Blog
About

8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      A new twist on an old problem: primary care physicians and results from direct-to-consumer genetic testing

      , ,

      Personalized Medicine

      Future Medicine Ltd

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Letting the genome out of the bottle--will we get our wish?

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Social networkers' attitudes toward direct-to-consumer personal genome testing.

            This study explores social networkers' interest in and attitudes toward personal genome testing (PGT), focusing on expectations related to the clinical integration of PGT results. An online survey of 1,087 social networking users was conducted to assess 1) use and interest in PGT; 2) attitudes toward PGT companies and test results; and 3) expectations for the clinical integration of PGT. Descriptive statistics were calculated to summarize respondents' characteristics and responses. Six percent of respondents have used PGT, 64% would consider using PGT, and 30% would not use PGT. Of those who would consider using PGT, 74% report they would use it to gain knowledge about disease in their family. 34% of all respondents consider the information obtained from PGT to be a medical diagnosis. 78% of those who would consider PGT would ask their physician for help interpreting test results, and 61% of all respondents believe physicians have a professional obligation to help individuals interpret PGT results. Respondents express interest in using PGT services, primarily for purposes related to their medical care and expect physicians to help interpret PGT results. Physicians should therefore be prepared for patient demands for information and counsel on the basis of PGT results.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A critical appraisal of the scientific basis of commercial genomic profiles used to assess health risks and personalize health interventions.

              Predictive genomic profiling used to produce personalized nutrition and other lifestyle health recommendations is currently offered directly to consumers. By examining previous meta-analyses and HuGE reviews, we assessed the scientific evidence supporting the purported gene-disease associations for genes included in genomic profiles offered online. We identified seven companies that offer predictive genomic profiling. We searched PubMed for meta-analyses and HuGE reviews of studies of gene-disease associations published from 2000 through June 2007 in which the genotypes of people with a disease were compared with those of a healthy or general-population control group. The seven companies tested at least 69 different polymorphisms in 56 genes. Of the 56 genes tested, 24 (43%) were not reviewed in meta-analyses. For the remaining 32 genes, we found 260 meta-analyses that examined 160 unique polymorphism-disease associations, of which only 60 (38%) were found to be statistically significant. Even the 60 significant associations, which involved 29 different polymorphisms and 28 different diseases, were generally modest, with synthetic odds ratios ranging from 0.54 to 0.88 for protective variants and from 1.04 to 3.2 for risk variants. Furthermore, genes in cardiogenomic profiles were more frequently associated with noncardiovascular diseases than with cardiovascular diseases, and though two of the five genes of the osteogenomic profiles did show significant associations with disease, the associations were not with bone diseases. There is insufficient scientific evidence to conclude that genomic profiles are useful in measuring genetic risk for common diseases or in developing personalized diet and lifestyle recommendations for disease prevention.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Personalized Medicine
                Personalized Medicine
                Future Medicine Ltd
                1741-0541
                1744-828X
                November 2013
                November 2013
                : 10
                : 8
                : 827-833
                Article
                10.2217/pme.13.87
                © 2013
                Product

                Comments

                Comment on this article