Personal genetic profiling services lack evidence for claims

Oct 12, 2010

Direct-to-consumer personal genetic profiling services that claim to predict people's health risks by analysing their DNA are often inconclusive and companies that sell them should provide better information about the evidence on which the results are based, says the UK Nuffield Council on Bioethics, in a new report on the ethics of so-called personalised healthcare services.

The report says that claims that these services are leading to a new era of 'personalised healthcare' are overstated and should be treated with caution. The Council recommends that regulators of these services and advertising regulators should request evidence to back up the claims made by companies.

The services are marketed to healthy people as a way of finding out their risk of developing serious conditions such as diabetes, , Parkinson's disease and some cancers. But people taking the tests are faced with complicated risk data in their results and may experience undue anxiety, or be falsely reassured, says the Council.

Professor Christopher Hood, chair of the Working Party that produced the report, said:

"Commercial genetic profiling services may seem to be providing more choice to consumers, but the test results can be unreliable and difficult to interpret and they are often offered to people with little or no genetic counselling or support".

"People should be aware that other than prompting obvious healthy such as taking more exercise, eating a balanced diet and reducing , the tests are unlikely to inform them of any specific disease risks that can be significantly changed by their behaviour," added Professor Hood.

Currently there is no overarching system of regulation for personal genetic profiling. The tests are mainly provided by companies based in the US, and they can cost up to US $2,000. During its inquiry, the Council wrote to providers of genetic profiling services to try to find out how many people are currently using them, but the companies were not willing to share this information.

The Council recommends that genetic profiling companies should provide more information about their services to consumers before they buy, such as their limitations, the fact that the results may require interpretation by a doctor or geneticist, and which other third parties may have access to the data arising from the test. Government-run health websites should provide information about the risks and benefits associated with personal genetic profiling services, including whether or not it could be necessary for people to inform insurance companies of the results.

Professor Nikolas Rose, one of the authors of the report, said:

"Genetic profiling services come with the promise that people will be able to take more responsibility for their health – but it is not clear what that responsibility would imply."

"You may feel a responsibility to change your lifestyle on the basis of your results, without the help of a doctor to interpret the ambiguous risk statistics. You may feel a responsibility to inform family members, insurers or potential employers of your risks, even though you may never develop the conditions in question," added Professor Rose.

To make these recommendations, the Working Party weighed up whether the need to reduce harm was strong enough to propose interventions that compromised people's freedom to pursue their own interests.

The report also considers another so-called personalised healthcare service – direct-to-consumer CT, MRI and ultrasound body scans as a form of 'health check-up' for people without pre-existing symptoms, a service which some companies offer at a cost of more than £1,000.

CT scans carry serious physical risks from the radiation involved, especially if whole body scans are used, and carried out on repeated occasions.

The Council says that the commercial sale of whole body CT scans as a health check for people without prior symptoms of illness should be banned, as any potential benefits do not justify the potential harms caused by the radiation. It also suggests that companies offering scans as part of a health check should be regulated to ensure they are meeting standards of quality and safety.

The Council recommends that doctors should receive specific training on giving advice to patients about direct-to-consumer genetic profiling and body imaging services, and about making referral decisions on the basis of these tests.

Explore further: Genetic causes underlying the disqualification of two elite American Standardbred pacers

More information: www.nuffieldbioethics.org/

Provided by Nuffield Council on Bioethics

not rated yet
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

At Home Genomic Tests for Disease Risk Premature

Mar 18, 2008

The recent marketing of "at home" genomic tests for disease risk may be premature, according to Dr. Kenneth Offit, MD, MPH, Chief of the Clinical Genetics Service at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC).

Genetic tests advertised directly to the consumer

Jul 21, 2009

Genetic testing services have recently begun to be advertised directly to the patient, and the results of the consumers' response can affect public health, as well as the future adoption of pharmacogenetic/genomic testing, ...

Marketing of unproven genetic tests a threat to public health

Apr 03, 2008

No mechanism currently exists to ensure that genetic tests are supported by adequate evidence before they go to market, or that marketing claims are truthful and not misleading, according to a policy analysis to be published ...

Recommended for you

Right environment could improve stem cell therapies

Oct 23, 2014

Stem cell therapies are being hailed as a potential cure for many major health conditions, but there is much still to learn about the highly complex environments needed to optimise these therapies, according to researchers ...

User comments : 0