Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing and Personal Genomics Services: A Review of Recent Empirical Studies

"Holy Cow, Where do I Sign up?" Attitudes of Military Veterans Toward Epigenomic Biomarker Toxic Exposure Testing

INTRODUCTION

After the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act in 2022, there has been a great interest in studying toxic exposures encountered during military service. Development of epigenomic biomarkers for exposures could facilitate understanding of exposure-related health effects, but such testing could also provide unwanted information.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We explored attitudes toward epigenomic biomarker research and the potential to test for past exposures using semistructured interviews with Veterans (n = 22) who experienced potentially harmful exposures.

RESULTS

Twenty Veterans said they would hypothetically want to receive epigenomic information related to their toxic exposures and potential health impacts as part of a research study. Veterans identified 9 potential benefits, including promoting insights concerning intergenerational health, identification of early health interventions, and additional knowledge or explanation for their experiences. Sixteen participants noted potential risks, including psychological distress, receiving nonactionable, uncertain, or inaccurate results, and privacy and discrimination risks. Ten participants identified at least 1 condition in their children that they thought could be related to their exposure and most said they would be interested in receiving research results related to their children's and grandchildren's risk.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that Veterans might welcome benefits of epigenomic research related to military exposures, yet have some concerns about potential negative impacts.

Test-takers' perspectives on consumer genetic testing for hereditary cancer risk

Purpose

With few exceptions, research on consumer genetic testing for hereditary cancer risk has focused on tests with limited predictive value and clinical utility. Our study advances the existing literature by exploring the experiences and behaviors of individuals who have taken modern consumer genetic tests for cancer susceptibility that, unlike earlier tests, screen for medically significant variants.

Methods

We interviewed 30 individuals who had undergone consumer genetic testing for hereditary cancer risk between 2014 and 2019. We explored participants' pre-test sentiments (7 items), experiences receiving results (5 items), behavioral and health-related changes (6 items), and attitudes and beliefs (3 items). Data were analyzed for thematic content.

Results

Most participants reported a personal (n = 6) and/or family history (n = 24) of cancer, which influenced their choice to pursue testing. Before testing, most participants did not consult with a physician (n = 25) or receive genetic counseling (n = 23). Nevertheless, the majority felt that they understood test-related information (n = 20) and their results (n = 20), though a considerable number reported experiencing negative emotions related to their results. Most also shared their results with family members (n = 27). Overall, participants' attitudes towards consumer genetic testing for cancer risk were predominantly positive (n = 23).

Conclusion

This study offers new insights into how individuals use and perceive modern consumer genetic tests for hereditary cancer risk, focusing on their perceptions of the risks, benefits, and limitations of these services. Understanding test-takers' perspectives can potentially inform improvements aimed at ensuring that tests meet users' needs and deliver clinically valuable genetic risk assessments.

"Holy cow, where do I sign up?" Attitudes of Military Veterans toward Epigenomic Biomarker Toxic Exposure Testing

Background

With the signing of the PACT Act in 2022, there is great interest and investment in studying toxic exposures encountered during military service. One way to address this is through the identification of epigenomic biomarkers associated with exposures. There is increasing evidence suggesting that exposure to toxic substances may result in alterations to DNA methylation and resultant gene expression. These epigenomic changes may lead to adverse health effects for exposed individuals and their offspring. While the development of epigenomic biomarkers for exposures could facilitate understanding of these exposure-related health effects, such testing could also provide unwanted information.

Objectives

Explore Veterans' attitudes toward epigenomic biomarker research and the potential to test for past exposures that could pose intergenerational risk.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews with Veterans (n=22) who experienced potentially harmful exposures during their military service.

Results

Twenty Veterans said they would hypothetically want to receive epigenomic information related to their toxic exposures and potential health impacts as part of a research study. Veterans identified nine potential benefits of this research, including promoting insights concerning intergenerational health, identification of early health interventions to mitigate the impact of exposures, and additional knowledge or explanation for their experiences. At the same time, 16 participants noted potential risks, including psychological distress in response to results, concerns about receiving non-actionable, uncertain, or inaccurate results, and issues related to privacy and discrimination. Ten participants also identified at least one condition in their children that they thought could be related to their exposure and most said they would be interested in receiving research results related to their children's and grandchildren's risk of developing a health condition associated with their exposure.

Discussion

Results suggest that Veterans might welcome benefits of epigenomic research related to military exposures yet have some concerns about potential negative impacts.

Clinical Strategies in Gene Screening Counseling for the Healthy General Population

The burgeoning interest in precision medicine has propelled an increase in the use of genome tests for screening purposes within the healthy population. Gene screening tests aim to pre-emptively identify those individuals who may be genetically predisposed to certain diseases. However, as genetic screening becomes more commonplace, it is essential to acknowledge the unique challenges it poses. A prevalent issue in this regard is the occurrence of falsepositive results, which can lead to unnecessary additional tests or treatments, and psychological distress. Additionally, the interpretation of genomic variants is based on current research evidence, and can accordingly change as new research findings emerge, potentially altering the clinical significance of these variants. Conversely, a further prominent concern regards false assurances in genetic testing, as genetic tests can yield false-negative results, potentially posing a significant clinical risk. Moreover, the results obtained for the same disease can vary among different genetic testing services, due to differences in the types of variants assessed, the scope of tests, analytical methods, and the algorithms used for predicting diseases. Consequently, whereas genetic testing holds significant promise for the future of medicine, it poses unique challenges. If conducted without a full understanding of its implications, genetic testing may fail to achieve its purpose potentially hindering effective health management. Therefore, to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the implications of genetic testing within the general population, sufficient discussion and careful consideration should be given to counseling based on gene test results.

People's interest in brain health testing: Findings from an international, online cross-sectional survey

Brain health entails mental wellbeing and cognitive health in the absence of brain disorders. The past decade has seen an explosion of tests, cognitive and biological, to predict various brain conditions, such as Alzheimer's Disease. In line with these current developments, we investigated people's willingness and reasons to-or not to-take a hypothetical brain health test to learn about risk of developing a brain disease, in a cross-sectional multilanguage online survey. The survey was part of the Global Brain Health Survey, open to the public from 4th June 2019 to 31st August 2020. Respondents were largely recruited via European brain councils and research organizations. 27,590 people responded aged 18 years or older and were predominantly women (71%), middle-aged or older (>40 years; 83%), and highly educated (69%). Responses were analyzed to explore the relationship between demographic variables and responses.

Results

We found high public interest in brain health testing: over 91% would definitely or probably take a brain health test and 86% would do so even if it gave information about a disease that cannot be treated or prevented. The main reason for taking a test was the ability to respond if one was found to be at risk of brain disease, such as changing lifestyle, seeking counseling or starting treatment. Higher interest in brain health testing was found in men, respondents with lower education levels and those with poor self-reported cognitive health.

Conclusion

High public interest in brain health and brain health testing in certain segments of society, coupled with an increase of commercial tests entering the market, is likely to put pressure on public health systems to inform the public about brain health testing in years to come.

Perspectives on Consumer and Clinical Genetic Testing Education among Medical Students in West Texas

There is a popular trend for genetic test companies to market genetic screenings to identify detrimental mutations directly to consumers. As a result, there has been an increase in the number of patients wanting to discuss the results of their personal genetic tests with their physician. In turn, the medical education community has recognized a need to provide medical staff and patients with resources to interpret and act on personal genetic data. Most medical students and residents lack the requisite knowledge to interpret and manage patient-provided individualized genetic testing. This has prompted a growing interest among medical students in learning more about genetic testing and how to counsel their patients on this information. Consequently, early educational exposure to clinical genetic testing and counseling would benefit medical education training programs. In this study, we examine the perceptions of medical students in West Texas with regard to clinical genetic testing.

Germline testing and genetic counselling in prostate cancer

Genetic testing for prostate cancer is rapidly growing and is increasingly being driven by precision medicine. Rates of germline pathogenic variants have been reported in up to 15% of men with prostate cancer, particularly in metastatic disease, and results of genetic testing could uncover options for precision therapy along with a spectrum of hereditary cancer-predisposition syndromes with unique clinical features that have complex management options. Thus, the pre-test discussion, whether delivered by genetic counsellors or by health-care professionals in hybrid models, involves information on hereditary cancer risk, extent of gene testing, purpose of testing, medical history and family history, potential types of results, additional cancer risks that might be uncovered, genetically based management and effect on families. Understanding precision medicine, personalized cancer risk management and syndrome-related cancer risk management is important in order to develop collaborative strategies with genetic counselling for optimal care of patients and their families.

In this Review, Russo and Giri describe and discuss germline testing criteria, genetic testing strategies, genetically informed screening, precision management, delivery of genetic counselling or alternative genetic services and special considerations for men with prostate cancer.

Germline (hereditary) genetic testing is rising in importance for treatment, screening and risk assessment of prostate cancer.

Multiple hereditary cancer syndromes might be associated with prostate cancer, might confer risk of other cancerous and non-cancerous conditions, and can have hereditary cancer implications for family members. The rates of these syndromes can vary based upon the attributed genetic mutations.

Multiple aspects of germline testing should be discussed in the pre-test setting for men to make an informed decision, including the purpose of genetic testing, the benefits and risks of testing, hereditary cancer risk, identification of additional cancer risks, familial implications and the state of genetic discrimination protections.

Genetic evaluation can be conducted by genetic counsellors or a hybrid model can be employed, in which health-care providers deliver pre-test informed consent for testing, order testing and then determine referral to genetic counselling for appropriate patients.

Precision medicine is increasingly driving decisions for germline testing. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors and various other agents now in clinical trials have clinical activity in patients with certain hereditary cancer gene mutations, such as in DNA repair genes.

Patients’ experiences with germline testing can be variable; taking the patient’s current experience into account, considering referral to genetic counselling when needed and offering germline testing for eligible men at repeated intervals if initially declined are important.

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.

A Web Screening on Training Initiatives in Cancer Genomics for Healthcare Professionals

The disruptive advances in genomics contributed to achieve higher levels of precision in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. This scientific advance entails the need for greater literacy for all healthcare professionals. Our study summarizes the training initiatives conducted worldwide in cancer genomics field for healthcare professionals. We conducted a web search of the training initiatives aimed at improving healthcare professionals’ literacy in cancer genomics undertaken worldwide by using two search engines (Google and Bing) in English language and conducted from 2003 to 2021. A total of 85,649 initiatives were identified. After the screening process, 36 items were included. The majority of training programs were organized in the United States (47%) and in the United Kingdom (28%). Most of the initiatives were conducted in the last five years (83%) by universities (30%) and as web-based modalities (80%). In front of the technological advances in genomics, education in cancer genomics remains fundamental. Our results may contribute to provide an update on the development of educational programs to build a skilled and appropriately trained genomics health workforce in the future.

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.

Why do people seek out polygenic risk scores for complex disorders, and how do they understand and react to results?

We sought to explore individuals' motivations for using their direct-to-consumer genetic testing data to generate polygenic risk scores (PRSs) using a not-for-profit third-party tool, and to assess understanding of, and reaction to their results. Using a cross-sectional design, users of Impute.me who had already accessed PRS results were invited to complete an online questionnaire asking about demographics, motivations for seeking PRSs, understanding and interpretation of PRSs, and two validated scales regarding reactions to results-the Impact of Event Scale Revised (IES-R) and the Feelings About genomiC Testing Results (FACToR). Independent samples T-tests and ANOVA were used to explore associations between the variables. 227 individuals participated in the study. The most frequently reported motivation was general curiosity (98.2%). Only 25.6% of participants correctly answered all questions assessing understanding/interpretation of PRSs. Over half of participants (60.8%) experienced a negative reaction (upset, anxious, and/or sad on FACToR scale) after receiving their PRSs and 5.3% scored over the threshold for potential post-traumatic stress disorder on the IES-R. Lower understanding about PRS was associated with experiencing a negative psychological reaction (P values <0.001). Higher quality pre-test information, particularly to improve understanding, and manage expectations for PRS may be useful in limiting negative psychological reactions.

Evaluating Web-Based Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests for Cancer Susceptibility

PURPOSE

Recent years have seen direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing for cancer susceptibility change dramatically. For one, a new model now dominates the market where tests are advertised to consumers but ordered by physicians. For another, many of today's tests are distinguished from earlier DTC offerings for cancer susceptibility by their scope and potential clinical significance. This review provides a comprehensive overview of available DTC genetic tests for cancer susceptibility and identifies aspects of the DTC testing process that could affect consumers' ability to make informed decisions about testing and understand their results.

METHODS

First, we provide an overview of each DTC genetic test for cancer susceptibility that includes information about cost; who orders it; whether variants of uncertain significance are returned; availability of genetic counseling; intended users; management of variant reclassifications; whether it is characterized as diagnostic, actionable, and clinically valid; molecular technique used; and Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments/College of American Pathologists status. Second, we identify six aspects of the testing process that could affect consumers' ability to make informed decisions about testing and interpret their results: How companies use certain terms (eg, medical grade or clinical grade); how companies use consumers' health information during the ordering process; the extent of genetic counseling provided by companies; companies' procedures for returning results; the role of company-provided ordering physicians; and companies' procedures for communicating variant reclassifications.

RESULTS

On the basis of our review of companies' Web sites, we believe that consumers would benefit from more information about these aspects of testing.

CONCLUSION

Providing this information would help consumers make informed decisions about whether to use a particular DTC genetic testing service and, should they choose to pursue testing, understand the implications and limitations of their results.

You can't keep a bad idea down: Dark history, death, and potential rebirth of eugenics

"Be careful what you wish for": This adage guides both how this project came to life, and how the topic covered in this review continues to unfold. What began as talks between two friends on shared interests in military history led to a 4-year discussion about how our science curriculum does little to introduce our students to societal and ethical impacts of the science they are taught. What emerged was a curricular idea centered on how "good intentions" of some were developed and twisted by others to result in disastrous consequences of state-sanctioned eugenics. In this article, we take the reader (as we did our students) through the long and soiled history of eugenic thought, from its genesis to the present. Though our focus is on European and American eugenics, we will show how the interfaces and interactions between science and society have evolved over time but have remained ever constant. Four critical 'case studies' will also be employed here for deep, thoughtful exploration on a particular eugenic issue. The goal of the review, as it is with our course, is not to paint humanity with a single evil brush. Instead, our ambition is to introduce our students/readers to the potential for harm through the misapplication and misappropriation of science and scientific technology, and to provide them with the tools to ask the appropriate questions of their scientists, physicians, and politicians.

Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing in Korea: Current Status and Significance in Clinical Nutrition

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) provides a means for consumers to gain insights into their genetic background and how it relates to their health without the involvement of medical institutions. In Korea, DTC-GT was introduced in 2016 in accordance with the legislation on Paragraph (3) 2 of Article 50 of the Bioethics and Safety Act. Only 12 genetic test items involving 46 genes were approved at first, but the approved items were expanded to 70 in November 2020. However, the genetic test items of DTC-GT services in Korea are still restricted to the wellness area, and access to disease risk related information is only permitted to medical institutions. Further, studies revealing the relationship between genotype differences and responses to nutrients, food components, or nutritional status are increasing, and this association appears to be robust for some genes. This strong association between genetic variations and nutrition suggests that DTC-GT can be used as an important tool by clinical nutritionists to gain insights into an individual's genetic susceptibilities and provide guidance on nutritional counseling and meal planning based on the patient's genetic information. This review summarized the history and current status of DTC-GT and investigated the relationship between genetic variations with associated phenotypic traits to clarify further the importance of DTC-GT in the field of clinical nutrition.

Influence of payer coverage and out-of-pocket costs on ordering of NGS panel tests for hereditary cancer in diverse settings

The landscape of payment for genetic testing has been changing, with an increase in the number of laboratories offering testing, larger panel offerings, and lower prices. To determine the influence of payer coverage and out-of-pocket costs on the ordering of NGS panel tests for hereditary cancer in diverse settings, we conducted semi-structured interviews with providers who conduct genetic counseling and order next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels purposefully recruited from 11 safety-net clinics and academic medical centers (AMCs) in California and North Carolina, states with diverse populations and divergent Medicaid expansion policies. Thematic analysis was done to identify themes related to the impact of reimbursement and out-of-pocket expenses on test ordering. Specific focus was put on differences between settings. Respondents from both safety-net clinics and AMCs reported that they are increasingly ordering panels instead of single-gene tests, and tests were ordered primarily from a few commercial laboratories. Surprisingly, safety-net clinics reported few barriers to testing related to cost, largely due to laboratory assistance with prior authorization requests and patient payment assistance programs that result in little to no patient out-of-pocket expenses. AMCs reported greater challenges navigating insurance issues, particularly prior authorization. Both groups cited non-coverage of genetic counseling as a major barrier to testing. Difficulty of access to cascade testing, particularly for family members that do not live in the United States, was also of concern. Long-term sustainability of laboratory payment assistance programs was a major concern; safety-net clinics were particularly concerned about access to testing without such programs. There were few differences between states. In conclusion, the use of laboratories with payment assistance programs reduces barriers to NGS panel testing among diverse populations. Such programs represent a major change to the financing and affordability of genetic testing. However, access to genetic counseling is a barrier and must be addressed to ensure equity in 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.

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.

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.

Attitude toward personal genomics: A nation-wide survey of public and professionals in Pakistan

With the emergence of modern genetic testing and profiling techniques, it has become imperative to assess the general public awareness and attitudes toward such developments. The public's perspective and possible responses are necessary for planning commercial, legal, medical, or healthcare initiatives. The purpose of this study was to assess the perception of the general public and professionals about the personal genome testing and genetic profiling. A questionnaire-based survey was conducted to investigate the attitudes of 2954 adults (56.4% male and 43.6% female) from more than 120 different educational, research, and professional organizations of Pakistan. The aim of the study was to assess interest in genomic testing. The findings of this survey will feed into the larger Genome Projects in Pakistan and will be helpful for the national bioethical committee, healthcare agencies, diagnostic companies, and other institutions for making policy decisions.

Mainstreaming genomics: training experience of hospital medical officers at the Royal Melbourne Hospital

The rapid evolution and wide applicability of genomic testing means that medical practitioners outside the field are not appropriately skilled to understand the utility of genomics for their patients. Rotating junior doctors through genomic medicine provides them with the hands-on experience necessary to understand the complexities in this field. In this study, we analysed the training experience of 12 hospital medical officers who rotated through genomic medicine at the Royal Melbourne Hospital. Here, we demonstrate that immersion in clinical genomics aids in mainstreaming genomics knowledge.

What is creating the height premium? New evidence from a Mendelian randomization analysis in China

This study uses a Mendelian randomization approach to resolve the difficulties of identifying the causal relationship between height and earnings by using a unique sample of 3,427 respondents from mainland China with sociodemographic information linked to individual genotyping data. Exploiting genetic variations to create instrumental variables for observed height, we find that while OLS regressions yield that an additional centimeter in height is associated with a 10–13% increase in one’s annual earnings, IV estimates reveal only an insubstantial causal effect of height. Further analyses suggest that the observed height premium is likely to pick up the impacts of several cognitive/noncognitive skills on earnings confounded in previous studies, such as mental health, risk preference, and personality factors. Our study is the first empirical study that employs genetic IVs in developing countries, and our results contribute to the recent debate on the mechanism of height premium.

'It's much more grey than black and white': clinical geneticists' views on the oversight of consumer genomics in Europe

Aim: Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests (GT) have created controversy regarding their risks and benefits. In view of recent regulatory developments, this article aims to explore the attitudes of European clinical geneticists toward the oversight of DTC GT. Materials & methods: Fifteen semi-structured interviews were performed with clinical geneticists based in ten European countries. The transcripts were thematically analysized in an iterative process. Results & conclusion: Respondents strongly supported quality standards for DTC GT equal to those applied within the healthcare setting. Despite participants unanimously considering the involvement of healthcare professionals to be important, mandatory medical supervision was controversial. In this regard, promoting education and truth-in-advertising was considered as being key in maintaining a balance between protecting consumers and promoting their autonomy.

Public Attitudes Toward Direct to Consumer Genetic Testing

Direct to consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) is an emerging service that allows individuals to have their DNA tested without having to consult a healthcare provider. DTC-GT can provide insight into various aspects about an individual, including their health and ancestry. However, testing may pose privacy risks and yield distressing results. Despite the growing popularity of DTC-GT, public attitudes toward such services remain largely ill-defined. Using Amazon Mechanical Turk, we administered a web-based survey to over 1,000 individuals to obtain intuition into public attitudes about DTC-GT. S urvey questions were grounded in a literature review of people's views about DTC-GT. The results of the survey indicated that respondents were interested in DTC-GT as a possible way to gain insight about health, ancestry, and family relationships, as well as advance research. Despite this, respondents were concerned that DTC-GT companies and other users of their DTC-GT data would infringe upon their privacy.

The Genetics of Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms and Dissection: A Clinical Perspective

Thoracic aortic aneurysm and dissection (TAAD) affects many patients globally and has high mortality rates if undetected. Once thought to be solely a degenerative disease that afflicted the aorta due to high pressure and biomechanical stress, extensive investigation of the heritability and natural history of TAAD has shown a clear genetic basis for the disease. Here, we review both the cellular mechanisms and clinical manifestations of syndromic and non-syndromic TAAD. We particularly focus on genes that have been linked to dissection at diameters <5.0 cm, the current lower bound for surgical intervention. Genetic screening tests to identify patients with TAAD associated mutations that place them at high risk for dissection are also discussed.

Genomics Education in the Era of Personal Genomics: Academic, Professional, and Public Considerations

Since the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003, genomic sequencing has become a prominent tool used by diverse disciplines in modern science. In the past 20 years, the cost of genomic sequencing has decreased exponentially, making it affordable and accessible. Bioinformatic and biological studies have produced significant scientific breakthroughs using the wealth of genomic information now available. Alongside the scientific benefit of genomics, companies offer direct-to-consumer genetic testing which provide health, trait, and ancestry information to the public. A key area that must be addressed is education about what conclusions can be made from this genomic information and integrating genomic education with foundational genetic principles already taught in academic settings. The promise of personal genomics providing disease treatment is exciting, but many challenges remain to validate genomic predictions and diagnostic correlations. Ethical and societal concerns must also be addressed regarding how personal genomic information is used. This genomics revolution provides a powerful opportunity to educate students, clinicians, and the public on scientific and ethical issues in a personal way to increase learning. In this review, we discuss the influence of personal genomics in society and focus on the importance and benefits of genomics education in the classroom, clinics, and the public and explore the potential consequences of personal genomic education.

From Expectations to Experiences: Consumer Autonomy and Choice in Personal Genomic Testing

Background: Personal genomic testing (PGT) offers individuals genetic information about relationships, wellness, sporting ability, and health. PGT is increasingly accessible online, including in emerging markets such as Australia. Little is known about what consumers expect from these tests and whether their reflections on testing resonate with bioethics concepts such as autonomy.Methods: We report findings from focus groups and semi-structured interviews that explored attitudes to and experiences of PGT. Focus group participants had little experience with PGT, while interview participants had undergone testing. Recordings were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis. Findings were critically interpreted with reference to bioethics scholarship on autonomy.Results: Fifty-six members of the public participated in seven focus groups, and 40 individuals were interviewed separately. Both groups valued the choice of PGT, and believed that it could motivate relevant actions. Focus group themes centered on the perceived value of choices, knowledge enabling action and knowledge about the self. Interview themes suggest that participants reflexively engage with their PGT information to make meaning, and that some appreciate its shortcomings. Critical interpretation of findings shows that while consumers of PGT are able to exercise a degree of autonomy in choosing, they may not be able to achieve a substantive conceptualization of autonomy, one that promotes alignment with higher-order desires.Conclusions: PGT consumers can critically reason about testing. However, they may uncritically accept test results, may not appreciate drawbacks of increased choice, or may overestimate the potential for information to motivate behavioral change. While consumers appear to be capable of substantive autonomy, they do so without ongoing support from companies. PGT companies promote a problematic ("default") account of autonomy, reliant on empowerment rhetoric. This leaves consumers vulnerable to making decisions inconsistent with their higher-order desires. As PGT expands, claims about its power and value need to be carefully drawn.

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.

Assessing the Psychological Impact of Genetic Susceptibility Testing

The expanded use of genetic testing raises key ethical and policy questions about possible benefits and harms for those receiving disease-risk information. As predictive testing for Huntington's was initiated in a clinical setting, survey research posing hypothetical test scenarios suggested that the vast majority of at-risk relatives wanted to know whether they carried a disease-causing mutation. However, only a small minority ultimately availed themselves of this opportunity. Many at-risk individuals concluded that a positive test result would be too psychologically overwhelming. A substantial literature suggests that individuals are often more resilient than anticipated in coping with many different health-related stresses. Much of my own work in the field has been through the Risk Evaluation & Education for Alzheimer's Disease study (REVEAL), a series of randomized clinical trials assessing the impact of genetic susceptibility testing on asymptomatic individuals at risk for Alzheimer's disease. Our experience in developing and implementing four successive, multisite trials provides some potentially useful lessons for the field. More people will be asking for their personal genetic information. Better understanding will help us decide when access is appropriate and how best to disclose results in a manner that supports adjustment to test findings and promotes use of genetic information to improve human health.

Australians' views and experience of personal genomic testing: survey findings from the Genioz study

Personal genomic tests (PGTs) for multiple purposes are marketed to ostensibly healthy people in Australia. These tests are generally marketed and purchased online commercially or can be ordered through a health professional. There has been minimal engagement with Australians about their interest in and experience with ordering a PGT. As part of a multistage, interdisciplinary project, an online survey (Stage 2 of the Genioz study) was available from May 2016 to May 2017. In total, 3253 respondents attempted the survey, with 2395 completed Australian responses from people with and without experience of having a PGT: 72% were female; 59% of the whole sample were undertaking/or had a university education; and, overall, age ranged from 18—over 80. A total of 571 respondents reported having had a genetic test, 373 of these classifiable as a PGT. A bivariate analysis suggests people who have undergone PGT in our sample were: women aged 25 and over; or in a high socioeconomic group, or have a personal or family diagnosis of a genetic condition (P ≤ 0.03). After a multivariate analysis, socioeconomic status and a genetic condition in the family were not of significance. The most common types of PGT reported were for carrier status and ancestry. Findings suggest greater awareness of, and an increasing demand for non-health related PGT in Australia. To support both consumers and health care professionals with understanding PGT results, there is a need for appropriate support and resources.

Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: Finding a Clear Path Forward

Regulatory compliance in the direct-to-consumer genetic testing market is highly sophisticated as there are numerous federal, state, and ethical barriers to entry. In 2010, amid an underregulated market, 23andMe sought to do what few companies in the medical industry had attempted before-disregard the guidance and requests of the US Food and Drug Administration. This regulatory strategy effectively destined the company's Personal Genome Service for failure; however, the company changed course and has been granted several regulatory clearances. This exemplifies the importance of a healthy relationship with regulatory agencies, although challenges remain. The DTC industry continues to have a perplexing regulatory framework at both the federal and state level. There are also ethical concerns with the monetization of deidentified genetic health information, as genetic data have an inherent level of identifiability and are not fully protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule in these scenarios. Although some DTC tests are now cleared in the United States, the concern that a learned intermediary is needed for interpretation of results remains. The regulatory oversight of this market will need to continue to develop to ensure the protection of consumer health and privacy.

Australians' views on personal genomic testing: focus group findings from the Genioz study

Personal genomic testing provides healthy individuals with access to information about their genetic makeup for purposes including ancestry, paternity, sporting ability and health. Such tests are available commercially and globally, with accessibility expected to continue to grow, including in Australia; yet little is known of the views/expectations of Australians. Focus groups were conducted within a multi-stage, cross-disciplinary project (Genioz) to explore this. In mid-2015, 56 members of the public participated in seven focus groups, allocated into three age groups: 18–24, 25–49, and ≥50 years. Three researchers coded transcripts independently and generated themes. Awareness of personal genomic testing was low, but most could deduce what “personal genomics” might entail. Very few had heard of the term “direct-to-consumer” testing, which has implications for organisations developing information to support individuals in their decision-making. Participants’ understanding of genetics was varied and drawn from several sources. There were diverse perceptions of the relative influence of genetics and environment on health, mental health, behavior, talent, or personality. Views about having a personal genomic test were mixed, with greater interest in health-related tests if they believed there was a reason for doing so. However, many expressed scepticisms about the types of tests available, and how the information might be used; concerns were also raised about privacy and the potential for discrimination. These exploratory findings inform subsequent stages of the Genioz study, thereby contributing to strategies of supporting Australians to understand and make meaningful and well-considered decisions about the benefits, harms, and implications of personal genomic tests.

Stages of behavioural change after direct-to-consumer disease risk profiling: study protocol of two integrated controlled pragmatic trials

Background

The incidence and prevalence of chronic diseases have reached epidemic proportions during the last decades and are not expected to diminish. Chronic diseases increasingly affect younger individuals too, with over 40% of all deaths due to non-communicable diseases occurring before the age of 70. This has led to the development of information services aimed at preventive health care, such as Health Potential®. This counselling service estimates a personal disease risk of a carefully selected list of preventable common chronic diseases that have both a genetic and a lifestyle component of development. The results are delivered face-to-face by a lifestyle counsellor, simultaneously stimulating initial steps towards behaviour change. This information can assist in lifestyle decision-making.

Methods/design

The primary aim is to study the effect of the Health Potential® service on change in lifestyle behaviour in distinguishable customer populations. The secondary aims are (1) to study the effect of the Health Potential® service on determinants of behaviour change, (2) to study the effect of additional lifestyle counselling on behaviour change and determinants thereof, and (3) to describe the characteristics of the Health Potential® customer. The study consists of two integrated designs: (A) a two-armed non-randomised controlled pre-test/post-test trial (1.5:1 ratio), followed by (B) a two-armed randomised controlled pre-test/post-test trial (1:1 ratio), resulting in three study arms. Participants are clients of local prevention clinics, purchasing a personalised health check (PHC; intervention condition), consisting of Health Potential® and a general health check, or the general health check alone (GHC; control condition) (part A). PHC participants will be randomised to receive four additional lifestyle counselling sessions over a period of 3 months (part B).

Discussion

This research can provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of and possible ways forward in the field of personalised prevention making use of lifestyle interventions enriched with modern genetic advancements.

Trial registration

Nederlands Trial Register, NTR6289 and NTR6288. Registered on 24 February 2017.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2630-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Impact of Genetic Variants on the Individual Potential for Body Fat Loss

The past decade has witnessed the discovery of obesity-related genetic variants and their functions through genome-wide association studies. Combinations of risk alleles can influence obesity phenotypes with different degrees of effectiveness across various individuals by interacting with environmental factors. We examined the interaction between genetic variation and changes in dietary habits or exercise that influences body fat loss from a large Korean cohort (n = 8840). Out of 673 obesity-related SNPs, a total of 100 SNPs (37 for carbohydrate intake; 19 for fat intake; 44 for total calories intake; 25 for exercise onset) identified to have gene-environment interaction effect in generalized linear model were used to calculate genetic risk scores (GRS). Based on the GRS distribution, we divided the population into four levels, namely, “very insensitive”, “insensitive”, “sensitive”, and “very sensitive” for each of the four categories, “carbohydrate intake”, “fat intake”, “total calories intake”, and “exercise”. Overall, the mean body fat loss became larger when the sensitivity level was increased. In conclusion, genetic variants influence the effectiveness of dietary regimes for body fat loss. Based on our findings, we suggest a platform for personalized body fat management by providing the most suitable and effective nutrition or activity plan specific to an individual.

Population-Wide Genetic Risk Prediction of Complex Diseases: A Pilot Feasibility Study in Macau Population for Precision Public Healthcare Planning

The genetic bases of many common diseases have been identified through genome-wide association studies in the past decade. However, the application of this approach on public healthcare planning has not been well established. Using Macau with population of around 650,000 as a basis, we conducted a pilot study to evaluate the feasibility of population genomic research and its potential on public health decisions. By performing genome-wide SNP genotyping of over a thousand Macau individuals, we evaluated the population genetic risk profiles of 47 non-communicable diseases and traits, as well as two traits associated with influenza infection. We found that for most of the diseases, the genetic risks of Macau population were different from those of Caucasian, but with similar profile with mainland Chinese. We also identified a panel of diseases that Macau population may have a high or elevated genetic risks. This pilot study showed that (1) population genomic study is feasible in Asian regions like Macau; (2) Macau may have different profile of population-based genetic risks than Caucasians, (3) the different prevalence of genetic risk profile indicates the importance of Asian-specific studies for Asian populations; and (4) the results generated may have an impact for going forward healthcare planning.

Communication of cancer-related genetic and genomic information: A landscape analysis of reviews

Cancer-related genetic and genomic testing (CGT) is changing cancer care by personalizing care options, leading to an era of precision medicine. Advances in and increased use of CGT add complexity to clinical communication. This landscape analysis assessed published reviews of communication issues related to CGT and discusses implications for practice and behavioral research. A comprehensive electronic literature search was conducted of peer-reviewed literature reviews on studies related to CGT communication published between January 2010 and January 2017, resulting in a final sample of 24 reviews. Reviews were categorized, with overlaps, into four domains across the genetic testing communication continuum. Reviews on CGT-related knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions (n = 8) found that despite substantial public interest, their knowledge and awareness remains low. Providers also reported insufficient knowledge and overall caution, particularly regarding direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing. Reviews of decision-making about CGT and test uptake (n = 8) identified individual, interpersonal, and systems-level barriers to uptake. Reviews of patient-provider CGT communication (n = 8) revealed limited communication and little empirical research on outcomes of communication or efforts at improving clinical and family communication. There were mixed findings in reviews (n = 15) on the psychological and behavioral impact of CGT, and DTC testing particularly had little effect on behaviors. Taken together, there is very little extant research in CGT in minority and underserved communities. In order for scientific advances in CGT to translate into equitable, patient-centered care, behavioral research, including health literacy and communication, plays critical roles.

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.

Ethical issues in neurogenetics

Many neurogenetic conditions are inherited and therefore diagnosis of a patient will have implications for the patient's relatives and can raise ethical issues. Predictive genetic testing offers asymptomatic relatives the opportunity to determine their risk status for a neurogenetic condition, and professional guidelines emphasize patients' autonomy and informed, voluntary decision making. Beneficence and nonmaleficence both need to be considered when making decisions about disclosure and nondisclosure of genetic information and test results. There can be disclosure concerns and challenges in determining whose autonomy to prioritize when a patient makes a genetic testing decision that can reveal the genetic status of a relative (e.g., testing an adult child when the at-risk parent has not been tested). Ethical issues are prominent when genetic testing for neurogenetic conditions is requested prenatally, on minors, adoptees, adult children at 25% risk, and for individuals with psychiatric issues or cognitive impairment. Neurogenetic conditions can result in cognitive decline which can affect decisional capacity and lead to ethical challenges with decision making, informed consent, and determining the patient's ability to comprehend test results. The ethical implications of genetic testing and emerging issues, including direct-to-consumer genetic testing, disclosure of secondary findings from genomic sequencing, and use of apolipoprotein E testing in clinical and research settings, are also discussed. Resources for information about genetic testing practice guidelines, insurance laws, and directories of genetics clinics are included.

Predictors of adverse psychological experiences surrounding genome-wide profiling for disease risk

This study aimed to identify predictors of adverse psychological experiences among direct-to-consumer (DTC) genomic test consumers. We performed a secondary analysis on data from the Scripps Genomic Health Initiative (SGHI), which studied 2037 individuals tested with commercially available tests yielding personalized risk estimates for 23 common, genetically complex diseases. As part of the original study, the participants completed baseline and follow-up survey measures assessing demographics, personal and family health history, attitudes toward genetic testing, anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)), test-related distress (Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R)), and reactions to receipt of results. To further describe the participants who had an adverse psychological outcome, this secondary analysis defined two different variables ("distress response" and "psychologically sensitive participants") and examined their relationship to various demographic variables and other survey responses. One hundred thirty participants (6.4%) were defined as having a "distress response" to receipt of results based on changes in STAI and/or IES. Four hundred thirty-one participants (21.2%) were defined as being "psychologically sensitive" based on high STAI scores both pre- and post-receipt of results. For psychologically sensitive subjects, younger age emerged as a predictor (p < 0.0005). Family history and personal history were only significant predictors for Alzheimer's disease in the psychologically sensitive participants (p = .03) and restless leg syndrome in those with a distress response (p = .03). Psychologically sensitive participants were more likely to indicate a number of pre-test concerns than were controls, but neither group of participants were any more likely to follow up with their physician or a free genetic counseling service after the return of results.

Current ethical and legal issues in health-related direct-to-consumer genetic testing

A variety of health-related genetic testing is currently advertized directly to consumers. This article provides a timely overview of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT) and salient ethical issues, as well as an analysis of the impact of the recently adopted regulation on in vitro diagnostic medical devices on DTC GT. DTC GT companies currently employ new testing approaches, report on a wide spectrum of conditions and target new groups of consumers. Such activities raise ethical issues including the questionable analytic and clinical validity of tests, the adequacy of informed consent, potentially misleading advertizing, testing in children, research uses and commercialization of genomic data. The recently adopted regulation on in vitro diagnostic medical devices may limit the offers of predisposition DTC GT in the EU market.