Literature DB >> 21226570

Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk.

Cinnamon S Bloss1, Nicholas J Schork, Eric J Topol.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk is controversial, and little is known about the effect of this technology on consumers. We examined the psychological, behavioral, and clinical effects of risk scanning with the Navigenics Health Compass, a commercially available test of uncertain clinical validity and utility.
METHODS: We recruited subjects from health and technology companies who elected to purchase the Health Compass at a discounted rate. Subjects reported any changes in symptoms of anxiety, intake of dietary fat, and exercise behavior at a mean (±SD) of 5.6±2.4 months after testing, as compared with baseline, along with any test-related distress and the use of health-screening tests.
RESULTS: From a cohort of 3639 enrolled subjects, 2037 completed follow-up. Primary analyses showed no significant differences between baseline and follow-up in anxiety symptoms (P=0.80), dietary fat intake (P=0.89), or exercise behavior (P=0.61). Secondary analyses revealed that test-related distress was positively correlated with the average estimated lifetime risk among all the assessed conditions (β=0.117, P<0.001). However, 90.3% of subjects who completed follow-up had scores indicating no test-related distress. There was no significant increase in the rate of use of screening tests associated with genomewide profiling, most of which are not considered appropriate for screening asymptomatic persons in any case.
CONCLUSIONS: In a selected sample of subjects who completed follow-up after undergoing consumer genomewide testing, such testing did not result in any measurable short-term changes in psychological health, diet or exercise behavior, or use of screening tests. Potential effects of this type of genetic testing on the population at large are not known. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and Scripps Health.).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21226570      PMCID: PMC3786730          DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1011893

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  14 in total

1.  Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research.

Authors:  N S Jacobson; P Truax
Journal:  J Consult Clin Psychol       Date:  1991-02

2.  Genetic risk assessment for adult children of people with Alzheimer's disease: the Risk Evaluation and Education for Alzheimer's Disease (REVEAL) study.

Authors:  J Scott Roberts; L Adrienne Cupples; Norman R Relkin; Peter J Whitehouse; Robert C Green
Journal:  J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 2.680

3.  Genetic testing for a BRCA1 mutation: prophylactic surgery and screening behavior in women 2 years post testing.

Authors:  Jeffrey R Botkin; Ken R Smith; Robert T Croyle; Bonnie J Baty; Jean E Wylie; Debra Dutson; Anna Chan; Heidi A Hamann; Caryn Lerman; Jamie McDonald; Vickie Venne; John H Ward; Elaine Lyon
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2003-04-30       Impact factor: 2.802

4.  A simple method to assess exercise behavior in the community.

Authors:  G Godin; R J Shephard
Journal:  Can J Appl Sport Sci       Date:  1985-09

5.  Prophylactic surgery decisions and surveillance practices one year following BRCA1/2 testing.

Authors:  C Lerman; C Hughes; R T Croyle; D Main; C Durham; C Snyder; A Bonney; J F Lynch; S A Narod; H T Lynch
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 4.018

6.  Disclosure of APOE genotype for risk of Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Robert C Green; J Scott Roberts; L Adrienne Cupples; Norman R Relkin; Peter J Whitehouse; Tamsen Brown; Susan LaRusse Eckert; Melissa Butson; A Dessa Sadovnick; Kimberly A Quaid; Clara Chen; Robert Cook-Deegan; Lindsay A Farrer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2009-07-16       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  A simultaneous evaluation of 10 commonly used physical activity questionnaires.

Authors:  D R Jacobs; B E Ainsworth; T J Hartman; A S Leon
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 5.411

8.  An unwelcome side effect of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: raiding the medical commons.

Authors:  Amy L McGuire; Wylie Burke
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-12-10       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  The impact of predictive genetic testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: three years after testing.

Authors:  Veronica R Collins; Bettina Meiser; Obioha C Ukoumunne; Clara Gaff; D James St John; Jane L Halliday
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 10.  A systematic review of perceived risks, psychological and behavioral impacts of genetic testing.

Authors:  Jodi T Heshka; Crystal Palleschi; Heather Howley; Brenda Wilson; Philip S Wells
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  228 in total

Review 1.  Genetic testing in psychiatry: a review of attitudes and beliefs.

Authors:  Ryan E Lawrence; Paul S Appelbaum
Journal:  Psychiatry       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 2.458

2.  Direct-to-Consumer genetic testing: what are we talking about?

Authors:  Meredith Weaver; Toni I Pollin
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-03-10       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Communication about DTC testing: commentary on a 'family experience of personal genomics'.

Authors:  Anna Middleton
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-01-06       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Association of direct-to-consumer genome-wide disease risk estimates and self-reported disease.

Authors:  Cinnamon S Bloss; Eric J Topol; Nicholas J Schork
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2011-11-29       Impact factor: 2.135

5.  Users' motivations to purchase direct-to-consumer genome-wide testing: an exploratory study of personal stories.

Authors:  Yeyang Su; Heidi C Howard; Pascal Borry
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2011-05-28

6.  An exploration of genetic health professionals' experience with direct-to-consumer genetic testing in their clinical practice.

Authors:  Gemma R Brett; Sylvia A Metcalfe; David J Amor; Jane L Halliday
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-02-08       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  Characteristics of genomic test consumers who spontaneously share results with their health care provider.

Authors:  Burcu F Darst; Lisa Madlensky; Nicholas J Schork; Eric J Topol; Cinnamon S Bloss
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  2013-02-05

8.  Introducing genetic testing for cardiovascular disease in primary care: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Jo B Middlemass; Momina F Yazdani; Joe Kai; Penelope J Standen; Nadeem Qureshi
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 9.  Impact of genetic risk assessment on nutrition-related lifestyle behaviours.

Authors:  Jacqueline A Vernarelli
Journal:  Proc Nutr Soc       Date:  2012-10-25       Impact factor: 6.297

10.  Interest and informational preferences regarding genomic testing for modest increases in colorectal cancer risk.

Authors:  A E Anderson; K G Flores; W Boonyasiriwat; A Gammon; W Kohlmann; W C Birmingham; M D Schwartz; J Samadder; K Boucher; A Y Kinney
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2014-01-14       Impact factor: 2.000

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.