Direct-to-consumer pharmacogenomic testing is associated with increased physician utilisation

被引:39
|
作者
Bloss, Cinnamon S. [1 ,2 ]
Schork, Nicholas J. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Topol, Eric J. [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Scripps Translat Sci Inst, Scripps Genom Med, La Jolla, CA 92037 USA
[2] Scripps Hlth, La Jolla, CA USA
[3] Scripps Res Inst, Dept Mol & Expt Med, La Jolla, CA 92037 USA
[4] Scripps Clin, La Jolla, CA USA
关键词
direct-to-consumer; genetic testing; personalized medicine; genomic risk assessment; consumer genomics; RISK; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1136/jmedgenet-2013-101909
中图分类号
Q3 [遗传学];
学科分类号
071007 ; 090102 ;
摘要
Background Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genomic testing has generated controversy, however the actual impact of testing on consumer behaviour has been understudied, particularly for pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing. Methods We recruited a sample of adults who purchased a DTC genomic test and had previously received their genomic test results for complex disease risk. All participants additionally underwent PGx testing. At follow-up, to assess the impact of PGx testing on consumer behaviour, healthcare utilisation and psychological status were compared between approximately a third of participants who had received their PGx results and the remaining two-thirds of participants who were still awaiting results. The PGx test included genetic testing for drug effectiveness or risk of side effects for 12 medications. Results At follow-up, there were 481 PGx test recipients and 844 non-recipients still awaiting results. PGx test recipients had more physician visits (p=0.04) and were more likely to share their results with their physician (p=0.001). Both groups showed a decrease in anxiety symptoms from baseline to follow-up, with a trend for PGx recipients to show less of a decrease compared with non-recipients (p=0.10). PGx recipients were more likely to report that their physician ordered additional tests (p=0.01) based on their genomic test. There were no group differences in follow-up test-related distress (p=0.67). Conclusions DTC PGx risk profiling among a selected sample of individuals was associated with increased physician utilisation and did not result in any adverse changes in psychological health or follow-up test-related distress.
引用
收藏
页码:83 / 89
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Direct-to-consumer genetic testing - clinical considerations
    Trent, Ronald J.
    MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA, 2013, 198 (09) : 496 - 498
  • [42] Regulating Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genome Testing
    McGuire, Amy L.
    Evans, Barbara J.
    Caulfield, Timothy
    Burke, Wylie
    SCIENCE, 2010, 330 (6001) : 181 - 182
  • [43] Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: Reliable or Risky?
    Spencer, David H.
    Lockwood, Christina
    Topol, Eric
    Evans, James P.
    Green, Robert C.
    Mansfield, Elizabeth
    Tezak, Zivana
    CLINICAL CHEMISTRY, 2011, 57 (12) : 1641 - 1644
  • [44] Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: Value and Risk
    Majumder, Mary A.
    Guerrini, Christi J.
    McGuire, Amy L.
    ANNUAL REVIEW OF MEDICINE, VOL 72, 2021, 2021, 72 : 151 - 166
  • [45] Direct-to-consumer genetic testing - a regulatory nightmare?
    Nicol, Dianne
    Hagger, Meredith
    MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA, 2013, 198 (09) : 501 - 502
  • [46] Direct-to-consumer advertising of genetic testing - Reply
    Gollust, SE
    Hull, SC
    Wilfond, B
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2003, 289 (01): : 46 - 46
  • [47] Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing for Domestic Cats
    Lyons, Leslie A.
    Buckley, Reuben M.
    VETERINARY CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA-SMALL ANIMAL PRACTICE, 2020, 50 (05) : 991 - +
  • [48] Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: driving choice?
    Knoppers, Bartha Maria
    Avard, Denise
    Howard, Heidi Carmen
    EXPERT REVIEW OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS, 2010, 10 (08) : 965 - 968
  • [49] The ethical challenges of direct-to-consumer genetic testing
    Berg, Cheryl
    Fryer-Edwards, Kelly
    JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, 2008, 77 (01) : 17 - 31
  • [50] Direct-to-consumer DNA genetic testing and the GP
    Trent, Ronald
    AUSTRALIAN FAMILY PHYSICIAN, 2014, 43 (07) : 436 - 439