Recent developments in genetics and medically assisted reproduction: from research to clinical applications.

Icon for Nature Publishing Group Icon for PubMed Central Related Articles

Recent developments in genetics and medically assisted reproduction: from research to clinical applications.

Eur J Hum Genet. 2018 01;26(1):12-33

Authors: Harper JC, Aittomäki K, Borry P, Cornel MC, de Wert G, Dondorp W, Geraedts J, Gianaroli L, Ketterson K, Liebaers I, Lundin K, Mertes H, Morris M, Pennings G, Sermon K, Spits C, Soini S, van Montfoort APA, Veiga A, Vermeesch JR, Viville S, Macek M, on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology and European Society of Human Genetics

Abstract
Two leading European professional societies, the European Society of Human Genetics and the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology, have worked together since 2004 to evaluate the impact of fast research advances at the interface of assisted reproduction and genetics, including their application into clinical practice. In September 2016, the expert panel met for the third time. The topics discussed highlighted important issues covering the impacts of expanded carrier screening, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, voiding of the presumed anonymity of gamete donors by advanced genetic testing, advances in the research of genetic causes underlying male and female infertility, utilisation of massively parallel sequencing in preimplantation genetic testing and non-invasive prenatal screening, mitochondrial replacement in human oocytes, and additionally, issues related to cross-generational epigenetic inheritance following IVF and germline genome editing. The resulting paper represents a consensus of both professional societies involved.

PMID: 29199274 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

View More Recent developments in genetics and medically assisted reproduction: from research to clinical applications.

Forensic genealogy: Some serious concerns.

Icon for Elsevier Science Related Articles

Forensic genealogy: Some serious concerns.

Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2018 09;36:203-204

Authors: Syndercombe Court D

Abstract
Genealogical databases have provided links to possible perpetrators of crimes in several cold cases in the US. This commentary discusses some of the ethical issues associated with this approach while recognising the underlying value of the identifications.

PMID: 30048922 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

View More Forensic genealogy: Some serious concerns.

HIPAA’s Individual Right of Access to Genomic Data: Reconciling Safety and Civil Rights.

Icon for Elsevier Science Icon for Elsevier Science Icon for PubMed Central Related Articles

HIPAA’s Individual Right of Access to Genomic Data: Reconciling Safety and Civil Rights.

Am J Hum Genet. 2018 01 04;102(1):5-10

Authors: Evans BJ

Abstract
In 2014, the United States granted individuals a right of access to their own laboratory test results, including genomic data. Many observers feel that this right is in tension with regulatory and bioethical standards designed to protect the safety of people who undergo genomic testing. This commentary attributes this tension to growing pains within an expanding federal regulatory program for genetic and genomic testing. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 expanded the regulatory agenda to encompass civil rights and consumer safety. The individual access right, as it applies to genomic data, is best understood as a civil-rights regulation. Competing regulatory objectives-safety and civil rights-were not successfully integrated during the initial rollout of genomic civil-rights regulations after 2008. Federal law clarifies how to prioritize safety and civil rights when the two come into conflict, although with careful policy design, the two need not collide. This commentary opens a dialog about possible solutions to advance safety and civil rights together.

PMID: 29304376 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

View More HIPAA’s Individual Right of Access to Genomic Data: Reconciling Safety and Civil Rights.

HIPAA’s Individual Right of Access to Genomic Data: Reconciling Safety and Civil Rights.

Icon for Elsevier Science Icon for Elsevier Science Icon for PubMed Central Related Articles

HIPAA’s Individual Right of Access to Genomic Data: Reconciling Safety and Civil Rights.

Am J Hum Genet. 2018 01 04;102(1):5-10

Authors: Evans BJ

Abstract
In 2014, the United States granted individuals a right of access to their own laboratory test results, including genomic data. Many observers feel that this right is in tension with regulatory and bioethical standards designed to protect the safety of people who undergo genomic testing. This commentary attributes this tension to growing pains within an expanding federal regulatory program for genetic and genomic testing. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 expanded the regulatory agenda to encompass civil rights and consumer safety. The individual access right, as it applies to genomic data, is best understood as a civil-rights regulation. Competing regulatory objectives-safety and civil rights-were not successfully integrated during the initial rollout of genomic civil-rights regulations after 2008. Federal law clarifies how to prioritize safety and civil rights when the two come into conflict, although with careful policy design, the two need not collide. This commentary opens a dialog about possible solutions to advance safety and civil rights together.

PMID: 29304376 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

View More HIPAA’s Individual Right of Access to Genomic Data: Reconciling Safety and Civil Rights.

Genetic Testing by Sports Medicine Physicians in the United States: Attitudes, Experiences, and Knowledge.

Related Articles

Genetic Testing by Sports Medicine Physicians in the United States: Attitudes, Experiences, and Knowledge.

Sports (Basel). 2018 Nov 12;6(4):

Authors: Taranto E, Fishman M, Benjamin H, Ross L

Abstract
It remains unknown whether and how sports medicine physicians currently utilize genetic testing in their clinical practice. This study sought to assess knowledge of, experience with, and attitudes towards genetic testing by sports medicine physicians in the United States (US). An email with a survey hyperlink was distributed twice to members of the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) listserv in September 2016, with approximately a 10% response rate. Questions focused on knowledge of, experience with, and attitudes towards testing for different genes related to sports proficiency, injury risk, and disease risk. Few AMSSM physicians believe that genetic testing to adapt training (12%) or to choose a sport (2%) is ready for clinical adoption. Most respondents self-reported minimal knowledge about, and limited experience with, genetic testing. The main exception was screening for sickle cell trait (SCT) for which most (84%) reported moderate/significant/expert knowledge and over two-thirds had ordered testing. Although most respondents thought it appropriate to counsel and test for health conditions associated with cardiac and connective tissue disorders in the setting of a positive family history, only a minority had been asked to do so. Five or fewer respondents (2%) had been asked to test for performance-associated variants (Angiotensin Converting Enzyme (ACE) II and Alpha-Actinin 3 (ACTN3)), and five or fewer (2%) would recommend changes based on the results. Our study provides a baseline of current US sports medicine physicians’ minimal experiences with, and knowledge of, genetic testing. The findings of our study indicate that sports medicine physicians require further genetics education as it relates to sports and exercise in order to be prepared to competently engage with their patients and to develop sound professional organizational policies.

PMID: 30424536 [PubMed]

View More Genetic Testing by Sports Medicine Physicians in the United States: Attitudes, Experiences, and Knowledge.

Australians’ perspectives on support around use of personal genomic testing: Findings from the Genioz study.

Icon for Elsevier Science Related Articles

Australians’ perspectives on support around use of personal genomic testing: Findings from the Genioz study.

Eur J Med Genet. 2018 Nov 12;:

Authors: Metcalfe SA, Hickerton C, Savard J, Stackpoole E, Tytherleigh R, Tutty E, Terrill B, Turbitt E, Gray K, Middleton A, Wilson B, Newson AJ, Gaff C

Abstract
Personal genomic testing using direct-to-consumer and consumer-directed models, with or without involvement of healthcare providers, is increasing internationally, including in Australia. This study forms a sub-set of the Genioz study – Genomics: National Insights of Australians. We aimed to explore Australians’ experiences with these types of tests, especially online DNA tests, and their views regarding whom they would seek support from around understanding test results. The study used a mixed methods approach, employing an exploratory quantitative online survey and follow-up qualitative semi-structured interviews. Between May 2016 and May 2017, 2841 Australians responded to the survey. Interviews were conducted with 63 purposively sampled respondents, including 45 who had a genetic test and 18 who had not. Of 571 respondents who had any type of genetic test, 322 had a personal genomic test using criteria defined by the researchers. Testing for ancestry/genealogy was the most common, reported by 267 participants, reflecting the increased advertising of these tests in Australia. Some respondents described downloading their raw data for further interpretation through third party websites for genealogical as well as health related information. Carrier testing, testing for serious and preventable conditions and nutrition and/or wellness were the most common health related tests reported by respondents. Participants generally preferred to seek support from general practitioners (GPs), medical specialists with relevant expertise and independent genetics specialists, although another important preference for non-health information was online forums and networks. There was less preference for seeking support from employees associated with the testing companies. Generally, of those who had a health related PGT, the most common actions were seeking medical advice or doing nothing with the information, while more of those who had a personal genomic test for nutrition and/or wellness sought advice from complementary/alternative health practitioners (eg naturopaths) and integrative GPs, and 60% reported they had changed their diet. As awareness of personal genomic testing increases, publicly funded clinical genetics services may be less inclined to discuss results from personal genomic testing. Genetic counsellors could play an important role in providing this support, both pre-test and post-test, through opportunities for private practice but independent from testing companies.

PMID: 30439534 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]

View More Australians’ perspectives on support around use of personal genomic testing: Findings from the Genioz study.

Australians’ perspectives on support around use of personal genomic testing: Findings from the Genioz study.

Icon for Elsevier Science Related Articles

Australians’ perspectives on support around use of personal genomic testing: Findings from the Genioz study.

Eur J Med Genet. 2018 Nov 12;:

Authors: Metcalfe SA, Hickerton C, Savard J, Stackpoole E, Tytherleigh R, Tutty E, Terrill B, Turbitt E, Gray K, Middleton A, Wilson B, Newson AJ, Gaff C

Abstract
Personal genomic testing using direct-to-consumer and consumer-directed models, with or without involvement of healthcare providers, is increasing internationally, including in Australia. This study forms a sub-set of the Genioz study – Genomics: National Insights of Australians. We aimed to explore Australians’ experiences with these types of tests, especially online DNA tests, and their views regarding whom they would seek support from around understanding test results. The study used a mixed methods approach, employing an exploratory quantitative online survey and follow-up qualitative semi-structured interviews. Between May 2016 and May 2017, 2841 Australians responded to the survey. Interviews were conducted with 63 purposively sampled respondents, including 45 who had a genetic test and 18 who had not. Of 571 respondents who had any type of genetic test, 322 had a personal genomic test using criteria defined by the researchers. Testing for ancestry/genealogy was the most common, reported by 267 participants, reflecting the increased advertising of these tests in Australia. Some respondents described downloading their raw data for further interpretation through third party websites for genealogical as well as health related information. Carrier testing, testing for serious and preventable conditions and nutrition and/or wellness were the most common health related tests reported by respondents. Participants generally preferred to seek support from general practitioners (GPs), medical specialists with relevant expertise and independent genetics specialists, although another important preference for non-health information was online forums and networks. There was less preference for seeking support from employees associated with the testing companies. Generally, of those who had a health related PGT, the most common actions were seeking medical advice or doing nothing with the information, while more of those who had a personal genomic test for nutrition and/or wellness sought advice from complementary/alternative health practitioners (eg naturopaths) and integrative GPs, and 60% reported they had changed their diet. As awareness of personal genomic testing increases, publicly funded clinical genetics services may be less inclined to discuss results from personal genomic testing. Genetic counsellors could play an important role in providing this support, both pre-test and post-test, through opportunities for private practice but independent from testing companies.

PMID: 30439534 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]

View More Australians’ perspectives on support around use of personal genomic testing: Findings from the Genioz study.

Australians’ perspectives on support around use of personal genomic testing: Findings from the Genioz study.

Icon for Elsevier Science Related Articles

Australians’ perspectives on support around use of personal genomic testing: Findings from the Genioz study.

Eur J Med Genet. 2018 Nov 12;:

Authors: Metcalfe SA, Hickerton C, Savard J, Stackpoole E, Tytherleigh R, Tutty E, Terrill B, Turbitt E, Gray K, Middleton A, Wilson B, Newson AJ, Gaff C

Abstract
Personal genomic testing using direct-to-consumer and consumer-directed models, with or without involvement of healthcare providers, is increasing internationally, including in Australia. This study forms a sub-set of the Genioz study – Genomics: National Insights of Australians. We aimed to explore Australians’ experiences with these types of tests, especially online DNA tests, and their views regarding whom they would seek support from around understanding test results. The study used a mixed methods approach, employing an exploratory quantitative online survey and follow-up qualitative semi-structured interviews. Between May 2016 and May 2017, 2841 Australians responded to the survey. Interviews were conducted with 63 purposively sampled respondents, including 45 who had a genetic test and 18 who had not. Of 571 respondents who had any type of genetic test, 322 had a personal genomic test using criteria defined by the researchers. Testing for ancestry/genealogy was the most common, reported by 267 participants, reflecting the increased advertising of these tests in Australia. Some respondents described downloading their raw data for further interpretation through third party websites for genealogical as well as health related information. Carrier testing, testing for serious and preventable conditions and nutrition and/or wellness were the most common health related tests reported by respondents. Participants generally preferred to seek support from general practitioners (GPs), medical specialists with relevant expertise and independent genetics specialists, although another important preference for non-health information was online forums and networks. There was less preference for seeking support from employees associated with the testing companies. Generally, of those who had a health related PGT, the most common actions were seeking medical advice or doing nothing with the information, while more of those who had a personal genomic test for nutrition and/or wellness sought advice from complementary/alternative health practitioners (eg naturopaths) and integrative GPs, and 60% reported they had changed their diet. As awareness of personal genomic testing increases, publicly funded clinical genetics services may be less inclined to discuss results from personal genomic testing. Genetic counsellors could play an important role in providing this support, both pre-test and post-test, through opportunities for private practice but independent from testing companies.

PMID: 30439534 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]

View More Australians’ perspectives on support around use of personal genomic testing: Findings from the Genioz study.

Australians’ perspectives on support around use of personal genomic testing: Findings from the Genioz study.

Icon for Elsevier Science Related Articles

Australians’ perspectives on support around use of personal genomic testing: Findings from the Genioz study.

Eur J Med Genet. 2018 Nov 12;:

Authors: Metcalfe SA, Hickerton C, Savard J, Stackpoole E, Tytherleigh R, Tutty E, Terrill B, Turbitt E, Gray K, Middleton A, Wilson B, Newson AJ, Gaff C

Abstract
Personal genomic testing using direct-to-consumer and consumer-directed models, with or without involvement of healthcare providers, is increasing internationally, including in Australia. This study forms a sub-set of the Genioz study – Genomics: National Insights of Australians. We aimed to explore Australians’ experiences with these types of tests, especially online DNA tests, and their views regarding whom they would seek support from around understanding test results. The study used a mixed methods approach, employing an exploratory quantitative online survey and follow-up qualitative semi-structured interviews. Between May 2016 and May 2017, 2841 Australians responded to the survey. Interviews were conducted with 63 purposively sampled respondents, including 45 who had a genetic test and 18 who had not. Of 571 respondents who had any type of genetic test, 322 had a personal genomic test using criteria defined by the researchers. Testing for ancestry/genealogy was the most common, reported by 267 participants, reflecting the increased advertising of these tests in Australia. Some respondents described downloading their raw data for further interpretation through third party websites for genealogical as well as health related information. Carrier testing, testing for serious and preventable conditions and nutrition and/or wellness were the most common health related tests reported by respondents. Participants generally preferred to seek support from general practitioners (GPs), medical specialists with relevant expertise and independent genetics specialists, although another important preference for non-health information was online forums and networks. There was less preference for seeking support from employees associated with the testing companies. Generally, of those who had a health related PGT, the most common actions were seeking medical advice or doing nothing with the information, while more of those who had a personal genomic test for nutrition and/or wellness sought advice from complementary/alternative health practitioners (eg naturopaths) and integrative GPs, and 60% reported they had changed their diet. As awareness of personal genomic testing increases, publicly funded clinical genetics services may be less inclined to discuss results from personal genomic testing. Genetic counsellors could play an important role in providing this support, both pre-test and post-test, through opportunities for private practice but independent from testing companies.

PMID: 30439534 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]

View More Australians’ perspectives on support around use of personal genomic testing: Findings from the Genioz study.

Australians’ perspectives on support around use of personal genomic testing: Findings from the Genioz study.

Icon for Elsevier Science Related Articles

Australians’ perspectives on support around use of personal genomic testing: Findings from the Genioz study.

Eur J Med Genet. 2018 Nov 12;:

Authors: Metcalfe SA, Hickerton C, Savard J, Stackpoole E, Tytherleigh R, Tutty E, Terrill B, Turbitt E, Gray K, Middleton A, Wilson B, Newson AJ, Gaff C

Abstract
Personal genomic testing using direct-to-consumer and consumer-directed models, with or without involvement of healthcare providers, is increasing internationally, including in Australia. This study forms a sub-set of the Genioz study – Genomics: National Insights of Australians. We aimed to explore Australians’ experiences with these types of tests, especially online DNA tests, and their views regarding whom they would seek support from around understanding test results. The study used a mixed methods approach, employing an exploratory quantitative online survey and follow-up qualitative semi-structured interviews. Between May 2016 and May 2017, 2841 Australians responded to the survey. Interviews were conducted with 63 purposively sampled respondents, including 45 who had a genetic test and 18 who had not. Of 571 respondents who had any type of genetic test, 322 had a personal genomic test using criteria defined by the researchers. Testing for ancestry/genealogy was the most common, reported by 267 participants, reflecting the increased advertising of these tests in Australia. Some respondents described downloading their raw data for further interpretation through third party websites for genealogical as well as health related information. Carrier testing, testing for serious and preventable conditions and nutrition and/or wellness were the most common health related tests reported by respondents. Participants generally preferred to seek support from general practitioners (GPs), medical specialists with relevant expertise and independent genetics specialists, although another important preference for non-health information was online forums and networks. There was less preference for seeking support from employees associated with the testing companies. Generally, of those who had a health related PGT, the most common actions were seeking medical advice or doing nothing with the information, while more of those who had a personal genomic test for nutrition and/or wellness sought advice from complementary/alternative health practitioners (eg naturopaths) and integrative GPs, and 60% reported they had changed their diet. As awareness of personal genomic testing increases, publicly funded clinical genetics services may be less inclined to discuss results from personal genomic testing. Genetic counsellors could play an important role in providing this support, both pre-test and post-test, through opportunities for private practice but independent from testing companies.

PMID: 30439534 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]

View More Australians’ perspectives on support around use of personal genomic testing: Findings from the Genioz study.