed increasing possibilities for genetic testing and screening. In clinical genetics, the doctor's office defined a secluded space for discussion of sensitive reproductive options in cases of elevated risk for genetic disorders in individuals or their offspring. When prenatal screening for all pregnant women became conceivable, the potential increase in scale made social and ethical concerns relevant for the whole of society. Whereas genetic testing in clinical genetic practice was widely accepted, prenatal screening at a population level met with unease. Concerns were raised regarding social pressure to screen: the sum of individual choice might result in a 'collective eugenics'. The government's involvement also raised suspicion: actively offering screening evoked associations with eugenic population policies from the first half of the 20th century. By reconstructing elements of policy and public debate on prenatal screening in the Netherlands from the past 30 years, this article discusses how the government has gradually changed its role in balancing the interest of the individual and the collective on genetic reproductive issues. Against a background of increasing knowledge about and demand for prenatal screening among the population, governmental policy changed from focusing on protection by banning screening toward facilitating screening in a careful and ethically sound way by providing adequate information, decision aids and quality assessment instruments. In the meanwhile, invigorating democracy in public debate may entail discussing concepts of 'the good life' in relation to living with or without impairments and dealing with genetic information about oneself or one's offspring.

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.

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: introduction to the special issue

This issue of the Journal of Genetic Counseling is devoted to direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing. The 15 articles in this special issue address practice considerations for genetic counselors and other health care professionals; the benefits and limitations of DTC genetic testing; consumer and provider attitudes towards and experience with DTC testing; and the roles and educational needs of genetic counselors and other health care providers in providing and interpreting DTC genetic testing. In this introduction to the special issue, we provide a brief background on DTC genetic testing, summarize the important contribution of the articles included in this issue, and outline the essential work that still needs to be done as genetic counselors are increasingly engaged in discussions, education, and research about DTC genetic testing.

A review of ethical frameworks for the disclosure of individual research results in population-based genetic and genomic research

Individual research results from population-based genetic and genomic research are traditionally not disclosed to research participants. Current practices of non-disclosure are, however, being challenged by an increasing number of scientists, ethicists and policy-makers who make arguments in favour of disclosing at least individual results of potential health or lifestyle significance to research participants. Simultaneously, research participants are expressing greater interest in accessing their results. This article first provides an overview of main arguments for and against the disclosure of individual research results to research participants. Next, it discusses the need for a move from the current ethical framework under which researchers operate, which is rather protective of research participants and does not encourage disclosure, to a new ethical framework that would better cope with current developments within the field. Comparative analysis of existing and potential ethical frameworks favours implementation of an ethical framework aimed at enhancing the autonomy of research participants through the disclosure of individual research results. Finally, this article explores practical models of disclosure that could be used under such a new framework. A model of disclosure that takes into account the two key criteria of communicability of research results and the research participant’s preferences to determine which results to disclose is found to comply best with the selected ethical framework.

The role of disease characteristics in the ethical debate on personal genome testing

BACKGROUND

Companies are currently marketing personal genome tests directly-to-consumer that provide genetic susceptibility testing for a range of multifactorial diseases simultaneously. As these tests comprise multiple risk analyses for multiple diseases, they may be difficult to evaluate. Insight into morally relevant differences between diseases will assist researchers, healthcare professionals, policy-makers and other stakeholders in the ethical evaluation of personal genome tests.

DISCUSSION

In this paper, we identify and discuss four disease characteristics--severity, actionability, age of onset, and the somatic/psychiatric nature of disease--and show how these lead to specific ethical issues. By way of illustration, we apply this framework to genetic susceptibility testing for three diseases: type 2 diabetes, age-related macular degeneration and clinical depression. For these three diseases, we point out the ethical issues that are relevant to the question whether it is morally justifiable to offer genetic susceptibility testing to adults or to children or minors, and on what conditions.

SUMMARY

We conclude that the ethical evaluation of personal genome tests is challenging, for the ethical issues differ with the diseases tested for. An understanding of the ethical significance of disease characteristics will improve the ethical, legal and societal debate on personal genome testing.

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.

Do genome-wide association scans have potential for translation?

The success of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in identifying replicating associations has greatly contributed to understanding of the genetic aetiology of complex diseases. This review discusses and provides examples of the potential of GWAS findings to be translated into clinical practice, i.e., diagnosis, prediction, prognosis, novel treatments and response to treatment of common diseases. The biological insights afforded by newly-identified robust associations represent the largest, albeit indirect, translational contribution of GWAS.

The general public's understanding and perception of direct-to-consumer genetic test results

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing allows consumers to discover their risk for common complex disorders. The extent to which consumers understand typical results provided by DTC genetic testing is currently unknown. Misunderstanding of the results could lead to negative consequences including unnecessary concern, false reassurance or unwarranted changes in screening behaviors. We conducted a study to investigate consumers' perceptions and understanding of DTC test results.

METHODS

An online survey was posted on Facebook that included questions relating to 4 sample test results for risk of developing colorectal cancer, heart disease and skin cancer. Genetic counselors were used as a comparison group.

RESULTS

145 individuals from the general public and 171 genetic counselors completed the survey. A significant difference was found between the way the general public and genetic counselors interpreted the meaning of the DTC results. The general public respondents also believed that results in all 4 scenarios would be significantly more helpful than the genetic counselors did. Although the majority of general public respondents rated the results as easy to understand, they often misinterpreted them.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings imply that the general public has the potential to misinterpret DTC results without appropriate assistance. Further research is needed to explore optimal methods of providing DTC test results and ways to minimize the risk of negative consequences for consumers.

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.

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.

Preconceptional genetic carrier testing and the commercial offer directly-to-consumers

Recently, a number of commercial companies are offering preconceptional carrier tests directly-to-consumers. This offer raises a number of concerns and issues above and beyond those encountered with preconceptional tests offered within the traditional health care setting. In order to bring some of these issues to light and to initiate dialogue on this topic, this article discusses the following issues: the current offer of preconceptional carrier tests (until the end of 2010) through online commercial companies; the implications for the informed consent procedure and the need for good information; the need for medical supervision and follow-up; and the appropriate use of existing resources. The article concludes with some reflections about the potential sustainability of the offer of preconceptional carrier tests directly-to-consumers.