Direct to Consumer Testing in Reproductive Contexts--should Health Professionals Be Concerned?

Overview

Journal Life Sci Soc Policy

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Medical Ethics

Date 2015 Jun 19

PMID 26085310

Citations 3

Authors

Heather Skirton

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Direct to consumer genetic testing offered via the Internet has been available for over a decade. Initially most tests of this type were offered without the input of the consumer's own health professional. Ethical and practical concerns have been a raised over the use of such tests: these include fulfilling the requirement for informed consent, utility of results for health care management and the potential burden placed upon health services by people who have taken tests.These tests now have an application in reproductive healthcare. The advent of non-invasive prenatal testing has facilitated the genetic testing of the fetus using only a maternal blood sample. However, companies offering such tests, for example for aneuploidy, appear to be doing so based on a referral from the mother's health professional. Preconception or prenatal carrier testing for a range of autosomal recessive conditions can be purchased without the input of a health professional who knows the prospective parents. However, unless the appropriate mutations for the specific population are included in the test, results may create false reassurance. Paternity testing without the consent of the putative father is also available via the Internet, as are tests to ascertain the sex of the fetus, which may be used to select children of a specific gender.Direct-to-consumer tests may support prospective parents to identify genetic risk to their future children, however, it is important that they are aware of the possible limitations, as well as advantages, of these tests. National regulation may not prove effective in ensuring the safety of all individuals involved, therefore international pressure to ensure companies conform to Codes of Practice may be needed, especially in relation to tests that could influence reproductive decisions. However, health professionals have a duty to ensure they are sufficiently knowledgeable to enable them to guide patients appropriately.

Citing Articles

Genetic testing-whether to allow complete freedom? Direct to consumer tests versus genetic tests for medical purposes.

Malgorzata M, Maria S, Michal W J Appl Genet. 2021; 63(1):119-126.

PMID: 34826052 PMC: 8755658. DOI: 10.1007/s13353-021-00670-z.

First French study relative to preconception genetic testing: 1500 general population participants' opinion.

Bonneau V, Nizon M, Latypova X, Gaultier A, Hoarau E, Bezieau S Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2021; 16(1):130.

PMID: 33712027 PMC: 7955630. DOI: 10.1186/s13023-021-01754-z.

Is there a Role for Genetic Counselors in Prenatal Paternity Testing? - an Assessment Based on Audit of 13 years of Clinical Experience in South Australia.

Riley K, Salvemini H, Haan E, Fitzgerald L, Stallard K, Borrie S J Genet Couns. 2016; 26(1):159-172.

PMID: 27443149 DOI: 10.1007/s10897-016-9994-1.

References

Ten Kate L, Teeuw M, Henneman L, Cornel M . Autosomal recessive disease in children of consanguineous parents: inferences from the proportion of compound heterozygotes. J Community Genet. 2011; 1(1):37-40. PMC: 3063838. DOI: 10.1007/s12687-010-0002-4. View

Wright C, Burton H . The use of cell-free fetal nucleic acids in maternal blood for non-invasive prenatal diagnosis. Hum Reprod Update. 2008; 15(1):139-51. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmn047. View

de Jong A, Dondorp W, de Die-Smulders C, Frints S, De Wert G . Non-invasive prenatal testing: ethical issues explored. Eur J Hum Genet. 2009; 18(3):272-7. PMC: 2987207. DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2009.203. View

Cornel M, van El C, Borry P . The challenge of implementing genetic tests with clinical utility while avoiding unsound applications. J Community Genet. 2012; 5(1):7-12. PMC: 3890066. DOI: 10.1007/s12687-012-0121-1. View

Skirton H, Patch C . Factors affecting the clinical use of non-invasive prenatal testing: a mixed methods systematic review. Prenat Diagn. 2013; 33(6):532-41. DOI: 10.1002/pd.4094. View

Bunnik E, Janssens A, Schermer M . Informed consent in direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: the outline of a model between specific and generic consent. Bioethics. 2012; 28(7):343-51. DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12004. View

Jackson L, Goldsmith L, Skirton H . Guidance for patients considering direct-to-consumer genetic testing and health professionals involved in their care: development of a practical decision tool. Fam Pract. 2014; 31(3):341-8. DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmt087. View

Hill M, Lewis C, Jenkins L, Allen S, Elles R, Chitty L . Implementing noninvasive prenatal fetal sex determination using cell-free fetal DNA in the United Kingdom. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2012; 12 Suppl 1:S119-26. DOI: 10.1517/14712598.2012.666522. View

Darst B, Madlensky L, Schork N, Topol E, Bloss C . Perceptions of genetic counseling services in direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing. Clin Genet. 2013; 84(4):335-9. DOI: 10.1111/cge.12166. View

10.

Borry P, Cornel M, Howard H . Where are you going, where have you been: a recent history of the direct-to-consumer genetic testing market. J Community Genet. 2011; 1(3):101-106. PMC: 3063844. DOI: 10.1007/s12687-010-0023-z. View

11.

Murphy Bollinger J, Green R, Kaufman D . Attitudes about regulation among direct-to-consumer genetic testing customers. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers. 2013; 17(5):424-8. PMC: 3634146. DOI: 10.1089/gtmb.2012.0453. View

12.

Skirton H, Goldsmith L, Jackson L, OConnor A . Direct to consumer genetic testing: a systematic review of position statements, policies and recommendations. Clin Genet. 2012; 82(3):210-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2012.01863.x. View

13.

Janssens A, Van Duijn C . An epidemiological perspective on the future of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing. Investig Genet. 2010; 1(1):10. PMC: 2990732. DOI: 10.1186/2041-2223-1-10. View

14.

Annas G, Elias S . 23andMe and the FDA. N Engl J Med. 2014; 370(23):2248-9. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc1404692. View

15.

Chua E, Kennedy M . Current State and Future Prospects of Direct-to-Consumer Pharmacogenetics. Front Pharmacol. 2012; 3:152. PMC: 3422723. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2012.00152. View

16.

Caulfield T, McGuire A . Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: perceptions, problems, and policy responses. Annu Rev Med. 2011; 63:23-33. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-med-062110-123753. View

17.

Hill M, Barrett A, White H, Chitty L . Uses of cell free fetal DNA in maternal circulation. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2012; 26(5):639-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.03.004. View

18.

Eng C, Sharp R . Bioethical and clinical dilemmas of direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing: the problem of misattributed equivalence. Sci Transl Med. 2010; 2(17):17cm5. DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3000214. View

19.

Moonesinghe R, Khoury M, Liu T, Janssens A . Discriminative accuracy of genomic profiling comparing multiplicative and additive risk models. Eur J Hum Genet. 2010; 19(2):180-5. PMC: 3025793. DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2010.165. View

20.

Samuel G, Jordens C, Kerridge I . Direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: ethical and regulatory issues that arise from wanting to 'know' your DNA. Intern Med J. 2010; 40(3):220-4. DOI: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2010.02190.x. View