Personal Genomic Testing Research Articles

Knowledge and attitude of general pratictioners towards direct-to-consumer genomic tests: a survey conducted in Italy


 Background: Personal genomic tests (PGT) offered directly-to-consumers (DTC) for complex disease risk assessment have raised several concerns regarding their potential adverse impact. To mitigate worries continuing professional education has been advocated and the central gatekeeper role of family physicians has been highlighted. Nevertheless, to date, only few studies have been published on awareness, involvement and attitudes of primary healthcare providers on DTC marketing of PGT and, to the best of our knowledge, none in Italy.
 Methods: An exploratory survey to achieve information about knowledge and attitudes towards DTC-PGT of a selected group of family physicians participating to courses on predictive medicine and public health genomics was conducted.
 
 Results: A total amount of 114 partially or fully filled questionnaires was obtained. The majority of the primary care providers (68,4%) expressed that they are unaware that companies are selling genomic tests directly to consumers, while 31,6% was aware. In terms of attitudes toward testing 61,1% of the aware respondents deemed the DTC-PGT for chronic complex diseases to be ‘‘not clinically useful.’’ The overwhelming majority of our respondents (95,6%) felt unprepared to answer patients’ questions on DTC-PGT. If only aware respondents are considered this percentage results obviously lower (86,1%), though still very high.
 
 Conclusion: The low percentage of aware respondents suggests that DTC advertising in the realm of genomic testing is still limited in Italy. Should DTC-PGT become more widely used, a comprehensive education program may be necessary to increase family physicians’ awareness and help them discuss testing with their patients. 

Efficacy of personal pharmacogenomic testing as an educational tool in the pharmacy curriculum: A nonblinded, randomized controlled trial

Personal genomic educational testing (PGET) has been suggested as a strategy to improve student learning for pharmacogenomics (PGx), but no randomized studies have evaluated PGET’s educational benefit. We investigated the effect of PGET on student knowledge, comfort, and attitudes related to PGx in a nonblinded, randomized controlled trial. Consenting participants were randomized to receive PGET or no PGET (NPGET) during 4 subsequent years of a PGx course. All participants completed a pre‐survey and post‐survey designed to assess (1) PGx knowledge, (2) comfort with PGx patient education and clinical skills, and (3) attitudes toward PGx. Instructors were blinded to PGET assignment. The Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was used to compare pre‐survey and post‐survey PGx knowledge, comfort, and attitudes. No differences in baseline characteristics were observed between PGET (n = 117) and NPGET (n = 116) participants. Among all participants, significant improvement was observed in PGx knowledge (mean 57% vs. 39% correct responses; p < 0.001) with similar results for student comfort and attitudes. Change in pre/post‐PGx knowledge, comfort, and attitudes were not significantly different between PGET and NPGET groups (mean 19.5% vs. 16.7% knowledge improvement, respectively; p = 0.41). Similar results were observed for PGET participants carrying a highly actionable PGx variant versus PGET participants without an actionable variant. Significant improvement in Likert scale responses were observed in PGET versus NPGET for questions that assessed student engagement (p = 0.020) and reinforcement of course concepts (p = 0.006). Although some evidence of improved engagement and participation was observed, the results of this study suggest that PGET does not directly improve student PGx knowledge, comfort, and attitudes.

Perception of personalized medicine, pharmacogenomics, and genetic testing among undergraduates in Hong Kong

BackgroundThe global development and advancement of genomic medicine in the recent decade has accelerated the implementation of personalized medicine (PM) and pharmacogenomics (PGx) into clinical practice, while catalyzing the emergence of genetic testing (GT) with relevant ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI).ResultsThe perception of university undergraduates with regards to PM and PGx was investigated, and 80% of undergraduates valued PM as a promising healthcare model with 66% indicating awareness of personal genome testing companies. When asked about the curriculum design towards PM and PGx, compared to undergraduates in non-medically related curriculum, those studying in medically related curriculum had an adjusted 7.2 odds of perceiving that their curriculum was well-designed for learning PGx (95% CI 3.6–14.6) and a 3.7 odds of perceiving that PGx was important in their study (95% CI 2.0–6.8). Despite this, only 16% of medically related curriculum undergraduates would consider embarking on future education on PM.When asked about their perceptions on GT, 60% rated their genetic knowledge as “School Biology” level or below while 76% would consider undergoing a genetic test. As for ELSI, 75% of undergraduates perceived that they were aware of ethical issues of GT in general, particularly on “Patient Privacy” (80%) and “Data Confidentiality” (68%).Undergraduates were also asked about their perceived reaction upon receiving an unfavorable result from GT, and over half of the participants perceived that they would feel “helpless or pessimistic” (56%), “inadequate or different” (59%), and “disadvantaged at job seeking” (59%), while older undergraduates had an adjusted 2.0 odds of holding the latter opinion (95% CI 1.1–3.5), compared to younger undergraduates.ConclusionHong Kong undergraduates showed a high awareness of PM but insufficient genetic knowledge and low interest in pursuing a career towards PM. They were generally aware of ethical issues of GT and especially concerned about patient privacy and data confidentiality. There was a predominance of pessimistic views towards unfavorable testing results. This study calls for the attention to evaluate education and talent development on genomics, and update existing legal frameworks on genetic testing in Hong Kong.

Direct-to-consumer personal genomic tests need better regulation.

Increasingly, data are collected by companies that provide direct-to-consumer personal genomic tests, yet the existing health legislation covering the use of these data is lagging far behind in the USA.

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.

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

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

What Do Students in Pharmacy and Medicine Think About Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine Education? Awareness, Attitudes, and Perceptions in Malaysian Health Sciences.

This study reports on the attitudes and perceptions toward pharmacogenomics (PGx) and personalized medicine (PM) education among pharmacy and medical students in Malaysian health sciences. Importantly, the survey was developed through a codesign approach, with field pretesting/design with users before the actual survey, and based on collaboration between institutions in Greece and Malaysia. The study addressed eight key areas of interest to education in health sciences: (1) General awareness about genetics and PGx, (2) Attitude toward genetic testing usefulness, (3) Benefits of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing as a "diagnostic" tool, (4) Concerns (risks) about genetics, (5) Effectiveness of genetic testing in PM, (6) Benefits of PGx on disease management, (7) Benefits of PGx on drug management, and (8) Attitudes toward genetic testing public endorsement. We observed that Malaysian students appear aware of the term PGx, but there are areas of critical knowledge gap such as the need for greater familiarity with the concept of PGx implementation science, and the availability of genetic testing in clinical practice. This is one of the first studies on perceptions and attitudes toward PGx testing in Southeast Asia. The present findings provide a map of the views and perspectives of medicine and pharmacy students regarding PGx and implementation of PM in Malaysia and should assist toward facilitating the integration of genomics into the medical decision-making process. To this end, it is necessary to enhance collaboration between universities, health care institutions, and governing bodies to incorporate further training and additional education topics related to PGx and genetic testing. This is the first study that assesses the level of PGx and genomics knowledge of pharmacy and medicine students in Southeast Asia, Malaysia in particular, and thus paves the way to guide future global PGx implementation science.

Self-Regulation of Genomic Studies and Prospects of Personified Medicine

A secular trend of the development of medicine in the 20th century was on the ways of strengthening the foundations of public health, formation of systems of affordable medical care. Human genome deciphering opens wide prospects for using the obtained data in medicine. In recent years commercial medical organizations have been developing genetic research and personal genomic testing services. The paper is devoted to the analysis of the importance of legal self-regulation in the field of genomic counseling in the Russian Federation. The authors investigate the prospects of the introduction of personalized medicine and limitations that arise today in one of the areas of the approach under consideration, namely: forecasting predisposition to diseases of mixed nature, which is related to the peculiarities of development of medical and demographic situation in the world. The question is raised about the need for broad population studies to verify the risk values for diseases with low genetic determinacy. The authors conclude that it is impossible to predict what medicine of the future will be, but the results of genome decryption and increasing availability of personal data represent a unique social phenomenon that should be developed within the legal framework. In the coming years, the debate on the role of legal mechanisms in the self-regulation of genetic research and genetic services will become increasingly important. At the international level, this discussion will be focused on the fundamental issue of respect for individual rights in the interpretation of the data received. As genetic advice evolves, the issue of responsibility for the information provided and the availability of national regulatory mechanisms within the framework of state regulation or self-regulated professional associations will become a key concern.

Participatory Genomic Testing Can Effectively Disseminate Cardiovascular Pharmacogenomics Concepts within Federally Qualified Health Centers: A Feasibility Study.

We assessed feasibility of an educational program designed to enhance stakeholder knowledge and perceptions of pharmacogenomics at a federally qualified health center (FQHC). FQHCs have a rich history of providing care to the underserved, but often are not represented by studies evaluating cutting-edge concepts. We used a novel educational platform to provide participatory genomic testing and classroom education. We assessed participant knowledge and perceptions using questionnaires between May and July 2018. We partnered with a FQHC affiliated with an academic medical center in Chicago. Using convenience sampling, we recruited 20 providers and 10 community members for a feasibility study. Providers included physicians, physician extenders, community health workers, and patient health navigators. Community members were patients, supporters, and/or FQHC advisory board members. Participants had the option to undergo personal genomic testing. Online educational modules included basic genetics, cardiovascular pharmacogenomics, and personalized medicine. Education concluded in a 2-hour live course with case-based discussions. Our main outcome was testing pilot feasibility. Baseline knowledge and perceptions were compared with post-intervention assessments using descriptive statistics, t tests (or Wilcoxon rank-sum) for continuous variables and chi-squared (or Fisher's exact) for categorical variables. We found that attitudes toward the intervention were positive and remained so after intervention. Our intervention was both feasible and acceptable. Genomics knowledge increased for nearly all participants. We have determined that a pharmacogenomics educational program tailored for an underrepresented community is feasible and acceptable. Outcomes will advise methodology for larger implementation studies.

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.

Risk, Overdiagnosis and Ethical Justifications

Many healthcare practices expose people to risks of harmful outcomes. However, the major theories of moral philosophy struggle to assess whether, when and why it is ethically justifiable to expose individuals to risks, as opposed to actually harming them. Sven Ove Hansson has proposed an approach to the ethical assessment of risk imposition that encourages attention to factors including questions of justice in the distribution of advantage and risk, people’s acceptance or otherwise of risks, and the scope individuals have to influence the practices that generate risk. This paper investigates the ethical justifiability of preventive healthcare practices that expose people to risks including overdiagnosis. We applied Hansson’s framework to three such practices: an ‘ideal’ breast screening service, a commercial personal genome testing service, and a guideline that lowers the diagnostic threshold for hypertension. The framework was challenging to apply, not least because healthcare has unclear boundaries and involves highly complex practices. Nonetheless, the framework encouraged attention to issues that would be widely recognised as morally pertinent. Our assessment supports the view that at least some preventive healthcare practices that impose risks including that of overdiagnosis are not ethically justifiable. Further work is however needed to develop and/or test refined assessment criteria and guidance for applying them.

Personal genome testing on physicians improves attitudes on pharmacogenomic approaches.

In this era of clinical genomics, the accumulation of knowledge of pharmacogenomics (PGx) is rising dramatically and attempts to utilize it in clinical practice are also increasing. However, this advanced knowledge and information have not yet been sufficiently utilized in the clinical field due to various barriers including physician factors. This study was conducted to evaluate the attitudes of physicians to PGx services by providing them their own genomic data analysis report focusing on PGx. We also tried to evaluate the clinical applicability of whole exome sequencing (WES)-based functional PGx test. In total 88 physicians participated in the study from September 2015 to August 2016. Physicians who agreed to participate in the study were asked to complete a pre-test survey evaluating their knowledge of and attitude toward clinical genomics including PGx. Only those who completed the pre-test survey proceeded to WES and were provided with a personal PGx analysis report in an offline group meeting. Physicians who received these PGx reports were asked to complete a follow-up survey within two weeks. We then analyzed changes in their knowledge and attitude after reviewing their own PGx analysis results through differences in their pre-test and post-test survey responses. In total, 70 physicians (79.5%) completed the pre-test and post-test surveys and attended an off-line seminar to review their personal PGx reports. After physicians reviewed the report, their perception of and attitude towards the PGx domain and genomics significantly changed. Physician’ awareness of the likelihood of occurrence of adverse drug reactions and genetic contribution was also changed significantly. Overall, physicians were very positive about the value and potential of the PGx test but maintained a conservative stance on its actual clinical use. Results revealed that physicians’ perception and attitude to the utility of PGx testing was significantly changed after reviewing their own WES results.

Personal genomic testing for nutrition and wellness in Australia: A content analysis of online information

Personal genomic testing for nutrition and wellness (PGT-NG) offers a new service delivery model to nutritionists and dietitians. However, research indicates that this type of testing currently lacks sufficient clinical validity and utility to be commercially available. Despite Australian guidelines to the contrary, healthcare professionals are currently offering testing to clients, and promoting these services online. Thus, it is important to understand how PGT-NG is currently framed online to the public. A mixed methods content analysis was conducted to assess the content, quality and marketing approaches of websites offering PGT-NG to Australians. Websites were identified using popular search engines to mimic the behaviour of a consumer. A novel framework was developed for the purposes of the analysis. Thirty-nine websites were analysed, comprising four nutritional genomic testing company websites and 35 healthcare provider websites. Healthcare providers relied on information from the testing companies. The content was emotive, and little attention was given to the scientific and ethical aspects of personal genomic testing. Websites appealed to consumer empowerment and framed testing as an essential and superior tool for optimising health. Websites lacked the transparency necessary for informed consent. A basic checklist of key information was developed to aid healthcare providers when informing potential clients of PGT-NG online.

Australians\u2019 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.

Human Genetics Society of Australasia Position Statement: Genetic Testing and Personal Insurance Products in Australia.

The expansion of genetic and genomic testing in clinical practice and research and the growing market for at home personal genome testing has led to increased awareness about the impact of this form of testing on insurance. Genetic or genomic information can be requested by providers of mutually rated insurance products, who may then use it when setting premiums or determining eligibility for cover under a particular product. Australian insurers are subject to relevant legislation and an industry standard that was updated in late 2016. In 2018, the Human Genetics Society of Australasia updated its position statement on genetic testing and life insurance to account for these changes and to increase the scope of the statement to include a wider scope of insurance products that are not rated according to community risk, such as life, critical care, and income protection products. Recommendations include that providers of professional education involving genetics should include ethical, legal, and social aspects of insurance discrimination in their curricula; that the Australian government take a more active role in regulating use of genetic information in personal insurance, including enacting a moratorium on use of genetic test results; that information obtained in the course of a research project be excluded; and that there is improved engagement between the insurance industry, regulators, and the genetics profession.

Perceptions of students in health and molecular life sciences regarding pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine

BackgroundIncreasing evidence is demonstrating that a patient’s unique genetic profile can be used to detect the disease’s onset, prevent its progression, and optimize its treatment. This led to the increased global efforts to implement personalized medicine (PM) and pharmacogenomics (PG) in clinical practice. Here we investigated the perceptions of students from different universities in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BH) towards PG/PM as well as related ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI). This descriptive, cross-sectional study is based on the survey of 559 students from the Faculties of Medicine, Pharmacy, Health Studies, Genetics, and Bioengineering and other study programs.ResultsOur results showed that 50% of students heard about personal genome testing companies and 69% consider having a genetic test done. A majority of students (57%) agreed that PM represents a promising healthcare model, and 40% of students agreed that their study program is well designed for understanding PG/PM. This latter opinion seems to be particularly influenced by the field of study (7.23, CI 1.99–26.2, p = 0.003). Students with this opinion are also more willing to continue their postgraduate education in the PM (OR = 4.68, CI 2.59–8.47, p < 0.001). Furthermore, 45% of students are aware of different ethical aspects of genetic testing, with most of them (46%) being concerned about the patient’s privacy.ConclusionsOur results indicate a positive attitude of biomedical students in Bosnia and Herzegovina towards genetic testing and personalized medicine. Importantly, our results emphasize the key importance of pharmacogenomic education for more efficient translation of precision medicine into clinical practice.

Australians’ perspectives on support around use of personal genomic testing: Findings from the Genioz study

Personal genomic testing using direct-to-consumer and consumer-directed models, with or without involvement of healthcare providers, is increasing internationally, including in Australia. This study forms a sub-set of the Genioz study – Genomics: National Insights of Australians. We aimed to explore Australians’ experiences with these types of tests, especially online DNA tests, and their views regarding whom they would seek support from around understanding test results. The study used a mixed methods approach, employing an exploratory quantitative online survey and follow-up qualitative semi-structured interviews. Between May 2016 and May 2017, 2841 Australians responded to the survey. Interviews were conducted with 63 purposively sampled respondents, including 45 who had a genetic test and 18 who had not. Of 571 respondents who had any type of genetic test, 322 had a personal genomic test using criteria defined by the researchers. Testing for ancestry/genealogy was the most common, reported by 267 participants, reflecting the increased advertising of these tests in Australia. Some respondents described downloading their raw data for further interpretation through third party websites for genealogical as well as health related information. Carrier testing, testing for serious and preventable conditions and nutrition and/or wellness were the most common health related tests reported by respondents. Participants generally preferred to seek support from general practitioners (GPs), medical specialists with relevant expertise and independent genetics specialists, although another important preference for non-health information was online forums and networks. There was less preference for seeking support from employees associated with the testing companies. Generally, of those who had a health related PGT, the most common actions were seeking medical advice or doing nothing with the information, while more of those who had a personal genomic test for nutrition and/or wellness sought advice from complementary/alternative health practitioners (eg naturopaths) and integrative GPs, and 60% reported they had changed their diet. As awareness of personal genomic testing increases, publicly funded clinical genetics services may be less inclined to discuss results from personal genomic testing. Genetic counsellors could play an important role in providing this support, both pre-test and post-test, through opportunities for private practice but independent from testing companies.

Public preferences regarding adoption of personal genomic testing based on best–worst scaling

AimsThis study analyzes public preferences for the adoption of personal genomic testing (PGT) to determine the important attributes for PGT adoption and to qualitatively compare their relative importance. MethodsThe best–worst scaling method is used for the analysis by using 13 attributes related to adoption of PGT. A web-based survey was conducted to collect data from 604 respondents in South Korea in November 2017. ResultsThe results show that accuracy of test is the most important attribute with the following order of importance: accuracy of test > risk of disease > aim of test, insurance reimbursement/coverage, price, burden of disease, testable items > privacy protection > method of collecting sample, person explaining the results, medical intervention availability, test accessibility > time required for completing test. ConclusionsFrom a consumer perspective, the findings suggest that it is important how PGT can accurately provide information on various high-risk, high-burden diseases, even though there are no known preventive or treatment measures. Further, the price of PGT is burdensome, and therefore, insurance coverage is important. If accurate and reliable information is provided, how to request PGT and who explains the result are not important.

Making pretest genomic counseling optional: lessons from the RAVE study

Making pretest genomic counseling optional: lessons from the RAVE study

23 and We.

The article discusses personal genome testing services from firms such as 23andMe. Topics include the limitations of personal genome testing for genetic predisposition to various diseases, the inaccuracy of physical trait predictions made by the service, and the interactions of genetics with lifestyle in disease prediction. Genetic aspects of Alzheimer's disease are addressed.