Some Confusion Exists

I have a great comment string going on with Daniel MacArthur over at his blog Genetic Future

I think there is some confusion going on here and I place blame on just about everyone in this space who has a mouthpiece.......

But mainly I lay blame on the marketing teams for the Direct to Consumer Genomics companies.

These companies have an interest in making you "think" that their products have some particular health relevance.

Otherwise, no one in their right mind would waste their time with these tests.......Other than the HUGE field of ancestry buffs like Blaine Bettinger J.D. (woohoo) We need clarity here.

From Daniel- "The American College of Medical Genetics is saying "Genetic tests of individuals or families for the presence of or susceptibility to disease are medical tests."

The fine print says:

"This guideline should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of other procedures and tests that are reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, the geneticist should apply his or her own professional judgment to the specific clinical circumstances presented by the individual patient or specimen"

Meaning

"The judgement of what constitutes an inclusive test is left up to the physician"

In my opinion, there are Green tests, Yellow Tests and Red Tests. I think Ryan Phelan sized this up pretty eloquently in 2007 at a conference I spoke at with her.

Red means - Stop, does this test need analytic/clinical utility/validity? Yes, Go ahead and regulate, these are clinically validated/used clinically for a long time, tests which have a use in medicine. If this test is claiming to do so but does not, then this too should be a cause of regulation.

Yellow means - Well, this could be used but maybe hasn't yet. I think of Age Related Macular Degeneration testing. They could have clinical applicability and haven't been put to use yet. This category may also include low odds ratio common SNPs here which indicate risk FOR disease.

You should have some caution when selling/regulating these tests. The biggest problem is that with evidence evolving over time the low ORs may actually be overturned or fall into the Red category.

They key point is what the test claims to do here.

Does it claim to tell you a risk for a disease via algorithm etc.?

If yes, then it becomes a Red test.

If it says in huge disclaimers, this test DOES NOT PREDICT DISEASE RISK, in plain and clear writing on every piece of its marketing then Yellow tests stay Yellow.

Green Tests - Have absolutely nothing to do with a person's health. These tests do not need medical regulations. Ancestry could be here. Eye color/ear wax/height.

But the moment it is used for medicine or medical procedures (PGD for these things, scary but possible) it then becomes a Red test.

ACMG is talking about Red tests. It is also saying, if you as a clinician think a Yellow test is actually a Red test, then it is a Red test.

Which I agree is confusing. But ACMG is not the US or State Governments. Nor is it the UK or anywhere else's government......It is a professional organization.

My take is simple. If there is a risk for public harm, the government should protect its citizens from that harm in a reasonable manner. I emphasize, reasonable manner. What Techies in the Silicon Valley view as unreasonable regulation may very well be extremely reasonable in the view of physicians and hospitals......

There is no reason to get all crazy here. The New York Times is right, until the government or state governments step in to protect the citizens of risk, it IS Buyer Beware when it comes to genetic tests.....

In my mind, genetic tests need to prove their worth in the field of medicine. They do this by medical science and clinical science studies.

Without these, they are useless noise.

So, should you be able to buy useless noise?

Go ahead.

But the moment the noise whispers in your ear "PSSST, I can tell you your risk for diabetes for 50 dollars" Its A$$ should be regulated.

I hope that clears things up. The problem here is that you have a company selling you noise mixed with clinically valid tests. They are the first company whose A$$ should be told to hold up and split the products.

Then you have a company selling you noise all the while "inferring" it is actually predictive and useful in medicine by getting Doctors to use it in medicine should also be regulated.

Blame Marketers and Spin Men, just like "Thank You for Smoking"

The Sherpa Says: If you apply the Red, Yellow, Green interpretation scale you will soon understand why all the confusion exists. And how that confusion can be cleared up.

National Academies skeptical at Best.

If you would like to watch the IOM conference you can check out day one here
My take away from the first day.

"Do you guys (DTC) know what you are doing?"

"I wonder what kind of research and the quality you can provide?"

"I can't believe you aren't regulated already."

I think there are some really big issues here and there is some confusion.
Questions that remain to be answered..........
1. "Will these companies sell the customer/patient DNA/data?"
2. "Are these companies practicing medicine?"
3. "How do we quantify personal utility?"
4. "Will regulation really kill these companies?"
5. "What rigors and hoops will be required for these companies with research?"
6. "What will the GAO find about today's DTC companies?"

The best thing these companies have done is raise the need for answers and refined regulations.

The worst thing these companies have done is put customers/patients at risk for
1. genetic theft
2. harm via untrained physician
3. false predictions and false hopes
4. 3rd party harm

These companies should be behaving more responsibly, it is sad that they continue to market deceptively. It is also sad that they have not more carefully thought out their research aims. They clearly don't care about the chain of trust.

The Sherpa Says: I think the IOM and National Academies are skeptical at best. Which is the right attitude IMHO. DTC has a lot to prove and it hasn't done anything to do that yet.

IOM not webcast today. Why Not?

The IOM conference "Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: A Cross-Academies Workshop" will not be webcast today? I wonder why not? Was it supposed to be and then submarined after Muin Khoury quoted an email I wrote him while he was presenting?

Why is there no webcast for this important conference today?

Maybe I am just a conspiracy theorist.

But I would like IOM and the National Academies to explain why the cover one day but not the second.

The second day by the way has some great topics


From the Agenda

Session 5: The Impact of DTC Genetic Tests on the Medical System

"If the medical system is no longer required to mediate genetic testing, how will the system cope with losing oversight (and reimbursement) of these services while retaining the full responsibility of caring for patients the services affect?"

Here is a little hint. Currently there is no mediation of this DTC testing, therefore you can see what is happening. Marketing hype, misinformation, inaccurate results, improper provision of the results, lack of follow up, no post services offered to BRCA mutation carriers.

Here's a mind bender, can you bill insurance legally for a ICD9 of Genetic Susceptibility to Breast Cancer from a 23andMx test for a 99245 on a HCFA form? Or is that insurance fraud?

To let these types of tests out in the wild, which we have, is only to introduce a lot of chaos which is not for the "Better" it is actually dangerous to the patient.

Now Back to the Agenda:

"Issues to Address:

Can we model the cost to the medical system of DTC genetic testing?

Reimbursement and DTC genetic testing – are insurance companies involved?
Do they have a role?

How can providers navigate DTC testing and results for patients in the clinic?

How do consumers react to DTC testing information, and what is the impact on their health behavior?"

Well, I would love to hear the explanations, but alas there is no webcast today!

Back to the Agenda

"Knowledge of DTC Genetic Testing Among the Public and Health Professionals"

I wonder if the public read the NY Times article yesterday ?

"It’s important to separate hope from hype,” Dr. Jennifer House, president of the March of Dimes, said at a recent meeting of its national communications advisory council. “Direct-to-consumer genetic testing is a buyer-beware market. Consumers need to be very, very cautious.”

Uh......haven't I been saying that for 2 years now? A little late to the sh!t party huh Dr House?

"At the moment, the reliability of most gene tests on all four criteria is questionable, Dr. Dolan said, adding that the “broad landscape of direct-to-consumer genetic testing is a slippery slope.”

You go Siobhan! Yet another one of Dr Marion's prodigies!

Yet, what Dr Khoury et.al. found is that 75% of doctors who were presented in the office with one of these DTC tests ALTERED care in some way.

What do Healthcare practitioners know about genetics? Very Little. What does the public know? Even Less. Which is why they are such an easy target to market to.

Back to the Agenda

"Cooperation or Competition – How Do Health Care and DTC Genetic Testing Coexist?"

They don't. Someone asked the guy from Pathway Genomics yesterday

"Do you think you are practicing medicine? If not, why not?"

That is the question here. Tell me Navi, 23andSergey, Pathway.........why aren't you practicing medicine?

You take a human biological sample, perform a test, run an algorithm and give a risk for disease. In what world is that not medicine?

Let me guess. "Uh we do those things, but what makes us NOT medicine is that we.....uh......
We uh...........we uh....DON'T CLAIM LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR ANSWERS"

The Sherpa Says: The IOM conference is going to be predictable, unless Google has dumped money into the Academies or the IOM......

National Academies and the IOM

Today and Sept. 1 the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine will hold a symposium to explore the health, policy, and ethical implications of direct-to-consumer genetic testing

AUDIO WEBCAST: Morning sessions on Aug. 31 -- covering the history and likely evolution of direct-to-consumer genetic testing, as well as the regulatory framework -- will be available via live audio webcast at http://national-academies.org.

Don't miss this. I am listening to Muin Khoury right now.

BTW, the best question was just asked. "Do you think you are practicing medicine and if no, explain why not?"

That is the crux of this whole DTC field. I have always thought, they are.......

The Sherpa Says: I will cover this and the NIH conference over the week.

The Sherpa Silenced

I know that it has been a long time since my last post. During this time I have been interviewing geneticists, networking with some major league all stars in the fields of nutrigenomics, personalized medicine and pharmacogenomics. So I ask for all of your forgiveness.

First let me state that it has been a great little breather that has got me re-invigorated to keep up the work of a Gene Sherpa.

Second, let me tell you how great it is to live in an age where the work which giants in the fields of medicine and genetics can now be applied broadly to medicine. But, with that benefit comes the danger of charlatans and hucksters.

This is why we need more Gene Sherpas. I am now putting out a plea to all of those who wish to harness genetics for health and longevity, those who wish to have science behind their clinical decision making, those who have a keen business sense and the ethics to make you shudder when you see what is being sold, those who wish to learn more about the future of genetic and medicine.....please email me and we will collaborate and create wonderful things to protect our patients, friend and families from the onslaught of false claims, dummied up studies and infomercials which will soon spring up all over the place.

Lastly I would like to direct your attention to the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) Report called "Nutrigenomics and Beyond: Informing the Future-Workshop Summary" I have spent a significant amount of my time reviewing it and trying to glean what it spells out.

A little about the IOM. It was establish in 1970 to attract elite physicians and scientists to examine national policies regarding health of the public. It issues statements all the time including those on direct to consumer testing.

The report summarized states that the science is not quite there....In addition there is much hype but also much hope. Dr Fineberg, President of the IOM closes with this statement.

"IS it possible that over time we can identify what ultimately must be the common biological pathways through which all determinants of disease or health must ultimately exercise their effect?.......Is it not possible that nutrition science -bridging as it does, everything from human behaviour, cultural values, all the way through to nutrigenomics and metabolomics and so on--might not be the crossroads for such a grand unification theory for health and disease"

The Sherpa Says: Once again, Nutrigenomics is not ready for prime time, otherwise Dr Fineberg would have said "Nutrition science is the grand unification theory" Another scientist stated that "Nutrigenomics is a in a very fragile paradigm...there are very few success stories" So please, tread lightly when someone sells you a diet based on blood type, body shape, or genetics......