Marketing of unproven genetic tests a threat to public health

Authors Sara Katsanis, Gail Javitt, and Kathy Hudson of the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University recommend rapid action to bolster the role of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in overseeing certain genetic tests developed in-house by diagnostic laboratories; creation of a mandatory, publicly accessible registry of information about each available genetic test, including data that support the intended uses of the test; and enhanced enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to impede false or misleading advertising claims about the benefits of genetic testing. The Center is supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

The success of personalized medicine depends upon public confidence in accurate, reliable genetic tests, the authors write. Tests for more than 1,500 diseases and conditions are available, yet the efficacy of many of these tests has not been evaluated. With the increasing availability of genetic testing services, and the promise of pharmacogenetics, “it is essential to be certain that the regulatory infrastructure is tailored in a manner beneficial to public health,” they note. While most genetic tests must be ordered through a doctor, a growing number also are available directly to the consumer (DTC) over the Internet. These DTC tests are especially troubling, the paper explains, “because there is no health-care provider to serve as a ‘gatekeeper’ to prevent inappropriate test ordering or misinterpretation of test results.”

The authors reviewed claims made by testing businesses about the value of genetic testing for variability in cytochrome P-450 (CYP450) enzymes in predicting how individuals will metabolize antidepressants called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). At least 15 businesses currently offer CYP450 genotyping services, and four of those companies make specific claims that a CYP450 test can be used to recommend treatment, drug choice, and dosage. However, an independent working group initiated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report last year that “discourages the use of CYP450 testing for patients beginning SSRI treatment until further clinical trials are completed,” the authors point out.

As a consequence, they warn, “a patient informed of his or her CYP450 profile might independently change the dose of antidepressant medication with adverse health outcomes,” more so because some companies involved offer the test DTC. Moreover, they say, “the current situation also could lead both providers and patients to lose trust in the value of genetic testing to improve drug-prescribing decisions,” the cornerstone of personalized medicine.

Two federal agencies with key roles in genetic testing oversight need to step up regulation, they say. Currently, FDA oversight is limited to tests that are sold as complete kits or selected test components. Furthermore, FDA review covers only the uses specified by the manufacturer of the kit, and not the broader potential uses for such tests. The authors urge that FDA oversight be expanded in scope, and to encompass laboratory-developed tests used in drug selection and dosage. This expansion of FDA review would “better protect the public against tests that lack adequate evidence of clinical benefit and whose use could lead to selection of ineffective medications, adverse drug reactions, or failure to take a drug that would be effective.”

The situation is somewhat different at FTC, which has the authority to prohibit false or misleading advertising claims but has so far declined to exercise it against genetic testing businesses. The agency should use evidence available from the CDC-sponsored reviews and elsewhere to “take decisive action against companies making false or misleading claims about the benefits of genetic testing,” the authors recommend.

Lastly, they advocate that those offering genetic tests – traditionally or DTC – first be required to submit information about the test and data supporting its intended use to a registry that would be accessible to the public. “The availability of this information would aid doctors and patients in test selection and interpretation, and would afford a degree of transparency that is absent from the genetic testing marketplace,” they write.

“Genetic tests offer doctors and patients an unprecedented opportunity for improving health care,” says Center Director Kathy Hudson. “Marketing unproven tests to an unsuspecting public could undermine the very future of personalized medicine.”

Source: Johns Hopkins University

Blood vessel inhibitor shows promise against metastatic thyroid cancer
Thyroid cancer that has spread to distant sites has a poor prognosis, but an experimental drug that inhibits tumor blood vessel formation can slow disease progression in some patients, a research team led by investigators from The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center reports in the July 3rd edition of The New England Journal of Medicine.
New electrostatic-based DNA microarray technique could revolutionize medical diagnostics
The dream of personalized medicine — in which diagnostics, risk predictions and treatment decisions are based on a patient's genetic profile — may be on the verge of being expanded beyond the wealthiest of nations with state-of-the-art clinics.
In Poland, Chopin's heart may hold secret of his death
The heart of Frederic Chopin, one of the world's most cherished musical geniuses, could hold the secret to his untimely death.
Same drug, different results: MUHC researcher on the path to personalized medicine
Minor genetic differences between individuals change the effect of a common medication, study shows
Medicine has moved a little bit closer to the era of tailor-made treatments, based on the unique genetic profiles of individual patients, according to recent research conducted by Dr Rima Rozen of the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre (RI MUHC) at the Montreal Children's Hospital and McGill University. Her study, published June 18 in the journal Pharmacogenetics and Genomics, shows how minor genetic differences between individuals alter the way a common drug affects the body.

Perspective: Policies must keep pace with genetic progress
Enactment of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of 2008 is a boon to individual patients and for genetic research, write Kathy Hudson, M.K. Holohan, and Francis Collins in the June 19 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. But the bill is not a panacea, they note: Employers, health insurers, patients, and doctors now must be educated about its provisions, gaps remain in genetic testing oversight, and there still may be opportunities to misuse genetic information.
Researchers block transmission of malaria in animal tests
By disrupting the potassium channel of the malaria parasite, a team of researchers has been able to prevent new malaria parasites from forming in mosquitoes and has thereby broken the cycle of infection during recent animal tests.
Researchers discover traits of aggressive form of prostate cancer
Researchers led by a team at the Michigan Center for Translational Pathology at the University of Michigan Health System have identified traits of an aggressive type of prostate cancer that occurs in about 10 percent of men who have the disease. They hope the discovery could lead, possibly within the next few years, to a simple urine test that will help to diagnose this variation of prostate cancer.
Prenatal biochemical screening only detects half of chromosomal abnormalities
Prenatal biochemical screening tests are widely used to look for chromosomal abnormalities in the fetus which can lead to serious handicap, or even death during gestation or in the first few days after birth. But these tests are only able to detect fewer than half of the total chromosomal abnormalities in the fetus, a scientist will tell the annual conference of the European Society of Human Genetics today.

Marketing of unproven genetic tests a threat to public health

Related stories:

News discussion: