AIMS: Pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests are intended to improve therapeutic outcomes through predicting a patient's likelihood to respond to or experience an adverse effect from a specific treatment. In addition, PGx testing may also generate ancillary, or incidental, disease information unrelated to the purpose for which the test was ordered. To assess public attitudes toward PGx testing, ancillary disease risk information and related clinical issues, we conducted a series of focus groups. RESULTS: Forty-five individuals recruited from Durham, NC, participated in four focus groups. Overall, participants were enthusiastic about PGx testing, though expressed concerns about privacy, confidentiality, and psychological harms associated with ancillary information. Focus group participants believed that physicians had a responsibility to disclose ancillary risk information, but were concerned about managing and coping with unexpected disease risk information. CONCLUSION: We find that participants welcomed the integration of PGx testing into therapeutic decision-making. Public concerns about PGx testing and ancillary information specifically centered on personal implications of learning such additional information, suggesting that patient-provider discussion of the benefits and risks of testing will be necessary until public familiarity with these tests increases.
AIMS: Pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests are intended to improve therapeutic outcomes through predicting a patient's likelihood to respond to or experience an adverse effect from a specific treatment. In addition, PGx testing may also generate ancillary, or incidental, disease information unrelated to the purpose for which the test was ordered. To assess public attitudes toward PGx testing, ancillary disease risk information and related clinical issues, we conducted a series of focus groups. RESULTS: Forty-five individuals recruited from Durham, NC, participated in four focus groups. Overall, participants were enthusiastic about PGx testing, though expressed concerns about privacy, confidentiality, and psychological harms associated with ancillary information. Focus group participants believed that physicians had a responsibility to disclose ancillary risk information, but were concerned about managing and coping with unexpected disease risk information. CONCLUSION: We find that participants welcomed the integration of PGx testing into therapeutic decision-making. Public concerns about PGx testing and ancillary information specifically centered on personal implications of learning such additional information, suggesting that patient-provider discussion of the benefits and risks of testing will be necessary until public familiarity with these tests increases.
Authors: Jennifer L Bevan; Jonh A Lynch; Tasha N Dubriwny; Tina M Harris; Paul J Achter; Amy L Reeder; Celeste M Condit Journal: Genet Med Date: 2003 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Sara L Laskey; Joseph Williams; Jacqui Pierre-Louis; MaryAnn O'Riordan; Anne Matthews; Nathaniel H Robin Journal: Genet Med Date: 2003 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Yee Ming Lee; Ryan P McKillip; Brittany A Borden; Catherine E Klammer; Mark J Ratain; Peter H O'Donnell Journal: Pharmacogenet Genomics Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: R P McKillip; B A Borden; P Galecki; S A Ham; L Patrick-Miller; J P Hall; S Hussain; K Danahey; M Siegler; M J Sorrentino; Y Sacro; A M Davis; D T Rubin; K Lipstreuer; T S Polonsky; R Nanda; W R Harper; J L Koyner; D L Burnet; W M Stadler; M J Ratain; D O Meltzer; P H O'Donnell Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2017-04-04 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: K Lachance; S Korol; E O'Meara; A Ducharme; N Racine; M Liszkowski; J L Rouleau; G B Pelletier; M Carrier; M White; S de Denus Journal: Pharmacogenomics J Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 3.550
Authors: Andrew J Darnell; Howard Austin; David A Bluemke; Richard O Cannon; Kenneth Fischbeck; William Gahl; David Goldman; Christine Grady; Mark H Greene; Steven M Holland; Sara Chandros Hull; Forbes D Porter; David Resnik; Wendy S Rubinstein; Leslie G Biesecker Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2016-03-03 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Kristin Wiisanen Weitzel; Benjamin Q Duong; Meghan J Arwood; Aniwaa Owusu-Obeng; Noura S Abul-Husn; Barbara A Bernhardt; Brian Decker; Joshua C Denny; Eric Dietrich; John Gums; Ebony B Madden; Toni I Pollin; Rebekah Ryanne Wu; Susanne B Haga; Carol R Horowitz Journal: Pharmacogenomics Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 2.533