Psychiatrist attitudes towards pharmacogenetic testing, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, and integrating genetic counseling into psychiatric patient care

2015 ◽  
Vol 226 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmela Thompson ◽  
Steven P. Hamilton ◽  
Catriona Hippman
2020 ◽  
pp. 161-169
Author(s):  
Madison K. Kilbride ◽  
Angela R. Bradbury

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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 1270-1279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane R Koeller ◽  
◽  
Wendy R Uhlmann ◽  
Deanna Alexis Carere ◽  
Robert C Green ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Kara D. Burnham ◽  
Leslie A.K. Takaki

Objective To determine if an existing course in genetics should be revised to refocus on the topic of genomics and its impact on health and primary care, a survey of chiropractors was conducted regarding genomics and patient care. Methods A short survey was designed to ascertain chiropractors' knowledge and use of genomics in their practices, particularly regarding direct to consumer genetic testing. Nine closed-ended questions and 2 open-ended questions were included. Pearson correlation was used to evaluate relationships between close-ended responses. Content analysis was conducted on the final open-ended question that queried respondents for further comments. Results There were 181 completed surveys returned. Patients do ask chiropractors about their own direct to consumer genetic testing results—42% indicated that they are approached by patients 1–3 times per month to discuss genetics/genomics. Knowledge of genomics varies among chiropractors, yet 51% feel that teaching genomics is moderately (31%) or extremely (20%) important. Conclusion An introductory course in clinical genomics is necessary to prepare a chiropractor for patient care.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mengfei Lu ◽  
Cathryn M. Lewis ◽  
Matthew Traylor

AbstractBackgroundRapid advances in scientific research have led to an increase in public awareness of genetic testing and pharmacogenetics. Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing companies, such as 23andMe, allow consumers to access their genetic information directly through an online service without the involvement of healthcare professionals. Here, we evaluate the clinical relevance of such pharmacogenetic tests reported by 23andMe.MethodsThe research papers listed under each 23andMe report were evaluated, extracting information on effect size, sample size and ethnicity. A wider literature search was performed to provide a fuller assessment of the pharmacogenetic test and variants were matched to FDA recommendations. Additional evidence from CPIC guidelines, PharmGKB, and Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group was reviewed to determine current clinical practice. The value of the tests across ethnic groups was determined, including information on linkage disequilibrium between the tested SNP and causal pharmacogenetic variant, where relevant.Results23andMe offers 12 pharmacogenetic tests, some of which are in standard clinical practice, and others which are less widely applied. The clinical validity and clinical utility varies extensively between tests. The variants tested are likely to have different degrees of sensitivity due to different risk allele frequencies and linkage disequilibrium patterns across populations. The clinical relevance depends on the ethnicity of the individual and variability of pharmacogenetic markers. Further research is required to determine causal variants and provide more complete assessment of drug response and side effects.Conclusion23andMe reports provide some useful pharmacogenetics information, mirroring clinical tests that are in standard use. Other tests are unspecific, providing limited guidance and may not be useful for patients without professional interpretation. Nevertheless, DTC companies like 23andMe act as a powerful intermediate step to integrate pharmacogenetic testing into clinical practice.


Author(s):  
Tessa Marzulla ◽  
J. Scott Roberts ◽  
Raymond DeVries ◽  
Diane R. Koeller ◽  
Robert C. Green ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Middleton ◽  
Álvaro Mendes ◽  
Caroline M Benjamin ◽  
Heidi Carmen Howard

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document