Genetic tests obtainable through pharmacies: the good, the bad, and the ugly

Human genomics 07/2013; 7(1):17. DOI: 10.1186/1479-7364-7-17
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Genomic medicine seeks to exploit an individual's genomic information in the context of guiding the clinical decision-making process. In the post-genomic era, a range of novel molecular genetic testing methodologies have emerged, allowing the genetic testing industry to grow at a very rapid pace. As a consequence, a considerable number of different private diagnostic testing laboratories now provide a wide variety of genetic testing services, often employing a direct-to-consumer (DTC) business model to identify mutations underlying (or associated with) common Mendelian disorders, to individualize drug response, to attempt to determine an individual's risk of a multitude of complex (multifactorial) diseases, or even to determine a person's identity. Recently, we have noted a novel trend in the provision of private molecular genetic testing services, namely saliva and buccal swab collection kits (for deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) isolation) being offered for sale over the counter by pharmacies. This situation is somewhat different from the standard DTC genetic testing model, since pharmacists are healthcare professionals who are supposedly qualified to give appropriate advice to their clients. There are, however, a number of issues to be addressed in relation to the marketing of DNA collection kits for genetic testing through pharmacies, namely a requirement for regulatory clearance, the comparative lack of appropriate genetics education of the healthcare professionals involved, and most importantly, the lack of awareness on the part of both the patients and the general public with respect to the potential benefits or otherwise of the various types of genetic test offered, which may result in confusion as to which test could be beneficial in their own particular case. We believe that some form of genetic counseling should ideally be integrated into, and made inseparable from, the genetic testing process, while pharmacists should be obliged to receive some basic training about the genetic tests that they offer for sale.

Download full-text


Available from: Fahd Al-Mulla, Jul 08, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Natural selection defined by differential survival and reproduction of individuals in populations is influenced by genetic, developmental, and environmental factors operating at every age and stage in human life history: generation of gametes, conception, birth, maturation, reproduction, senescence, and death. Biological systems are built upon a hierarchical organization nesting subcellular organelles, cells, tissues, and organs within individuals, individuals within families, and families within populations, and the latter among other populations. Natural selection often acts simultaneously at more than one level of biological organization and on specific traits, which we define as multilevel selection. Under this model, the individual is a fundamental unit of biological organization and also of selection, imbedded in a larger evolutionary context, just as it is a unit of medical intervention imbedded in larger biological, cultural, and environmental contexts. Here, we view human health and life span as necessary consequences of natural selection, operating at all levels and phases of biological hierarchy in human life history as well as in sociological and environmental milieu. An understanding of the spectrum of opportunities for natural selection will help us develop novel approaches to improving healthy life span through specific and global interventions that simultaneously focus on multiple levels of biological organization. Indeed, many opportunities exist to apply multilevel selection models employed in evolutionary biology and biodemography to improving human health at all hierarchical levels. Multilevel selection perspective provides a rational theoretical foundation for a synthesis of medicine and evolution that could lead to discovering effective predictive, preventive, palliative, potentially curative, and individualized approaches in medicine and in global health programs.
    Advances in genetics 01/2014; 87:1-70. DOI:10.1016/B978-0-12-800149-3.00001-9
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aim: In the postgenomic era, in many European countries, very little is known regarding the level of awareness of healthcare professionals with respect to pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine. Methods: Here, we report the findings of an in-depth study, involving 86 pharmacists and 208 physicians, to assess their level of awareness of pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine. Results: Our findings indicate that approximately 60% of pharmacists consider their level of knowledge of personalized medicine to be very low, while over half of the pharmacists and physicians intimate that they would be unable to explain the results of pharmacogenomic tests to their customers or patients, respectively. This situation may be directly related to the low level of their undergraduate education in genetics and pharmacogenomics. Conclusion: These findings provide the basis for assessing the views of healthcare professionals in relation to personalized medicine in Greece, and should help to facilitate the integration of genomics into the medical decision-making process.
    Personalized Medicine 01/2014; 11(1):15-26. DOI:10.2217/pme.13.92
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Sequencing of the entire exome or genome is increasingly used in clinical practice. Debate continues, however, regarding which incidental findings (IFs) should be returned and who should be involved in those decisions. Previous empirical research regarding stakeholder attitudes to the return of IFs has primarily involved genetics professionals; non-genetics health professionals have not been widely surveyed. Given this, a survey regarding return of IFs was administered at the Best Practices in Pediatrics Conference following an educational presentation on genetics terminology and genetic condition examples. A total of 258 participants completed the survey. Of particular note, respondents who were positively disposed to sequencing did not always report wanting to learn about IFs, even if actionable. This is noteworthy given recent American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics guidelines recommending particular actionable IF be returned “without reference to patient preference”. This study's findings are important because they provide insight regarding the attitudes to the return of genome sequencing results for an important professional group, primary care providers. Ultimately, as likely gatekeepers to referrals for this technology, their opinions about the test will be key to its successful deployment.
    Clinical Genetics 03/2014; 86(5). DOI:10.1111/cge.12390