Literature DB >> 24343916

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

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

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  consumer genomics; direct-to-consumer; genetic testing; genomic risk assessment; personalized medicine

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24343916     DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2013-101909

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Genet        ISSN: 0022-2593            Impact factor:   6.318


  23 in total

1.  Awareness, attitudes and perspectives of direct-to-consumer genetic testing in Greece: a survey of potential consumers.

Authors:  Vasiliki Mavroidopoulou; Ellie Xera; Vasiliki Mollaki
Journal:  J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-06-04       Impact factor: 3.172

2.  Attitudes on pharmacogenetic testing in psychiatric patients with treatment-resistant depression.

Authors:  Michael J McCarthy; Yucui Chen; Anna Demodena; Eileen Fisher; Shahrokh Golshan; Trisha Suppes; John R Kelsoe
Journal:  Depress Anxiety       Date:  2020-07-15       Impact factor: 6.505

3.  Tailoring of medical treatment: hemostasis and thrombosis towards precision medicine.

Authors:  Giovanni Di Minno; Elena Tremoli
Journal:  Haematologica       Date:  2017-02-28       Impact factor: 9.941

Review 4.  Finding the right balance between precision medicine and personalized care.

Authors:  Finlay A McAlister; Andreas Laupacis; Paul W Armstrong
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2017-08-21       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 5.  Points to Consider: Ethical, Legal, and Psychosocial Implications of Genetic Testing in Children and Adolescents.

Authors:  Jeffrey R Botkin; John W Belmont; Jonathan S Berg; Benjamin E Berkman; Yvonne Bombard; Ingrid A Holm; Howard P Levy; Kelly E Ormond; Howard M Saal; Nancy B Spinner; Benjamin S Wilfond; Joseph D McInerney
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 11.025

6.  Integrating Pharmacogenomics into Clinical Practice: Promise vs Reality.

Authors:  Jennifer L St Sauver; Suzette J Bielinski; Janet E Olson; Elizabeth J Bell; Michaela E Mc Gree; Debra J Jacobson; Jennifer B McCormick; Pedro J Caraballo; Paul Y Takahashi; Veronique L Roger; Carolyn R Rohrer Vitek
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2016-05-05       Impact factor: 4.965

7.  Patient experiences with pharmacogenetic testing in a primary care setting.

Authors:  Susanne B Haga; Rachel Mills; Jivan Moaddeb; Nancy Allen Lapointe; Alex Cho; Geoffrey S Ginsburg
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics       Date:  2016-09-20       Impact factor: 2.533

8.  Prior opioid exposure influences parents' sharing of their children's CYP2D6 research results.

Authors:  Melanie F Myers; Xue Zhang; Brooke McLaughlin; Diane Kissell; Cassandra L Perry; Matthew Veerkamp; Kejian Zhang; Ingrid A Holm; Cynthia A Prows
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics       Date:  2017-07-26       Impact factor: 2.533

9.  Personal Genomic Testing for Cancer Risk: Results From the Impact of Personal Genomics Study.

Authors:  Stacy W Gray; Sarah E Gollust; Deanna Alexis Carere; Clara A Chen; Angel Cronin; Sarah S Kalia; Huma Q Rana; Mack T Ruffin; Catharine Wang; J Scott Roberts; Robert C Green
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-12-12       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 10.  Chasing Mendel: five questions for personalized medicine.

Authors:  Michael J Joyner; Franklyn G Prendergast
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2014-06-01       Impact factor: 5.182

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.