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

The implementation of large-scale genomic screening or diagnostic programmes: A rapid evidence review

Genomic healthcare programmes, both in a research and clinical context, have demonstrated a pivotal opportunity to prevent, diagnose, and treat rare diseases. However, implementation factors could increase overall costs and affect uptake. As well, uncertainties remain regarding effective training, guidelines and legislation. The purpose of this rapid evidence review was to draw together the available global evidence on the implementation of genomic testing programmes, particularly on population-based screening and diagnostic programmes implemented at the national level, to understand the range of factors influencing implementation. This review involved a search of terms related to genomics, implementation and health care. The search was limited to peer-reviewed articles published between 2017-2022 and found in five databases. The review included thirty articles drawing on sixteen countries. A wide range of factors was cited as critical to the successful implementation of genomics programmes. These included having policy frameworks, regulations, guidelines; clinical decision support tools; access to genetic counselling; and education and training for healthcare staff. The high costs of implementing and integrating genomics into healthcare were also often barriers to stakeholders. National genomics programmes are complex and require the generation of evidence and addressing implementation challenges. The findings from this review highlight that there is a strong emphasis on addressing genomic education and engagement among varied stakeholders, including the general public, policymakers, and governments. Articles also emphasised the development of appropriate policies and regulatory frameworks to govern genomic healthcare, with a focus on legislation that regulates the collection, storage, and sharing of personal genomic data.

How does the genomic naive public perceive whole genomic testing for health purposes? A scoping review

The benefits of genomic testing are primarily reported in rare disease, cancer diagnosis and disease management. However, as research into its application in common, more complex conditions grows, as well as the increased prevalence of carrier screening programs, the genomic naive public is more likely to be offered testing in future. To promote social acceptability and ethical application of this technology, it is essential that public perceptions of genomics are considered. Previous studies, however, have primarily focussed on the views of those with genetic conditions or those undergoing genetic testing. The aim of this scoping review is to investigate the genomic naive public's perceptions of clinical genomics and clinical genomic testing. Embase, MEDLINE and PubMed databases were searched, with a total of 3460 articles identified. Data analysis was organised according to the nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) framework. Sixteen full-text articles were included in the final analysis. Most of the studies used questionnaires to determine attitudes of the public toward clinical genomics (n = 12). Public perceptions were found to underpin technology (Domain 2), value proposition (Domain 3), the adopter system (Domain 4) and the wider context (Domain 6) of the NASSS framework, highlighting its importance when considering implementation of an innovative technology such as genomic testing. Our study shows public perceptions are diverse, and highlights the need for more studies on the views of underrepresented groups and the impact of cultural contexts on perceptions.

Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing in South Africa: Stumbling Over the First Legal Hurdle?

Despite the growing popularity of direct-to-consumer genetic testing, there is minimal South African literature on the topic. The limited available research suggests that direct-to-consumer genetic testing is unregulated. However, we suggest that direct-to-consumer genetic testing is indeed regulated, and unusually so. The first step in the process - the collection of a saliva sample by consumers themselves - is unlawful on a plain reading of the National Health Act 61 of 2003 and the Regulations Relating to the Use of Human Biological Material. This is because these statutes require that certain healthcare professionals must remove saliva for genetic testing. Yet, on closer analysis, such an apparent ban on the self-collection of saliva is neither aligned with a purposive interpretation of the relevant legislation, nor would it survive constitutional scrutiny - as it impedes an individual's autonomy. It is concluded that, contrary to a plain reading of the relevant statutes, individuals can lawfully collect their own saliva for direct-to-consumer genetic testing. To provide legal clarity we recommend that the relevant provisions of the National Health Act 61 of 2003 and Regulations Relating to the Use of Human Biological the Material be amended to allow individuals to collect their own saliva samples.

Impute.me: An Open-Source, Non-profit Tool for Using Data From Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing to Calculate and Interpret Polygenic Risk Scores

To date, interpretation of genomic information has focused on single variants conferring disease risk, but most disorders of major public concern have a polygenic architecture. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) give a single measure of disease liability by summarizing disease risk across hundreds of thousands of genetic variants. They can be calculated in any genome-wide genotype data-source, using a prediction model based on genome-wide summary statistics from external studies. As genome-wide association studies increase in power, the predictive ability for disease risk will also increase. Although PRSs are unlikely ever to be fully diagnostic, they may give valuable medical information for risk stratification, prognosis, or treatment response prediction. Public engagement is therefore becoming important on the potential use and acceptability of PRSs. However, the current public perception of genetics is that it provides "yes/no" answers about the presence/absence of a condition, or the potential for developing a condition, which in not the case for common, complex disorders with polygenic architecture. Meanwhile, unregulated third-party applications are being developed to satisfy consumer demand for information on the impact of lower-risk variants on common diseases that are highly polygenic. Often, applications report results from single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and disregard effect size, which is highly inappropriate for common, complex disorders where everybody carries risk variants. Tools are therefore needed to communicate our understanding of genetic vulnerability as a continuous trait, where a genetic liability confers risk for disease. Impute.me is one such tool, whose focus is on education and information on common, complex disorders with polygenetic architecture. Its research-focused open-source website allows users to upload consumer genetics data to obtain PRSs, with results reported on a population-level normal distribution. Diseases can only be browsed by International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) chapter-location or alphabetically, thus prompting the user to consider genetic risk scores in a medical context of relevance to the individual. Here, we present an overview of the implementation of the impute.me site, along with analysis of typical usage patterns, which may advance public perception of genomic risk and precision medicine.

S. Dawkins H, Nowak KJ, Weeramanthri TS. Genomic Testing for Human Health and Disease Across the Life Cycle: Applications and Ethical, Legal, and Social Challenges

The expanding use of genomic technologies encompasses all phases of life, from the embryo to the elderly, and even the posthumous phase. In this paper, we present the spectrum of genomic healthcare applications, and describe their scope and challenges at different stages of the life cycle. The integration of genomic technology into healthcare presents unique ethical issues that challenge traditional aspects of healthcare delivery. These challenges include the different definitions of utility as applied to genomic information; the particular characteristics of genetic data that influence how it might be protected, used and shared; and the difficulties applying existing models of informed consent, and how new consent models might be needed.

Genetics, Insurance and Professional Practice: Survey of the Australasian Clinical Genetics Workforce

In Australia and New Zealand, by contrast with much of the developed world, insurance companies can use genetic test results to refuse cover or increase premiums for mutually-rated insurance products, including life, income protection and disability insurance. Genetics professionals regularly discuss insurance implications with clients and report the issue as a clinical challenge, yet no studies have examined clinical practices or opinions. This study surveyed genetic counsellors and clinical geneticists from Australia and New Zealand to (i) investigate variability in professional practice across the Australasian clinical genetic workforce relating to the insurance implications of genetic testing, and (ii) ascertain views regarding current regulation of the issue. There was considerable variability in training and clinical policies, especially around the communication of insurance implications. Almost half of participants reported receiving no training on the insurance implications of genetic testing, and almost 40% were unsure whether they could adequately advise clients. A number of deficits in professional knowledge and understanding of the issue were identified. Widespread concerns regarding regulation of this area were reported, with < 10% of Australian participants considering current Australian regulations as adequate to protect clients from genetic discrimination. The findings from this study highlight scope for greater education, consistency and professional training on the issue of genetics and insurance in Australasia, and strong agreement about the need for regulatory reform.