Survey of US public attitudes toward pharmacogenetic testing

To assess public attitudes and interest in pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing, we conducted a random-digit-dial telephone survey of U.S. adults, achieving a response rate of 42% (n=1139). Most respondents expressed interest in PGx testing to predict mild or serious side effects (73% ±3.29% and 85% ±2.91%, respectively), guide dosing (91%) and assist with drug selection (92%). Younger individuals (ages 18–34) were more likely to be interested in PGx testing to predict serious side effects (vs. ages 55+), as well as Whites, those with a college degree, and who had experienced side effects from medications. However, most respondents (78% ±3.14%) were not likely to have a PGx test if there was a risk that their DNA sample or test result could be shared without their permission. Given differences in interest among some groups, providers should clearly discuss the purpose of testing, alternative testing options (if available), and policies to protect patient privacy and confidentiality

Survey of genetic counselors and clinical geneticists' use and attitudes toward pharmacogenetic testing

Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing aims to improve therapeutic outcomes through tailoring treatment based on a patient’s genetic risk for non-response and/or an adverse event. Given their expertise, geneticists could facilitate the use of PGx testing; however, , the preparedness and perceived role of the clinical genetics community is unclear. To assess the attitudes, preparedness, and perceived roles of geneticists in the delivery of PGx testing, we conducted a survey of 1500 randomly selected board-certified genetic counselors and clinical geneticists in the U.S (response rate: 37.8% (n=516)). Twelve percent of genetic counselors and 41% of clinical geneticists indicated that they had ordered or coordinated patient care for PGx testing, a seemingly high proportion at this early stage of adoption. Almost all respondents had some education on pharmacogenetics, though only 28% of counselors and 58% of clinical geneticists indicated they felt well-informed about PGx testing. About half of counselors (52%) and clinical geneticists (46%) felt they would play ‘some’ role in the delivery of PGx testing; 17% and 19%, respectively, felt that they would play ‘no’ or ‘a little’ role. At this early stage of PGx testing, the role of geneticists and genetic counselors is unclear. However, their experience may aid in readying PGx testing and informing delivery strategies into clinical practice

Evaluating the Clinical Validity of Gene-Disease Associations: An Evidence-Based Framework Developed by the Clinical Genome Resource

Supplemental Data Supplemental Data include 65 figures and can be found with this article online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.04.015. Supplemental Data Document S1. Figures S1–S65 Download Document S2. Article plus Supplemental Data Download Web Resources ClinGen, https://www.clinicalgenome.org/ ClinGen Gene Curation, https://www.clinicalgenome.org/working-groups/gene-curation/ ClinGen Gene Curation SOP, https://www.clinicalgenome.org/working-groups/gene-curation/projects-initiatives/gene-disease-clinical-validity-sop/ ClinGen Knowledge Base, https://search.clinicalgenome.org/kb/agents/sign_up OMIM, http://www.omim.org/ Orphanet, http://www.orpha.net/consor/cgi-bin/index.php With advances in genomic sequencing technology, the number of reported gene-disease relationships has rapidly expanded. However, the evidence supporting these claims varies widely, confounding accurate evaluation of genomic variation in a clinical setting. Despite the critical need to differentiate clinically valid relationships from less well-substantiated relationships, standard guidelines for such evaluation do not currently exist. The NIH-funded Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) has developed a framework to define and evaluate the clinical validity of gene-disease pairs across a variety of Mendelian disorders. In this manuscript we describe a proposed framework to evaluate relevant genetic and experimental evidence supporting or contradicting a gene-disease relationship and the subsequent validation of this framework using a set of representative gene-disease pairs. The framework provides a semiquantitative measurement for the strength of evidence of a gene-disease relationship that correlates to a qualitative classification: “Definitive,” “Strong,” “Moderate,” “Limited,” “No Reported Evidence,” or “Conflicting Evidence.” Within the ClinGen structure, classifications derived with this framework are reviewed and confirmed or adjusted based on clinical expertise of appropriate disease experts. Detailed guidance for utilizing this framework and access to the curation interface is available on our website. This evidence-based, systematic method to assess the strength of gene-disease relationships will facilitate more knowledgeable utilization of genomic variants in clinical and research settings

Examining access to care in clinical genomic research and medicine: Experiences from the CSER Consortium.

IntroductionEnsuring equitable access to health care is a widely agreed-upon goal in medicine, yet access to care is a multidimensional concept that is difficult to measure. Although frameworks exist to evaluate access to care generally, the concept of "access to genomic medicine" is largely unexplored and a clear framework for studying and addressing major dimensions is lacking.MethodsComprised of seven clinical genomic research projects, the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research consortium (CSER) presented opportunities to examine access to genomic medicine across diverse contexts. CSER emphasized engaging historically underrepresented and/or underserved populations. We used descriptive analysis of CSER participant survey data and qualitative case studies to explore anticipated and encountered access barriers and interventions to address them.ResultsCSER's enrolled population was largely lower income and racially and ethnically diverse, with many Spanish-preferring individuals. In surveys, less than a fifth (18.7%) of participants reported experiencing barriers to care. However, CSER project case studies revealed a more nuanced picture that highlighted the blurred boundary between access to genomic research and clinical care. Drawing on insights from CSER, we build on an existing framework to characterize the concept and dimensions of access to genomic medicine along with associated measures and improvement strategies.ConclusionsOur findings support adopting a broad conceptualization of access to care encompassing multiple dimensions, using mixed methods to study access issues, and investing in innovative improvement strategies. This conceptualization may inform clinical translation of other cutting-edge technologies and contribute to the promotion of equitable, effective, and efficient access to genomic medicine