Literature DB >> 21770772

Professional perspectives about pharmacogenetic testing and managing ancillary findings.

Susanne B Haga1, Genevieve Tindall, Julianne M O'Daniel.   

Abstract

AIMS: Pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests, intended to inform therapeutic decision making through prediction of patient likelihood to respond to or experience an adverse effect from a specific treatment, may also generate ancillary, or incidental, disease information unrelated to the purpose for which the test was ordered. To assess attitudes toward PGx testing, ancillary disease risk information, and related clinical issues, we conducted a series of focus groups among health professionals.
RESULTS: Twenty-one primary care and genetics professionals from Durham, NC, were recruited to participate in three focus groups (two of primary care professionals [PCPs] and one of geneticists). Overall, interest in PGx testing was positive, though enthusiasm was reserved among PCPs due to concerns about clinical utility, insurance coverage, delay of treatment, and ability to communicate and interpret ancillary disease risk information. Although many PCPs felt an obligation to disclose information about ancillary disease risk, geneticists did not believe that it was always necessary, noting the complexities of genetic risk results such as incomplete penetrance.
CONCLUSION: This pilot study found that health professionals' interest in the use of PGx testing was limited by concerns about the lack of evidence of clinical utility and their ability to interpret and communicate ancillary disease risk information to patients. Additional educational resources, access to genetic specialists, and clear clinical guidelines about the use of PGx testing would greatly facilitate appropriate use of testing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21770772      PMCID: PMC3265769          DOI: 10.1089/gtmb.2011.0045

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers        ISSN: 1945-0257


  22 in total

1.  Primary care physicians' perceptions of barriers to genetic testing and their willingness to participate in research.

Authors:  E Mountcastle-Shah; N A Holtzman
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  2000-10-23

2.  Primary care physicians' concerns about offering a genetic test to tailor smoking cessation treatment.

Authors:  Douglas E Levy; Emily J Youatt; Alexandra E Shields
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 3.  Ancillary risk information and pharmacogenetic tests: social and policy implications.

Authors:  N B Henrikson; W Burke; D L Veenstra
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics J       Date:  2007-05-08       Impact factor: 3.550

4.  Genetic testing: a physician's perspective.

Authors:  J D Menasha; C Schechter; J Willner
Journal:  Mt Sinai J Med       Date:  2000-03

5.  Clinical and ethical considerations in pharmacogenetic testing: views of physicians in 3 "early adopting" departments of psychiatry.

Authors:  Jinger G Hoop; Maria I Lapid; Rene M Paulson; Laura Weiss Roberts
Journal:  J Clin Psychiatry       Date:  2010-03-09       Impact factor: 4.384

6.  Primary care physicians' knowledge and attitudes towards genetic testing for breast-ovarian cancer predisposition.

Authors:  M Escher; A P Sappino
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 32.976

Review 7.  Pharmacogenetics and the practice of medicine.

Authors:  A D Roses
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2000-06-15       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Primary care physicians' willingness to offer a new genetic test to tailor smoking treatment, according to test characteristics.

Authors:  Alexandra E Shields; Douglas E Levy; David Blumenthal; Douglas Currivan; Mary McGinn-Shapiro; Kevin B Weiss; Recai Yucel; Caryn Lerman
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 4.244

9.  Pharmacogenetic testing: not as simple as it seems.

Authors:  Susanne B Haga; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 10.  Abacavir hypersensitivity: a model system for pharmacogenetic test adoption.

Authors:  Myla Lai-Goldman; Hawazin Faruki
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  22 in total

1.  Implementation of a clinical research pharmacogenomics program at an academic medical center: role of the genetics healthcare professional.

Authors:  Amy Curry Sturm; Kevin Sweet; Kandamurugu Manickam
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 2.533

Review 2.  Striking a balance in communicating pharmacogenetic test results: promoting comprehension and minimizing adverse psychological and behavioral response.

Authors:  Susanne B Haga; Rachel Mills; Hayden Bosworth
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2014-06-21

3.  On the readiness of physicians for pharmacogenomics testing: an empirical assessment.

Authors:  N Amara; J Blouin-Bougie; D Bouthillier; J Simard
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics J       Date:  2017-06-13       Impact factor: 3.550

4.  Healthcare provider education to support integration of pharmacogenomics in practice: the eMERGE Network experience.

Authors:  Carolyn R Rohrer Vitek; Noura S Abul-Husn; John J Connolly; Andrea L Hartzler; Terrie Kitchner; Josh F Peterson; Luke V Rasmussen; Maureen E Smith; Sarah Stallings; Marc S Williams; Wendy A Wolf; Cynthia A Prows
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics       Date:  2017-06-22       Impact factor: 2.533

5.  Pragmatic and Ethical Challenges of Incorporating the Genome into the Electronic Medical Record.

Authors:  Adam A Nishimura; Peter Tarczy-Hornoch; Brian H Shirts
Journal:  Curr Genet Med Rep       Date:  2014-12-01

Review 6.  Comparison of delivery strategies for pharmacogenetic testing services.

Authors:  Susanne B Haga; Jivan Moaddeb
Journal:  Pharmacogenet Genomics       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 2.089

7.  Clinical delivery of pharmacogenetic testing services: a proposed partnership between genetic counselors and pharmacists.

Authors:  Rachel Mills; Susanne B Haga
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 2.533

8.  Great expectations: patient perspectives and anticipated utility of non-diagnostic genomic-sequencing results.

Authors:  Robyn Hylind; Maureen Smith; Laura Rasmussen-Torvik; Sharon Aufox
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2017-06-27

Review 9.  Understanding patient and provider perceptions and expectations of genomic medicine.

Authors:  Michael J Hall; Andrea D Forman; Susan V Montgomery; Kim L Rainey; Mary B Daly
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-07-03       Impact factor: 3.454

10.  Acceptability of, and Information Needs Regarding, Next-Generation Sequencing in People Tested for Hereditary Cancer: A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Bettina Meiser; Ben Storey; Veronica Quinn; Belinda Rahman; Lesley Andrews
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-08-12       Impact factor: 2.537

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.