Where are you going, where have you been: a recent history of the direct-to-consumer genetic testing market

In recent years, various private companies have been marketing and offering genetic tests directly to consumers. This article reviews the recent history of this commercial phenomenon. In particular, we discuss and describe the following subjects: (1) the factors that allowed for the creation of the direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing (GT) market; (2) information regarding the size and potential success or failure of the DTC GT market; (3) recent changes in the DTC GT market; and (4) the recent events that may have an impact on the regulatory oversight of DTC genetic testing and the future evolution of this market. This review of factors suggests that despite the possibility of a change of business model as well as increased regulation, the commercialization of genetic testing is here to stay. As such it is important to pay close attention not only to the science underlying these tests but also to the ethical, legal, and social issues

Monitoring of risk factor/outcome combinations:A valuable supplement to birth defect monitoring

Since the thalidomide disaster in the early sixties many birth defect monitoring systems and registries have been set up to detect changes in the frequencies of specific birth defects. The primary methods of monitoring have been the statistical analysis of data on birth prevalences and teratologic analysis. The yield of this monitoring effect has nevertheless been low when one considers the lack of etiologic factors detected in this way. We therefore propose an additional strategy involving (periodic) classification of all cases in a birth defect registry according to possible risk factors and notified anomalies coupled with a search for specific associations between risk factors and (patterns of) anomalies. We here present data showing the sensitivity of the method. Sensitivity was studied by looking at some already well known associations between risk factors and congenital anomalies in our registry involving 1850 cases. The associations studied were neural tube defects and maternal use of valproic acid, numerical chromosomal anomalies and advanced maternal age, gastroschisis and low maternal age, and autosomal recessive disorders and parental consanguinity. Each of these associations was apparent in the registry, suggesting that risk factor/outcome monitoring as described here is a potentially strong method for finding new etiologic factors in birth defects.</p

Preconceptional genetic carrier testing and the commercial offer directly-to-consumers

Recently, a number of commercial companies are offering preconceptional carrier tests directly-to-consumers. This offer raises a number of concerns and issues above and beyond those encountered with preconceptional tests offered within the traditional health care setting. In order to bring some of these issues to light and to initiate dialogue on this topic, this article discusses the following issues: the current offer of preconceptional carrier tests (until the end of 2010) through online commercial companies; the implications for the informed consent procedure and the need for good information; the need for medical supervision and follow-up; and the appropriate use of existing resources. The article concludes with some reflections about the potential sustainability of the offer of preconceptional carrier tests directly-to-consumers

Testing the Children: Do Non-Genetic Health-Care Providers Differ in Their Decision to Advise Genetic Presymptomatic Testing on Minors? A Cross-Sectional Study in Five Countries in the European Union

BACKGROUND: Within Europe many guidelines exist regarding the genetic testing of minors. Predictive and presymptomatic genetic testing of minors is recommended for disorders for which medical intervention/preventive measures exist, and for which early detection improves future medical health. AIM: This study, which is part of the larger 5th EU-framework "genetic education" (GenEd) study, aimed to evaluate the self-reported responses of nongenetic health-care providers in five different EU countries (Germany, France, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands) when confronted with a parent requesting presymptomatic testing on a minor child for a treatable disease. METHODS: A cross-sectional study design using postal, structured scenario-based questionnaires that were sent to 8129 general practitioners (GPs) and pediatricians, between July 2004 and October 2004, addressing self-reported management of a genetic case for which early medical intervention during childhood is beneficial, involving a minor. RESULTS: Most practitioners agreed on testing the oldest child, aged 12 years (81.5% for GPs and 87.2% for pediatricians), and not testing the youngest child, aged 6 months (72.6% for GPs and 61.3% for pediatricians). After multivariate adjustment there were statistical differences between countries in recommending a genetic test for the child at the age of 8 years. Pediatricians in France (50%) and Germany (58%) would recommend a test, whereas in the United Kingdom (22%), Sweden (30%), and the Netherlands (32%) they would not. CONCLUSION: Even though presymptomatic genetic testing in minors is recommended for disorders for which medical intervention exists, EU physicians are uncertain at what age starting to do so in young children

Moving towards a cure in genetics : what is needed to bring somatic gene therapy to the clinic?

Clinical trials using somatic gene editing (e.g., CRISPR-Cas9) have started in Europe and the United States and may provide safe and effective treatment and cure, not only for cancers but also for some monogenic conditions. In a workshop at the 2018 European Human Genetics Conference, the challenges of bringing somatic gene editing therapies to the clinic were discussed. The regulatory process needs to be considered early in the clinical development pathway to produce the data necessary to support the approval by the European Medicines Agency. The roles and responsibilities for geneticists may include counselling to explain the treatment possibilities and safety interpretation.Peer reviewe

Human germline gene editing: Recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE

Technological developments in gene editing raise high expectations for clinical applications, first of all for somatic gene editing but in theory also for germline gene editing (GLGE). GLGE is currently not allowed in many countries. This makes clinical applications in these countries impossible now, even if GLGE would become safe and effective. What were the arguments behind this legislation, and are they still convincing? If a technique can help to avoid serious genetic disorders, in a safe and effective way, would this be a reason to reconsider earlier standpoints? The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) together developed a Background document and Recommendations to inform and stimulate ongoing societal debates. After consulting its membership and experts, this final version of the Recommendations was endorsed by the Executive Committee and the Board of the respective Societies in May 2017. Taking account of ethical arguments, we argue that both basic and pre-clinical research regarding GLGE can be justified, with conditions. Furthermore, while clinical GLGE would be totally premature, it might become a responsible intervention in the future, but only after adequate pre-clinical research. Safety of the child and future generations is a major concern. Future discussions must also address priorities among reproductive and potential non-reproductive alternatives, such as PGD and somatic editing, if that would be safe and successful. The prohibition of human germline modification, however, needs renewed discussion among relevant stakeholders, including the general public and legislators

Responsible innovation in human germline gene editing: Background document to the recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE

Technological developments in gene editing raise high expectations for clinical applications, including editing of the germline. The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) together developed a Background document and Recommendations to inform and stimulate ongoing societal debates. This document provides the background to the Recommendations. Germline gene editing is currently not allowed in many countries. This makes clinical applications in these countries impossible now, even if germline gene editing would become safe and effective. What were the arguments behind this legislation, and are they still convincing? If a technique could help to avoid serious genetic disorders, in a safe and effective way, would this be a reason to reconsider earlier standpoints? This Background document summarizes the scientific developments and expectations regarding germline gene editing, legal regulations at the European level, and ethics for three different settings (basic research, preclinical research and clinical applications). In ethical terms, we argue that the deontological objections (e.g., gene editing goes against nature) do not seem convincing while consequentialist objections (e.g., safety for the children thus conceived and following generations) require research, not all of which is allowed in the current legal situation in European countries. Development of this Background document and Recommendations reflects the responsibility to help society understand and debate the full range of possible implications of the new technologies, and to contribute to regulations that are adapted to the dynamics of the field while taking account of ethical considerations and societal concerns

Value-based genomic screening: exploring genomic screening for chronic diseases using triple value principles

L

Responsible implementation of expanded carrier screening.

This document of the European Society of Human Genetics contains recommendations regarding responsible implementation of expanded carrier screening. Carrier screening is defined here as the detection of carrier status of recessive diseases in couples or persons who do not have an a priori increased risk of being a carrier based on their or their partners' personal or family history. Expanded carrier screening offers carrier screening for multiple autosomal and X-linked recessive disorders, facilitated by new genetic testing technologies, and allows testing of individuals regardless of ancestry or geographic origin. Carrier screening aims to identify couples who have an increased risk of having an affected child in order to facilitate informed reproductive decision making. In previous decades, carrier screening was typically performed for one or few relatively common recessive disorders associated with significant morbidity, reduced life-expectancy and often because of a considerable higher carrier frequency in a specific population for certain diseases. New genetic testing technologies enable the expansion of screening to multiple conditions, genes or sequence variants. Expanded carrier screening panels that have been introduced to date have been advertised and offered to health care professionals and the public on a commercial basis. This document discusses the challenges that expanded carrier screening might pose in the context of the lessons learnt from decades of population-based carrier screening and in the context of existing screening criteria. It aims to contribute to the public and professional discussion and to arrive at better clinical and laboratory practice guidelines.European Journal of Human Genetics advance online publication, 16 March 2016; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2015.271