Utilization of Genetic Counseling after Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: Findings from the Impact of Personal Genomics (PGen) Study

A randomized controlled trial of analogue pharmacogenomic testing feedback for psychotropic medications

Objective

To examine the impact of various presentations of pharmacogenomic testing results using a published, color-coded decision support tool (DST) format as a standard stimulus to list possible medications.

Methods

Participants were randomly assigned to groups and asked to decide which psychotropic medication they would prefer if depressed. Three of the groups varied the color-coded category of fluoxetine and received a statement indicating that this was the most prescribed drug for depression. A fourth control condition omitted base rate information. Participants also provided detail about their decision-making processes through a qualitative interview.

Results

Comparison of the first three groups indicated that significantly more participants selected medications from the highest category of likely effectiveness when fluoxetine appeared in this list. Comparison of the control group to its relevant analogue suggested no significant differences in selection strategy. Qualitative interview responses indicated participant comfort with genetic testing despite awareness of having very limited understanding of these techniques and their implications.

Conclusions

Both DST color-coding and base rates were influential in driving drug selection decisions, despite most participants indicating they did not understand this information.

Innovation

Efforts to standardize pharmacogenomic stimuli may lead to advances in methods of studying quantifiable healthcare decisions. Attention to the context for presenting test results may also be a useful source of understanding patient responses, particularly regarding complex tests that are likely to be interpreted heuristically.

An Environmental Scan of Consumer-Initiated Germline Genetic Testing for Health Risks

As patient access to laboratory testing outside the clinic grows, health care providers can expect to confront increasing questions about the utility and interpretation of consumer-initiated genetic testing for health risks. We sought to characterize the marketplace diversity of consumer-initiated germline genetic testing options. An environmental scan was conducted to identify germline genetic testing companies that offer testing for at least one diagnosable health condition and are available for purchase by consumers in the US market without a visit to one's health care provider. We limited our scope to tests available between October 1, 2019, and September 30, 2021. We characterized variability in the content and processes used by 21 companies offering 74 distinct test products that met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. A minority (8 of 21 companies) offered tests that assessed the presence of at least 1 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Tier 1 condition for which detection can impact an individual's clinical care and for which evidence-based guidelines for detection and management exist.

Assessing the general public's view of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing and their interpretation of DTC website disclaimer messages

The general public continues to show increased interest and uptake of Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) genetic testing. We conducted an online survey (N = 405) to assess genetics knowledge, interest, and outcome expectancy of DTC genetic testing before and after exposure to a sample DTC disclaimer message. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the relationship between previous genetic knowledge, attitudes and self-reported systematic processing of a sample DTC disclaimer message, outcome expectancies, and interest to pursue DTC genetic testing. Increased genetic knowledge and more positive attitudes towards DTC genetic testing were associated with increased self-reported systematic processing of the DTC disclaimer message. Further, self-reported systematic processing of the DTC disclaimer message was associated with greater interest in pursuing DTC genetic testing but did not predict outcome expectancies. As DTC genetic testing continues to gain in popularity and usage, additional research is imperative to better understand participants' motivations and processing of the DTC disclaimer messages to improve the user experience.

Factors Associated with the Uptake of Genetic Testing for Cancer Risks: A Pathway Analysis Using the Health Information National Trends Survey Data

Our study aimed to identify pathways from the source of information to the uptake of cancer genetic testing, with consideration of intermediate variables including perceptional, attitudinal and psychosocial factors. We used the Health Information National Trends Survey (2020 database) and constructed a structural equation model for pathway analysis (using SPSS version 24). Variables for socio-demographic, lifestyle and health information were also collected and used for confounding adjustment. A total of 2941 participants were analyzed (68.5%, non-Hispanic white; 59.7%, females; 58 years, median age; and 142 (4.8%) had undertaken genetic testing for cancer risk previously). Our pathway analysis found that only information from particular sources (i.e., healthcare providers and genetic counsellors) had positive and significant effects on people’s perceptions of cancer regarding its prevention, detection and treatment (standardized β range, 0.15−0.31, all p-values < 0.01). Following the paths, these perceptional variables (cancer prevention, detection and treatment) showed considerable positive impacts on the uptake of genetic testing (standardized β (95% CIs): 0.25 (0.20, 0.30), 0.28 (0.23, 0.33) and 0.12 (0.06, 0.17), respectively). Pathways involving attitudinal and psychosocial factors showed much smaller or insignificant effects on the uptake of genetic testing. Our study brings several novel perspectives to the behavior model and may underpin certain issues regarding cancer risk genetic testing.

Considerations for developing regulations for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a scoping review using the 3-I framework

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing exists largely outside of any regulatory schemes, and studies providing a comprehensive overview of the ethical, social, legal, and technological considerations for regulating these types of technologies are lacking. This paper uses the 3-I framework for policy analysis to analyze the ideas, interests, and institutions relevant to policy development for DTC genetic testing in North America and internationally. A scoping review was conducted. Citation databases were searched for papers addressing the ethical, social, legal, and technological implications of DTC genetic testing; stakeholder perspectives on and experiences with DTC genetic testing; or the effect of such testing on the healthcare system. Ninety-nine publications, organizational reports, governmental documents, or pieces of legislation were included. The ideas included are autonomy, informed decision making, privacy, and clinical validity and utility. The interests discussed are those of the public and healthcare providers. The institutions included are regulatory organizations such as the Food and Drug Administration in the United States, laws governing the implementation or delivery of genetic testing in general, and legislation created to protect against genetic discrimination. This analysis clarifies the ethical, social, legal, and technological issues of DTC genetic testing regulation. This information can be used by policy makers to develop or strengthen regulations for DTC genetic testing such as requiring an assessment of the clinical validity of tests before they become publicly available, controlling how tests are marketed, and stipulating requirements for healthcare provider involvement and informed consent.

Genetic testing users in Italy and Germany: Health orientation, health-related habits, and psychological profile

Background

Rapid advances in genomic knowledge and widespread access to the web contributed to the development of genetic services by private companies or medical laboratories. In the European landscape, though, there is not a single coherent regulatory approach to genetic testing (GT). The study aimed to investigate differences and similarities between two populations of GT users, Italians and Germans, in terms of health‐related behaviors, psychological characteristics, and attitudes toward genetic information.

Methods

Ninety‐nine Italian GT users from one private genetic company and 64 Germans GT users from one medical laboratory, completed an ad hoc self‐administered questionnaire.

Results

Results showed significant differences in health‐related behaviors (unhealthy eating behaviors, smoking behaviors, and frequency in medical check‐ups), with Germans reporting higher levels of unhealthy eating habits and smoking behaviors than Italians; Italian users also were more medically controlled. Furthermore, German participants were less willing to change their lifestyle following the GT results compared to Italian participants. Regarding psychological variables, German users felt more confident about their physical well‐being and they seemed more motivated than Italians to avoid becoming unhealthy. Finally, two samples differed in the way they accessed genetic testing (with the Italians guided predominately by a physician in contrast with the Germans who were recommended by friends) and managed genetic testing results (with Italian participants significantly more willing to share results with doctors than German participants, who preferred sharing with the family).

Conclusion

The analysis of cultural and organizational differences could help in defining adequate guidelines for counseling, and provide inputs for regulators in different European contexts.

The role of future-oriented affect in engagement with genomic testing results

Future-oriented emotions such as anticipatory affect (i.e., current affect experienced regarding a potential future outcome) and anticipated affect (i.e., expectations about potential future affect), are uniquely associated with health decision-making (e.g., electing to receive results of genomic testing). This study investigated the degree to which negative anticipated and anticipatory emotions predict health decision making over time, and whether such emotions predict social, emotional, and behavioral responses to anticipated information (e.g., genomic testing results). 461 participants (M age = 63.9, SD = 5.61, 46% female) in a genomic sequencing cohort who elected to receive genomic sequencing (carrier) results were included in the current study. Anticipated and anticipatory affect about sequencing results were assessed at baseline. Psychological and behavioral responses to sequencing results, including participants' reported anxiety, decisional conflict, and distress about sequencing results, whether they shared results with family members, and their intentions to continue learning results in the future, were collected immediately, one month, and/or six months after receiving results. More negative anticipated and anticipatory affect at baseline was significantly and independently associated with lower intentions to continue learning results in the future, as well as higher levels of anxiety and uncertainty at multiple time points after receiving results. Anticipated negative affect was also associated with greater decisional conflict, and anticipatory negative affect was also associated with greater distress after receiving results. Future-oriented emotions may play an important role in decisions that unfold over time, with implications for genomic testing, behavioral medicine, and health decision-making broadly.

Ethical concerns relating to genetic risk scores for suicide

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) provide valuable information in research contexts regarding genomic changes that contribute to risks for complex psychiatric conditions like major depressive disorder. GWAS results can be used to calculate polygenic risk scores (PRS) for psychiatric conditions, such as bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, as well as for other traits, such as obesity or hypertension. Private companies that provide direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing sometimes report PRS for a variety of traits. Recently, the first well-powered GWAS study for suicide death was published. PRS reports that claim to assess suicide risk are therefore likely to appear soon in the DTC setting. We describe ethical concerns regarding the commercial use of GWAS results related to suicide. We identify several issues that must be addressed before PRS for suicide risk is made available to the public through DTC: (a) the potential for misinterpretation of results, (b) consumers' perceptions about determinism and behavior change, (c) potential contributions to stigma, discrimination, and health disparities; and (d) ethical problems regarding the testing of children and vulnerable adults. Tests for genetic prediction of suicidality may eventually have clinical significance, but until then, the potential for individual and public harm significantly outweighs any potential benefit. Even if genetic prediction of suicidality improves significantly, information about genetic risk scores must be distributed cautiously, with genetic counseling, and with adequate safeguards.

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Prospective users' attitudes toward information about ancestry and biological relationships

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing is marketed as a tool to uncover ancestry and kin. Recent studies of actual and potential users have demonstrated that individuals’ responses to the use of these tests for these purposes are complex, with privacy, disruptive consequences, potential for misuse, and secondary use by law enforcement cited as potential concerns. We conducted six focus groups with a diverse sample of participants (n = 62) who were aware of but had not used direct-to-consumer genetic tests, in an effort to understand more about what people considering these tests think about the potential value, risks, and benefits of such testing, taking into account use by third parties, such as potential kin and law enforcement. Participants differed widely in the perceived value of direct-to-consumer genetic tests for ancestry and kinship information for their own lives, including the desirability of contact with previously unknown relatives. Some perceived ancestry testing as mere curiosity or entertainment, while others, particularly those who had gaps in their family history, few living relatives, or who were adopted, saw greater value. Concerns about intrusion into one’s life by purported kin and control of data were widespread, with many participants expressing concern about secondary uses of data that could harm users or their families. The use of direct-to-consumer genetic tests data for forensic genealogy elicited a particularly wide array of reactions, both spontaneously and in response to specific discussion prompts, mirroring the current public debate about law enforcement access to such data. The themes uncovered through our investigation warrant specific attention in the continued development of the science, policy, and practice of commercial direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

Direct to consumer genetic and genomic testing with associated implications for advanced nursing practice

ABSTRACT

Direct-to-consumer genetic and genomic testing (DTCGT) has paved the way for consumers to gain information about their genetic makeup. Consumers may seek DTCGT to estimate ethnic background, identify genetic relations, or obtain raw DNA information that can be used for other purposes, such as testing for paternity and identifying genetically linked illnesses. Despite robust progress in genetic and genomic testing, most people have a low exposure threshold to DTCGT. Patient consumers may unnecessarily experience anxiety if they do not have a health care provider (HCP) to consult and review their results. Presently, there is a knowledge gap in how accurately HCPs can interpret and communicate genetic test results to patients compared with genetic specialists who may be inaccessible to underserved populations. Genetic and genomic information is rapidly progressing in health care and can identify patients at increased risk for certain diseases and improve patient care and outcomes. Appropriate use of genetic and genomic testing and knowing the limitations and difficulties of current testing available are integral to the success of HCPs in using these results in health promotion and improving quality of life. Health care providers should be aware of DTCGT recommendations and implications for patients, be prepared to counsel patients who present with testing results in hand, seeking advisement, and be competent in determining the need for further diagnostic testing or referral to a specialist genetic counselor.

Physician-guided, hybrid genetic testing exerts promising effects on health-related behavior without compromising quality of life

Genetic risk analysis is increasingly in demand by participants. Hybrid genetic testing has the advantage over direct to consumer testing by involving a physician who guides the process and offers counseling after receiving the results. The objective of this study was to determine whether a structured physician moderated primary preventive, hybrid genetic risk assessment enhanced counseling program leads to improvement in lifestyle and does not impair quality of life. Risk genes for malignant, cardiovascular, coagulation, storage diseases and pharmacogenetics (> 100 genes) were tested. Screening, consultation and genetic counseling embedded in a primary/secondary prevention check-up program for executives of surrounding companies took place in a single center in Germany. Follow-up included established questionnaires for quality of life, nutrition and physical activity. Analysis included n = 244 participants. Median age at baseline was 49 years (interquartile range: 44–55), 93% were male, 3% (n = 7 of 136 responses) were smoker. Mean body mass index was 25.2 kg/m². Follow-up response rate was 74% (n = 180), mean follow-up time was 6.8 months (standard deviation = 2.1). In 91 participants (37.8%, 91/241) at least one pathogenic variant was found, 60 thereof were clinically relevant (24.9%, 60/241). 238 participants (98%, 238/241) had > 1 pharmacogenetic variant, only 2 (0.8%, 2/241) took a correspondingly affected drug (56 participants took ≥ 1 drug/day). The energy expenditure significantly increased by ≈ 35% [median multiple of energy expenditure of 1.34 (confidence interval = 1.15–1.57, p < 0.001)] metabolic equivalents of task (MET)-min/week; participants spent on average 41 min (p < 0.001) less in sedentary activities per day and spent more time for lunch (≈ 2 additional minutes/day; p = 0.031). Indicators of the consumption of red meat and sweet pastries significantly decreased (both adjusted p = 0.049). Neither quality of life in general nor subgroup analysis of participants with at least one conspicuous genetic risk differed significantly over follow-up. Hybrid genetic testing and counseling exerted positive effects on health-related behavior and was not associated with major psychological adverse effects in the short-term follow-up. The approach seems to be feasible for use in preventive health care.

Utilization and uptake of clinical genetics services in high-income countries: A scoping review

Ongoing rapid growth in the need for genetic services has the potential to severely strain the capacity of the clinical genetics workforce to deliver this care. Unfortunately, assessments of the scale of this health policy challenge and potential solutions are hampered by the lack of a consolidated evidence base on the growth in genetic service utilization. To enable health policy research and strategic planning by health systems in this area, we conducted a scoping review of the literature on the utilization and uptake of clinical genetics services in high-income countries published between 2010 and 2018. One-hundred-and-ninety-five unique studies were included in the review. Most focused on cancer (85/195; 44%) and prenatal care (50/195; 26%), which are consistently the two areas with the greatest volume of genetic service utilization in both the United States and other high-income countries. Utilization and uptake rates varied considerably and were influenced by contextual factors including health system characteristics, provider knowledge, and patient preferences. Moreover, growth in genetic service utilization appears to be driven to a significant degree by technological advances and the integration of new tests into clinical care. Our review highlights both the policy challenge posed by the rapid growth in the utilization of genetic services and the variability in this trend across clinical indications and health systems.

Experiences and attitudes of hereditary cancer screening patients in a consumer directed testing model

BACKGROUND

Since 2015, the Information is Power initiative has offered free and reduced cost hereditary cancer screening to the North Alabama population with a consumer-initiated model. Patients received pre-test and post-test education through a genetic counseling video. Positive results also received a call from a genetic counselor.

OBJECTIVE

We surveyed past Information is Power patients to assess if video education and electronic result delivery addressed the needs of a hereditary cancer screening population.

METHODS

An electronic survey was sent out to Information is Power patients who opted into research contact. The survey assessed participant knowledge, satisfaction with result delivery, and perceived uncertainty after receiving test results.

RESULTS

213 participants completed the survey. Eighteen percent of participants would have preferred individual communication with a genetics specialist about their results. Over 99 % of survey participants correctly interpreted a positive result, while 73 % correctly interpreted a negative result. Overall, participants were certain about the impact of their genetic test results.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

These findings support a model of population genetic testing and genetic counseling that is sustainable while meeting the educational needs of most participants. Observed misconceptions surrounding a negative result should be highlighted in future population screening patient resources to meet patient needs.

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies tell their customers to 'see a genetic counselor'. How do genetic counselors feel about direct-to-consumer genetic testing?

Professional societies, the FDA, and many direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) companies have highlighted the value of counseling from a medical professional with genetics expertise in order to enhance the value and minimize the risks associated with DTC-GT. However, there is limited information available identifying genetic counselors' own views on DTC-GT, their willingness to counsel consumers based on DTC-GT results, and their experiences to date seeing DTC-GT consumers in a clinical setting. We surveyed genetic counselors accessed through mailing lists associated with the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) and the American Board of Genetic Counseling (ABGC). Response rate was estimated to be 12.2% (n = 482). A majority of all respondents (56.4%, n = 263) described themselves as feeling negatively or very negatively toward DTC-GT; only 6.9% (n = 32) described themselves as feeling positively or very positively. While 90.9% of respondents (n = 398) believed that DTC-GT would be improved with the involvement of genetic counselors, only 31.2% agreed or strongly agreed that they are comfortable providing counseling to DTC-GT consumers (n = 142). Clinical counseling of DTC-GT consumers is not routine but it is also not uncommon; 40.1% of all respondents (n = 189) have seen at least one consumer in clinic for the sole purpose of reviewing DTC-GT results. The results of our study suggest that most respondents would be more accepting of DTC-GT if genetic counseling was a part of the process, but the majority of counselors do not feel comfortable providing this service.

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.

Genetic counseling following direct-to consumer genetic testing: Consumer perspectives

As the use and scope of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT), also becoming known as consumer-driven genetic testing, increases, consumers may seek genetic counseling to understand their results and determine healthcare implications. In this study, we interviewed individuals who sought genetic counseling after receiving DTC GT results to explore their motivations, expectations, and experiences. Participants were recruited from the Impact of Personal Genomics (PGen) Study, a longitudinal cohort study of DTC GT customers. We interviewed 15 participants (9 females, mean age = 38 years) by telephone and analyzed the double-coded transcripts using qualitative methods. Motivations for genetic counseling included family and personal health histories, concern and confusion about results, and information-seeking; of note, one-third of our interview participants had Ehlers-Danlos syndrome Type III (hypermobility type). Expectations of genetic counseling sessions were high. Participants generally saw DTC GT results as valid and potentially impactful for their healthcare, wanted more thorough explanations in "layman's terms," a pooling of their results with their family and personal health history and a "game plan." Several participants had already accessed online resources, including resources typically used by genetics clinicians. Our results point to several elements of a successful DTC GT genetic counseling session: 1) effective contracting when starting the clinic visit, especially determining motivations for genetic counseling, results that are concerning/confusing and resources already accessed; 2) ascertainment and management of expectations and clearly communicating if and why all results may not be reviewed; 3) explaining how DTC GT differs from clinical genetic testing and why additional testing may not be indicated and 4) listening to (not dismissing) patient concerns about their results. For those patients who seek genetic counseling about DTC GT results, the findings from our study can help inform case preparation and provision of genetic counseling.

Direct-to-consumer genomic testing: Are nurses prepared?

Genomic testing is increasingly common in the consumer marketplace. The role of nurses in educating and counseling patients requires them to be prepared to respond to questions about the results of direct-to-consumer genomic testing. This article describes one individual's reflections upon undergoing this testing, the challenges of interpreting the results, and nursing considerations for integrating these results into clinical practice.

Genetic testing for neurodegenerative diseases: Ethical and health communication challenges

Advances in genomic science are informing an expansion of genetic testing for neurodegenerative diseases, which can be used for diagnostic and predictive purposes and performed in both medical and consumer genomics settings. Such testing-which is often for severe and incurable conditions like Huntington's, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's diseases-raises important ethical and health communication challenges. This review addresses such challenges in the contexts of clinical, research, and direct-to-consumer genetic testing; these include informed consent, risk estimation and communication, potential benefits and psychosocial harms of genetic information (e.g., genetic discrimination), access to services, education and workforce needs, and health policies. The review also highlights future areas of likely growth in the field, including polygenic risk scores, use of genetic testing in clinical trials, and return of individual research results.

Coverage of pharmacogenetic tests by private health insurance companies

OBJECTIVE

To assess the coverage of clinically relevant pharmacogenetic tests by the top 41 private insurance companies in the United States.

DESIGN

Websites of insurance companies were searched for medical policies addressing 34 common and clinically relevant pharmacogenetic tests referenced by the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium, PharmGKB, and Food and Drug Administration product labeling. Those policies were subsequently reviewed for the coverage of the tests by gene-drug pair and by company. Policies were subsequently reviewed to determine coverage of pharmacogenetic tests by gene-drug indication group (GDIG) and an insurance company.

SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS

Not applicable.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Within unique policy sets, the following were analyzed: (1) the number of times each GDIG was mentioned; (2) the percentage of times each GDIG was mentioned; (3) when mentioned, the number of times each GDIG was covered; (4) when mentioned, the percentage of times each GDIG was covered; and (5) regardless of being mentioned, the percentage of times each GDIG was covered.

RESULTS

A total of 223 medical policies mentioning pharmacogenetic tests were retrieved, representing 34 unique policy sets from 41 companies. Thirty-three companies had their policies accessible on their website. Approximately 50% of GDIGs were unanimously mentioned in all policies but were covered only < 20% of the time. When mentioned in a policy, 7 GDIGs were uniformly covered, and 11 GDIGs were uniformly not covered. Overall, insurance companies covered approximately 40% of GDIGs mentioned in their policies.

CONCLUSION

The medical policies addressing recommended pharmacogenetic tests were not readily accessible on websites of the top private health insurance companies. The coverage and payments of the tests varied by the company and gene-drug pairs and remain suboptimal.

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

Health systems and physicians nationwide aspire to consistently and reliably apply genetic and genomic information to guide disease prevention, management, and treatment. However, clinical information, including genetics/genomics data from within and outside of the care delivery system, is expanding rapidly. Between November 2017 and April 2018, we surveyed 1502 Permanente Medical Group primary care and specialist physicians to assess the degree to which direct-to-consumer genetic test results were being presented to physicians and identify genetics educational needs among physicians (response rate 15%). Adjusted logistic regression (according to respondent characteristics) was used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing responses within groups. Results showed 35% and 12% of respondents reported receiving at least one direct-to-consumer health risk genetic result (DTC-health risk) or direct-to-consumer pharmacogenomic test result (DTC-PGx), respectively, from a patient in the past year. Of those receiving at least one test result, 40% (DTC-health risk) and 39% (DTC-PGx) of physicians reported 1+ referral(s); 78% (DTC-health risk) and 42% (DTC-PGx) of referrals were to clinical genetics. In total, 85% of physicians would spend ≥2 h/year on genetics/genomics education.

First Responder to Genomic Information: A Guide for Primary Care Providers

With rapid advances in genetics and genomics, the commercialization and access to new applications has become more widespread and omnipresent throughout biomedical research. Thus, increasingly, more patients will have personal genomic information they may share with primary care providers (PCPs) to better understand the clinical significance of the data. To be able to respond to patient inquiries about genomic data, variant interpretation, disease risk, and other issues, PCPs will need to be able to increase or refresh their awareness about genetics and genomics, and identify reliable resources to use or refer patients. While provider educational efforts have increased, with the rapid advances in the field, ongoing efforts will be needed to prepare PCPs to manage patient needs, integrate results into care, and refer as indicated.

Third-Party Genetic Interpretation Tools: A Mixed-Methods Study of Consumer Motivation and Behavior

In an effort to meet ethical obligations and/or participant expectations, researchers may consider offering "raw" or uninterpreted genetic data for result return. It is therefore important to understand the motivations, behaviors, and perspectives of individuals who might choose to access raw data before such return becomes routine. In the direct-to-consumer (DTC) context, where raw data are often made available to customers, the use of third-party interpretation tools has raised concerns about genotype accuracy, data privacy, reliability of interpretation, and consumption of limited health care resources. However, relatively little is known about why individuals access raw data or what they do with the information received from third-party interpretation. Accordingly, we conducted a survey on raw data access and third-party tool usage among 1,137 DTC customers recruited through social media. Most survey respondents (89%) reported downloading their raw data. Among downloaders, 94% used at least one tool, most commonly Promethease (63%) or GEDmatch (84%). More than half (56%) used both health-related and non-health-related tools and differed significantly from those who used only one tool type in terms of demographics, participation in research, DTC tests ordered, and testing motivations. Exploratory interviews were conducted with 10 respondents and illustrated how social networking, initial lack of interesting findings, and general curiosity contributed to use of multiple tool types. These results suggest that even when initially motivated by ancestry and genealogy, consumers frequently also pursue health information in a largely unregulated and expanding suite of third-party tools, raising both challenges and opportunities for the professional genetics community.

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.

False-positive results released by direct-to-consumer genetic tests highlight the importance of clinical confirmation testing for appropriate patient care

Purpose

There is increasing demand from the public for direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests, and the US Food and Drug Administration limits the type of health-related claims DTC tests can market. Some DTC companies provide raw genotyping data to customers if requested, and these raw data may include variants occurring in genes recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics to be reported as incidental/secondary findings. The purpose of this study was to review the outcome of requests for clinical confirmation of DTC results that were received by our laboratory and to analyze variant classification concordance.

Methods

We identified 49 patient samples received for further testing that had previously identified genetic variants reported in DTC raw data. For each case identified, information pertaining to the outcome of clinical confirmation testing as well as classification of the DTC variant was collected and analyzed.

Results

Our analyses indicated that 40% of variants in a variety of genes reported in DTC raw data were false positives. In addition, some variants designated with the “increased risk” classification in DTC raw data or by a third-party interpretation service were classified as benign at Ambry Genetics as well as several other clinical laboratories, and are noted to be common variants in publicly available population frequency databases.

Conclusion

Our results demonstrate the importance of confirming DTC raw data variants in a clinical laboratory that is well versed in both complex variant detection and classification.

Regulation of Internet-based Genetic Testing: Challenges for Australia and Other Jurisdictions

The Internet currently enables unprecedented ease of access for direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing, with saliva collection kits posted directly to consumer homes from anywhere in the world. This poses new challenges for local jurisdictions in regulating genetic testing, traditionally a tightly-regulated industry. Some Internet-based genetic tests have the capacity to cause significant confusion or harm to consumers who are unaware of the risks or potential variability in quality. The emergence of some online products of questionable content, unsupported by adequate scientific evidence, is a cause for concern. Proliferation of such products in the absence of regulation has the potential to damage public trust in accredited and established clinical genetic testing during a critical period of evidence generation for genomics. Here, we explore the challenges arising from the emergence of Internet-based DTC genetic testing. In particular, there are challenges in regulating unaccredited or potentially harmful Internet-based DTC genetic testing products. In Australia, challenges exist for the Therapeutic Goods Administration, which oversees regulation of the genetic testing sector. Concerns and challenges faced in Australia are likely to reflect those of other comparable non-US jurisdictions. Here, we summarize current Australian regulation, highlight concerns, and offer recommendations on how Australia and other comparable jurisdictions might be more proactive in addressing this emerging public health issue.

Consumer use and response to online third-party raw DNA interpretation services

BACKGROUND

With the availability of raw DNA generated from direct-to-consumer (DTC) testing companies, there has been a proliferation of third-party online services that are available to interpret the raw data for both genealogy and/or health purposes. This study examines the current landscape and downstream clinical implications of consumer use of third-party services.

METHODS

Study participants were recruited online from social media platforms. A total of 321 survey respondents reported using third-party services for raw DNA interpretation.

RESULTS

Participants were highly motivated to explore raw DNA for ancestral information (67%), individual health implications (62%), or both (40%). Participants primarily used one of seven companies to interpret raw DNA; 73% used more than one. Company choice was driven by the type of results offered (51%), price (45%), and online reviews (31%). Approximately 30% of participants shared results with a medical provider and 21% shared with more than one. Outcomes of sharing ranged from disinterest/discounting of the information to diagnosis of genetic conditions. Participants were highly satisfied with their decision to analyze raw DNA (M = 4.54/5), yet challenges in understanding interpretation results were reported irrespective of satisfaction ratings.

CONCLUSION

Consumers face challenges in understanding the results and may seek out clinical assistance in interpreting their raw DNA results.