The DTC microbiome testing industry needs more regulation.

Tests lack analytical and clinical validity, requiring more federal oversight to prevent consumer harm.

Development of a Checklist Tool to Assess the Quality of Skin Lesion Images Acquired by Consumers Using Sequential Mobile Teledermoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Mobile teledermoscopy is an emerging technology that involves imaging and digitally sending dermoscopic images of skin lesions to a clinician for assessment. High-quality, consistent images are required for accurate telediagnoses when monitoring lesions over time. To date there are no tools to assess the quality of sequential images taken by consumers using mobile teledermoscopy. The purpose of this study was to develop a tool to assess the quality of images acquired by consumers. METHODS: Participants imaged skin lesions that they felt were concerning at baseline, 1-, and 2-months. A checklist to assess the quality of consumer sequential imaging of skin lesions was developed based on the International Skin Imaging Collaboration guidelines. A scale was implemented to grade the quality of the images: 0 (low) to 18 (very high). Intra- and inter-reliability of the checklist was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis. Using this checklist, the consistency with which 85 sets of images were scored by 2 evaluators were compared using Kappa statistics. Items with a low Kappa value <0.4 were removed. RESULTS: After reliability testing, 5 of the items were removed due to low Kappa values (<0.4) and the final checklist included 13 items surveying: lesion selection; image orientation; lighting; field of view; focus and depth of view. Participants had a mean age of 41 years (range 19-73), and 67% were female. Most participants (84%, n = 71/85) were able to select and image the correct lesion over time for both the dermoscopic and overview images. Younger participants (<40 years old) scored significantly higher (8.1 ± 2.1) on the imaging checklist compared to older participants (7.1 ± 2.4; p = 0.037). Participants had most difficulty with consistent image orientation. CONCLUSIONS: This checklist could be used as a triage tool to filter images acquired by consumers prior to telediagnosis evaluation, which would improve the efficiency and accuracy of teledermatology and teledermoscopy processes. It may also be used to provide feedback to the consumers to improve image acquisition over time.

Issues surrounding consumer-bought food-allergy testing.

BACKGROUND: Allergy is increasingly reported by patients and members of the public, and there is evidence that the prevalence is increasing. Not all diagnoses have been made by clinicians, as direct-to-consumer (DTC) allergy tests are widely available online. AIM: To determine if DTC allergy tests are processed in accredited laboratories and utilize validated methods, while providing an overview of the DTC allergy tests available. METHODS: Internet searches using 'allergy test kit' and 'intolerance test' were performed to identify DTC food-allergy tests. Each company was contacted to enquire if they had ISO15189 accreditation, what methods of testing they used and what was the extent of individual clinical input used to guide the test requested or result interpretation. RESULTS: In total, 24 online companies providing DTC food-allergy testing were identified, of which 22 were contactable. One laboratory had ISO15189 accreditation, which was also the only laboratory using clinically recognized specific IgE testing and had a clinician involved in the process. Other laboratories used bioresonance or IgG and involved a nutritionist at most. CONCLUSION: Online DTC food-allergy tests are largely misleading to the consumer and provided by unaccredited laboratories using controversial methodology. The dermatologist must politely discount these results and assess the role of food allergy in a patient's skin disease on the merit of clinical history, supported by specific IgE testing as appropriate.

Early Detection of Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) in an At-Home Setting.

Emerging digital tools have the potential to enable a new generation of qualitative and quantitative assessment of cognitive performance. Moreover, the ubiquity of consumer electronics, such as smartphones and tablets, can be harnessed to support large-scale self-assessed cognitive screening with benefit to healthcare systems and consumers. A wide variety of apps, wearables, and new digital technologies are either available or in development for the detection of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a risk factor for dementia. Two categories of novel methodologies may be considered: passive technologies (which monitor a user's behavior without active user input) and interactive assessments (which require active user input). Such examinations can be self-administered, supervised by a caregiver, or conducted by an informant at home or outside of a clinical setting. These direct-to-consumer tools have the potential to sidestep barriers associated with cognitive evaluation in primary care, thus improving access to cognitive assessments. Although direct-to-consumer cognitive assessment is associated with its own barriers, including test validation, user experience, and technological concerns, it is conceivable that these issues can be addressed so that a large-scale, self-assessed cognitive evaluation that would represent an initial cognitive screen may be feasible in the future.

Direct-to-consumer misleading information on cancer risks calls for an urgent clarification of health genetic testing performed by commercial companies.

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) commercial companies offer genetic tests that are presented as allowing individuals the opportunity to increase their capacities to be in charge of their own healthcare managements. DTC companies deny performing medical tests, yet they provide data based on sequencing multigene panel or whole exome. This contradiction allows these companies to escape the requirements of a regulated medical practice that guarantees the quality of the tests, as well as the information and support for tested individuals. Herein, we illustrate the lack of such requirements by analysing the bad experience of a young man who dealt with DTC health genetic testing companies. There is an emergency for DTC testing to be either deprived of any medically relevant information, or carried out in a legally regulated medical framework.

'It's much more grey than black and white': clinical geneticists' views on the oversight of consumer genomics in Europe.

Aim: Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests (GT) have created controversy regarding their risks and benefits. In view of recent regulatory developments, this article aims to explore the attitudes of European clinical geneticists toward the oversight of DTC GT. Materials & methods: Fifteen semi-structured interviews were performed with clinical geneticists based in ten European countries. The transcripts were thematically analysized in an iterative process. Results & conclusion: Respondents strongly supported quality standards for DTC GT equal to those applied within the healthcare setting. Despite participants unanimously considering the involvement of healthcare professionals to be important, mandatory medical supervision was controversial. In this regard, promoting education and truth-in-advertising was considered as being key in maintaining a balance between protecting consumers and promoting their autonomy.

[Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a regulation by the market, or a medical regulation?] / Les tests génétiques en libre accès - Régulation par le marché, ou régulation médicale ?

The direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) market has been developing for about twenty years now, raising various debates, even controversies. But what about the regulation of these so-called "innovative" devices, but whose medical status is ambiguous? A first regulatory aspect is depending on the market itself, since the latter is currently subjected to a strong structuring process. A second regulatory aspect, more classical, is the legal one. While the DTC-GT status has long been unclear on European scale, a new text (a Regulation, not a Directive) is modifying the situation. It encourages regulation "by the market" rather than "by the medical profession", which does not imply that the latter will have no (indirect) impact on the DTC-GT market.

TITLE: Les tests génétiques en libre accès - Régulation par le marché, ou régulation médicale ? ABSTRACT: Le marché des auto-tests génétiques se développe depuis une vingtaine d'années, non sans soulever des débats, voire des controverses. Qu'en est-il de la régulation de ces dispositifs dits « innovants ¼, mais dont le statut médical est ambigu ? Un premier aspect régulatoire vient du marché lui-même, puisqu'il est en cours de forte structuration. Un second aspect régulatoire relève plus classiquement du juridique. Alors que le statut des auto-tests a longtemps manqué de clarté à l'échelle européenne, un nouveau texte (un Règlement, et non une Directive) change la situation. Il encourage une régulation « par le marché ¼, plutôt que « par la profession médicale ¼, ce qui n'implique pas que cette dernière n'aura aucun impact (indirect) sur le marché des auto-tests.

Direct-to-Consumer Nutrigenetics Testing: An Overview.

At present, specialized companies offering genetic testing services without the involvement of clinicians are growing; this development is a direct consequence of the significant decrease in genotyping and sequencing costs. Online companies offer predictions about the risk of developing complex diseases during one's life course, and they offer suggestions for personal lifestyle. Several companies have been created that provide nutrigenetics services; these companies suggest dietary indications-a central issue in the prevention and etiopathogenesis of specific diseases-based on one's personal genetic background. Dietary patterns are defined on the basis of a limited set of genetic markers. In this article, we analyze the online nutrigenetics services offered by 45 companies worldwide, to obtain an overall picture of the costs, the types of nutritional traits considered and the level of scientific precision of the services proposed. Our analysis clearly highlights the need for specific guidelines, in order to ensure a set of minimum quality standards for the nutrigenetics services offered to the customer.

Challenges with At-home and Mail-in Direct-to-Consumer Testing: Preanalytical Error, Reporting Results, and Result Interpretation.

Companies that offer direct-to-consumer (DTC) testing on specimens such as saliva, blood, or urine, allow consumers to order laboratory tests without the involvement of a health care provider. This approach allows individuals to have direct access to their own laboratory results, interpret them, and make decisions regarding their health care. However, as with conventional clinical laboratory testing, there are factors that will impact the accuracy of DTC test results and limitations that consumers need to be aware of. This article focuses on challenges with DTC testing specifically related to preanalytical errors, result reporting, and result interpretation.

Self-Ordering Laboratory Testing: Limitations When a Physician Is not Part of the Model.

This review discusses considerations related to laboratory diagnostic testing purchased directly by consumers without the care and oversight of a medical doctor. There are necessary tensions between the patient, physician, laboratory medical professional (physician or scientist), laboratory as a corporate entity (where applicable), and manufacturers of diagnostic equipment. When the physician, in particular, the primary care physician, is removed from this relationship, there is a significant opportunity of exploitation of the patient. All downstream investigations following direct-to-consumer testing, including attendant risk, are offloaded onto the traditional medical system, caring physician(s), and patients themselves. This process places patients at risk of iatrogenic harm.

Consistency of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Results Among Identical Twins.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the consistency of 3 commonly used direct-to-consumer genetic testing kits. Genetic testing kits are widely marketed by several companies but the consistency of their results is unclear. Because identical twins share the same DNA, their genetic testing results should provide insight into test consistency. METHODS: Forty-two identical twins (21 pairs) provided samples for 3 testing companies. Outcomes were concordance of ancestry results when twin pairs were tested by the same company and the same participant was tested by different companies. Concordance of 8 self-reported traits with 23andMe genetic analyses were also examined. RESULTS: Concordance of ancestry results when twin pairs were tested by the same company was high, with mean percentage agreement ranging from 94.5% to 99.2%. Concordance of ancestry results when participants were tested by 2 different companies was lower, with mean percentage agreement ranging from 52.7% to 84.1%. Concordance of trait results was variable, ranging from 34.1% for deep sleep and detached earlobes to 90.2% for cleft chin. CONCLUSION: The consistency of consumer genetic testing is high for ancestry results within companies but lower and more variable for ancestry results across companies and for specific traits. These results raise questions about the usefulness of such testing.

Are providers prepared for genomic medicine: interpretation of Direct-to-Consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) results and genetic self-efficacy by medical professionals.

BACKGROUND: Precision medicine is set to deliver a rich new data set of genomic information. However, the number of certified specialists in the United States is small, with only 4244 genetic counselors and 1302 clinical geneticists. We conducted a national survey of 264 medical professionals to evaluate how they interpret genetic test results, determine their confidence and self-efficacy of interpreting genetic test results with patients, and capture their opinions and experiences with direct-to-consumer genetic tests (DTC-GT). METHODS: Participants were grouped into two categories, genetic specialists (genetic counselors and clinical geneticists) and medical providers (primary care, internists, physicians assistants, advanced nurse practitioners, etc.). The survey (full instrument can be found in the Additional file 1) presented three genetic test report scenarios for interpretation: a genetic risk for diabetes, genomic sequencing for symptoms report implicating a potential HMN7B: distal hereditary motor neuropathy VIIB diagnosis, and a statin-induced myopathy risk. Participants were also asked about their opinions on DTC-GT results and rank their own perceived level of preparedness to review genetic test results with patients. RESULTS: The rates of correctly interpreting results were relatively high (74.4% for the providers compared to the specialist's 83.4%) and age, prior genetic test consultation experience, and level of trust assigned to the reports were associated with higher correct interpretation rates. The self-selected efficacy and the level of preparedness to consult on a patient's genetic results were higher for the specialists than the provider group. CONCLUSION: Specialists remain the best group to assist patients with DTC-GT, however, primary care providers may still provide accurate interpretation of test results when specialists are unavailable.

[Patient-initiated diagnostics - a challenge for laboratory medicine]. / Egenordinerad provtagning kan ge laboratoriemedicinen ny roll.

Citizens can now order their own laboratory investigations. Self-testing is in line with increasing patient empowerment and in conflict with existing routines in medicine where all tests are ordered by the physician. Several challenges have to be faced by laboratory medicine to secure the quality and increase the medical benefits of patient-initiated diagnostics.

Personal genomic screening: How best to facilitate preparedness of future clients.

Personal genome screening (PGenS) is increasingly being offered as a screen for future health management, and to identify carrier status pertinent to reproductive decision-making. The aim of this study was therefore to explore the experience of individuals who undertook PGenS through the 2014 Sydney "Understand Your Genome (UYG)" event and a 2015 offer of PGenS by Australian biotechnology company Life Letters (LL). Eligible individuals were invited to participate by their clinical geneticist (UYG), or email from Director of LL. Semi-structured telephone interviews with 17 individuals were audio-recorded, transcribed, de-identified and analyzed by two coders using thematic analysis with an inductive approach. Nine participants had genetic/genomics expertise and eight were well-informed health and business professionals. Individual participant PGenS results included: an autosomal dominant condition not previously clinically identified (n = 1); carrier status for recessive condition(s) (n = 8); a number of disease-causing variants associated with an increased susceptibility to an inherited disorder (n = 7); variants of uncertain significance (n = 5); and a few pharmacogenomically-relevant variants (n = 4). The majority of participants described the importance of pre-test genetic counseling, information and/or consent (n = 12). Some barriers to uptake were identified, including scepticism by GPs (n = 6), colleagues (n = 3), and family members (n = 2), as well as privacy concerns (n = 4). Those without genetic/genomics expertise were mostly motivated to have testing by curiosity or interest in personal health (6/8), one seeking a diagnosis for an inherited medical condition and another for future health management. For many with genetic/genomics experience, the motivation was professional interest (8/9) and/or curiosity (5/9), without concern for personal health risk (4/9). On reflection, despite this initial motivation by the latter, the test result had unanticipated personal impact for some of this group, which changed over time (4/5). Several later recognized this, as health problems developed or family history was interrogated more closely. For all participants, disclosure of results to extended family members was limited. Most participants felt personal and family implications and communication (5/17) and/or expectations (3/17) should be addressed at the pre-test session, including more emphasis on residual risk and changes in interpretation with developing phenotypes. Those without genetics/genomics expertise highlighted the need for easy to understand pre-test information and/or an example report to be provided (7/8). These results are consistent with a need to develop more accessible resources, and more personalized counseling approaches to address expectations, dissemination of results, and preparedness for unexpected findings.

Industry perspectives on prenatal genetic testing.

Until recent years, prenatal genetic tests have been almost exclusively developed and implemented by academic physicians and laboratories. In the last several years, industry has led the development of novel prenatal genetic tests, funded clinical trials and implemented these tests into clinical practice. That these efforts have been driven by industry has raised questions about diagnostics development regulations, consistency in reporting of results, and management of potential conflicts of interest. In this article, these topics are addressed from an industry perspective. While commercial laboratories may have the resources to develop and offer novel genetic tests, collaboration with healthcare providers is crucial for appropriate, effective, and efficient utilization of such tests.

Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: Helping Patients Make Informed Choices

Using direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT), individuals can order a genetic test, collect and submit a saliva sample, and obtain results about their genetic risk for a variety of traits and health conditions without involving a healthcare provider. Potential benefits of DTCGT include personal control over genetic information and health management decisions, whereas potential risks include misinterpretation of results, psychosocial distress, and lack of informed consent. Oncology nurses can provide education, support, and advocacy to enable patients to truly understand the positives and negatives associated with DTCGT.
.

Assessment of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Policy in Korea Based on Consumer Preference.

AIMS: In June 2016, Korea permitted direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) on 42 genes. However, both the market and industry have not yet been fully activated. Considering the aforementioned context, this study provides important insights. METHODS: The Korean DTC-GT policy assessment is based on consumer preference analysis using a discrete choice experiment. In August 2016, a web-based survey was conducted to collect data from 1,200 respondents. RESULTS: The estimation results show that consumers prefer a DTC-GT product that is cheap, tests various items or genes, offers accurate test results, and guarantees the confidentiality of all information. However, consumers are not entirely satisfied by current DTC-GT products due to the existence of insufficient and/or inadequate policies. First, the permitted testing of 42 genes is insufficient to satisfy consumers' curiosity regarding their genes. Second, the accuracy of the DTC-GT products has not been fully verified, assessed, and communicated to consumers. Finally, regulatory loopholes that allow information leaks in the DTC-GT process can occur. CONCLUSIONS: These findings imply that DTC-GT requires an improvement in government policy-making criteria and the implementation of practical measures to guarantee test accuracy and genetic information.

Transparency of genetic testing services for 'health, wellness and lifestyle': analysis of online prepurchase information for UK consumers.

The declining cost of DNA sequencing has been accompanied by a proliferation of companies selling 'direct-to-consumer genetic testing' (DTC-GT) services. Many of these are marketed online as tools for enabling citizens to make more informed decisions about their health, wellness and lifestyle. We assessed the 'information for consumers' provided by these companies at the prepurchase stage, which could influence initial decisions to part with money, data or tissue samples. A scoping exercise revealed 65 DTC-GT companies advertising their services online to consumers in the United Kingdom, of which 15 met our inclusion criteria. We benchmarked their consumer information against the good practice principles developed by the UK Human Genetics Commission (HGC). No provider complied with all the HGC principles and overall levels of compliance varied considerably. Although consent for testing was discussed by all but one company, information about data reuse for research or other purposes was often sparse and consent options limited or unclear. Most did not provide supplementary support services to help users better understand or cope with the implications of test results. We provide recommendations for updating the preconsumer transparency aspects of the HGC guidelines to ensure their fitness-for-purpose in this rapidly changing market. We also recommend improving coordination between relevant governance bodies to ensure minimum standards of transparency, quality and accountability. Although DTC-GT has many potential benefits, close partnership between consumers, industry and government, along with interdisciplinary science input, are essential to ensure that these innovations are used ethically and responsibly.

Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing and Orphan Drug Development.

Since the introduction of the Orphan Drug Act (ODA) in 1983, orphan drug approvals in the United States have jumped from <100 per decade to over 200 per year. This growth is widely attributed to the financial incentives the ODA gives to companies that develop these medicines, and it is likely to continue for a unique reason: partnerships between pharmaceutical firms and direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing companies. This emerging trend is the subject of this article, which begins by considering how rare-disease drugs are regulated and the rising interest in nonclinical genetic testing. It then outlines how DTC companies analyze DNA and how their techniques benefit researchers and drug developers. Then, after an overview of the current partnerships between DTCs and drug developers, it examines concerns about privacy and cost brought up by these partnerships. The article concludes by contrasting the enormous positive potential of DTC-pharma relationships and their concomitant dangers, especially to consumer privacy and cost to the healthcare system.