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.
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.
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
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
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
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