Direct-to-consumer genetic testing for addiction susceptibility: a premature commercialisation of doubtful validity and value.

Genetic research on addiction liability and pharmacogenetic research on treatments for addiction have identified some genetic variants associated with disease risk and treatment. Genetic testing for addiction liability and treatment response has not been used widely in clinical practice because most of the genes identified only modestly predict addiction risk or treatment response. However, many of these genetic tests have been commercialized prematurely and are available direct to the consumer (DTC). The easy availability of DTC tests for addiction liability and lack of regulation over their use raises a number of ethical concerns. Of paramount concern is the limited predictive power and clinical utility of these tests. Many DTC testing companies do not provide the consumer with the necessary genetic counselling to assist them in interpreting and acting on their test results. They may also engage in misleading marketing to entice consumers to purchase their products. Consumers' genetic information may be vulnerable to misuse by third parties, as there are limited standards to protect the privacy of the genetic information. Non-consensual testing and inappropriate testing of minors may also occur. The United States Food and Drug Administration plans to regulate DTC genetic tests. Based on the ethical concerns we discuss below, we believe there is a strong case for regulation of DTC genetic tests for addiction liability and treatment response. We argue that until this occurs, these tests have more potential to cause harm than to contribute to improved prevention and treatment of addiction.

[1]  B. Lerer,et al.  Differential contribution of genetic variation in multiple brain nicotinic cholinergic receptors to nicotine dependence: recent progress and emerging open questions , 2009, Molecular Psychiatry.

[2]  Simon Gates,et al.  Meta-analysis of the association of the Taq1A polymorphism with the risk of alcohol dependency: a HuGE gene-disease association review. , 2008, American journal of epidemiology.

[3]  F. Collins,et al.  A vision for the future of genomics research , 2003, Nature.

[4]  H. Edenberg The Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism: An Update , 2002, Alcohol research & health : the journal of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

[5]  Daniel F. Gudbjartsson,et al.  A variant associated with nicotine dependence, lung cancer and peripheral arterial disease , 2008, Nature.

[6]  V. Brower FDA to regulate direct-to-consumer genetic tests. , 2010, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[7]  D. Oslin,et al.  REVIEW: Targeting treatments for alcohol dependence: the pharmacogenetics of naltrexone , 2006, Addiction biology.

[8]  J. Cassiman,et al.  Presymptomatic and predictive genetic testing in minors: a systematic review of guidelines and position papers , 2006, Clinical genetics.

[9]  A. Clarke,et al.  Promissory strategies of personalisation in the commercialisation of genomic knowledge , 2011 .

[10]  A. Wolfberg,et al.  Genes on the Web--direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic testing. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  Jang-Ming Lee,et al.  Carcinogenetic impact of ADH1B and ALDH2 genes on squamous cell carcinoma risk of the esophagus with regard to the consumption of alcohol, tobacco and betel quid , 2008, International journal of cancer.

[12]  D. Avard,et al.  Health-related direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a review of companies’ policies with regard to genetic testing in minors , 2010, Familial Cancer.

[13]  D. Couper,et al.  An evaluation of mu-opioid receptor (OPRM1) as a predictor of naltrexone response in the treatment of alcohol dependence: results from the Combined Pharmacotherapies and Behavioral Interventions for Alcohol Dependence (COMBINE) study. , 2008, Archives of general psychiatry.

[14]  C. Y. Szeto,et al.  Association between mu opioid receptor gene polymorphisms and Chinese heroin addicts , 2001, Neuroreport.

[15]  S. Hogarth Myths, Misconceptions and Myopia: Searching for Clarity in the Debate about the Regulation of Consumer Genetics , 2010, Public Health Genomics.

[16]  J. Mortimer,et al.  A functional polymorphism within the μ-opioid receptor gene and risk for abuse of alcohol and other substances , 2002, Molecular Psychiatry.

[17]  David Couper,et al.  Combined pharmacotherapies and behavioral interventions for alcohol dependence: the COMBINE study: a randomized controlled trial. , 2006, JAMA.

[18]  P. Appelbaum Law & psychiatry: Genetic discrimination in mental disorders: the impact of the genetic information nondiscrimination act. , 2010, Psychiatric services.

[19]  Arpana Agrawal,et al.  Are there genetic influences on addiction: evidence from family, adoption and twin studies. , 2008, Addiction.

[20]  J. Gelernter,et al.  Association between two mu-opioid receptor gene (OPRM1) haplotype blocks and drug or alcohol dependence. , 2006, Human molecular genetics.

[21]  J. Ott,et al.  Substantial attributable risk related to a functional mu-opioid receptor gene polymorphism in association with heroin addiction in central Sweden , 2004, Molecular Psychiatry.

[22]  J. Barendregt,et al.  Multiple genetic tests for susceptibility to smoking do not outperform simple family history. , 2009, Addiction.

[23]  D. Couper,et al.  OPRM1 Asn40Asp predicts response to naltrexone treatment: a haplotype-based approach. , 2009, Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research.

[24]  E. Tan,et al.  Mu opioid receptor gene polymorphisms and heroin dependence in Asian populations , 2003, Neuroreport.

[25]  Tao Wang,et al.  Social Networkers' Attitudes Toward Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genome Testing , 2009, The American journal of bioethics : AJOB.

[26]  T. Wall,et al.  Meta-analyses of ALDH2 and ADH1B with alcohol dependence in Asians. , 2006, Psychological bulletin.

[27]  M. Köhnke Approach to the genetics of alcoholism: a review based on pathophysiology. , 2008, Biochemical pharmacology.

[28]  B. Kuehn Inconsistent results, inaccurate claims plague direct-to-consumer gene tests. , 2010, JAMA.

[29]  Sivan Tamir Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: ethical-legal perspectives and practical considerations. , 2010, Medical law review.

[30]  Gail Javitt,et al.  ASHG Statement* on Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing in the United States , 2007, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[31]  M. Munafo,et al.  Association of the DRD2 gene Taq1A polymorphism and alcoholism: a meta-analysis of case–control studies and evidence of publication bias , 2007, Molecular Psychiatry.

[32]  L. Ray,et al.  Effects of naltrexone on alcohol sensitivity and genetic moderators of medication response: a double-blind placebo-controlled study. , 2007, Archives of general psychiatry.

[33]  J. Gelernter,et al.  Genetics of alcohol dependence , 2009, Human Genetics.

[34]  George R Uhl,et al.  The burden of complex genetics in brain disorders. , 2004, Archives of general psychiatry.

[35]  W. van den Brink,et al.  CLINICAL STUDY: Predicting the effect of naltrexone and acamprosate in alcohol‐dependent patients using genetic indicators , 2009, Addiction biology.

[36]  Kristen M. Raymond,et al.  Substance use disorder genetic research: investigators and participants grapple with the ethical issues , 2009, Psychiatric genetics.

[37]  P. Gorwood,et al.  Genetics of dopamine receptors and drug addiction: a comprehensive review , 2009, Behavioural pharmacology.

[38]  L. Roberts,et al.  Clinical and ethical considerations in pharmacogenetic testing: views of physicians in 3 "early adopting" departments of psychiatry. , 2010, The Journal of clinical psychiatry.