Search

PurposeTelephone disclosure of genetic test results can improve access to services. To date, studies of its impact have focused on return of Mendelian risk information, principally hereditary cancer syndromes.MethodsIn a multisite trial of Alzheimer disease genetic risk disclosure, asymptomatic adults were randomized to receive test results in person or via telephone. Primary analyses examined patient outcomes 12 months after disclosure.ResultsData from 257 participants showed that telephone disclosure occurred 7.4 days sooner and was 30% shorter, on average, than in-person disclosure (both P < 0.001). Anxiety and depression scores were well below cutoffs for clinical concern across protocols. Comparing telephone and in-person disclosure protocols, 99% confidence intervals of mean differences were within noninferiority margins on scales assessing anxiety, depression, and test-related distress, but inconclusive about positive impact. No differences were observed on measures of recall and subjective impact. Subanalyses supported noninferiority on all outcomes among apolipoprotein E (APOE) ɛ4-negative participants. Subanalyses were inconclusive for APOE ɛ4-positive participants, although mean anxiety and depression scores were still well below cutoffs for clinical concern.ConclusionTelephone disclosure of APOE results and risk for Alzheimer disease is generally safe and helps providers meet demands for services, even when results identify an increased risk for disease.

On 13 December 2016, President Obama signed the 21st Century Cures Act ("the Act") into law. Many of its provisions support the creation of an "Information Commons," an ecosystem of separate but interconnected initiatives that facilitate open and responsible sharing of genomic and other data for research and clinical purposes. For example, the Act supports the National Institutes of Health in mandating data sharing, provides funding and guidance for the large national cohort program now known as All of Us, expresses congressional support for a global pediatric study network, and strengthens patient access to health information. The Act also addresses potential barriers to data sharing. For example, it makes the issuance of certificates of confidentiality automatic for federally funded research involving "identifiable, sensitive" information and strengthens the associated protections. At the same time, the Act exacerbates or neglects several challenges, for example, increasing complexity by adding a new definition of "identifiable" and failing to address the financial sustainability of data sharing and the scope of commercialization. In sum, the Act is a positive step, yet there is still much work to be done before the goals of broad data sharing and utilization can be achieved.

Public variant databases support the curation, clinical interpretation, and sharing of genomic data, thus reducing harmful errors or delays in diagnosis. As variant databases are increasingly relied on in the clinical context, there is concern that negligent variant interpretation will harm patients and attract liability. This article explores the evolving legal duties of laboratories, public variant databases, and physicians in clinical genomics and recommends a governance framework for databases to promote responsible data sharing.Genet Med advance online publication 15 December 2016.

Genetic testing for spinocerebellar ataxia is used in diagnosis of rare movement disorders. Such testing generally does not affect treatment, but confirmation of mutations in a known gene can confirm diagnosis and end an often years-long quest for the cause of distressing and disabling symptoms. Through interviews and a web forum hosted by the National Ataxia Foundation, patients and health professionals related their experiences with the effect of patents on access to genetic testing for spinocerebellar ataxia. In the United States, Athena Diagnostics holds either a patent or an exclusive license to a patent in the case of six spinocerebellar ataxia variants (spinocerebellar ataxia 1-3 and 6-8) and two other hereditary ataxias (Friedreich's Ataxia and Early Onset Ataxia). Athena has enforced its exclusive rights to spinocerebellar ataxia-related patents by sending notification letters to multiple laboratories offering genetic testing for inherited neurological conditions, including spinocerebellar ataxia. Roughly half of web forum respondents had decided not to get genetic tests. Price, coverage and reimbursement by insurers and health plans, and fear of genetic discrimination were the main reasons cited for deciding not to get tested. Price was cited as an access concern by the physicians, and as sole US provider, coverage and reimbursement depend on having payment agreements between Athena and payers. In cases in which payers do not reimburse, the patient is responsible for payment, although some patients can apply to the voluntary Athena Access and Patient Protection Plan offered by the company.

Cystic fibrosis is one of the most commonly tested autosomal recessive disorders in the United States. Clinical cystic fibrosis is associated with mutations in the CFTR gene, of which the most common mutation among Caucasians, DeltaF508, was identified in 1989. The University of Michigan, Johns Hopkins University, and the Hospital for Sick Children, where much of the initial research occurred, hold key patents on cystic fibrosis genetic sequences, mutations, and methods for detecting them. Several patents, including the one that covers detection of the DeltaF508 mutation, are jointly held by the University of Michigan and the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, with Michigan administering patent licensing in the United States. The University of Michigan broadly licenses the DeltaF508 patent for genetic testing with >60 providers of genetic testing to date. Genetic testing is now used in newborn screening, diagnosis, and for carrier screening. Interviews with key researchers and intellectual property managers, a survey of laboratories' prices for cystic fibrosis genetic testing, a review of literature on cystic fibrosis tests' cost-effectiveness, and a review of the developing market for cystic fibrosis testing provide no evidence that patents have significantly hindered access to genetic tests for cystic fibrosis or prevented financially cost-effective screening. Current licensing practices for cystic fibrosis genetic testing seem to facilitate both academic research and commercial testing. More than 1000 different CFTR mutations have been identified, and research continues to determine their clinical significance. Patents have been nonexclusively licensed for diagnostic use and have been variably licensed for gene transfer and other therapeutic applications. The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation has been engaged in licensing decisions, making cystic fibrosis a model of collaborative and cooperative patenting and licensing practice.

Genetic testing for inherited susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer can be compared with similar testing for colorectal cancer as a "natural experiment." Inherited susceptibility accounts for a similar fraction of both cancers and genetic testing results guide decisions about options for prophylactic surgery in both sets of conditions. One major difference is that in the United States, Myriad Genetics is the sole provider of genetic testing, because it has sole control of relevant patents for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, whereas genetic testing for familial colorectal cancer is available from multiple laboratories. Colorectal cancer-associated genes are also patented, but they have been nonexclusively licensed. Prices for BRCA1 and 2 testing do not reflect an obvious price premium attributable to exclusive patent rights compared with colorectal cancer testing, and indeed, Myriad's per unit costs are somewhat lower for BRCA1/2 testing than testing for colorectal cancer susceptibility. Myriad has not enforced patents against basic research and negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding with the National Cancer Institute in 1999 for institutional BRCA testing in clinical research. The main impact of patenting and licensing in BRCA compared with colorectal cancer is the business model of genetic testing, with a sole provider for BRCA and multiple laboratories for colorectal cancer genetic testing. Myriad's sole-provider model has not worked in jurisdictions outside the United States, largely because of differences in breadth of patent protection, responses of government health services, and difficulty in patent enforcement.

Genetic testing for Tay-Sachs and Canavan disease is particularly important for Ashkenazi Jews, because both conditions are more frequent in that population. This comparative case study was possible because of different patenting and licensing practices. The role of DNA testing differs between Tay-Sachs and Canavan diseases. The first-line screening test for Tay-Sachs remains an enzyme activity test rather than genotyping. Genotyping is used for preimplantation diagnosis and confirmatory testing. In contrast, DNA-based testing is the basis for Canavan screening and diagnosis. The HEXA gene for Tay-Sachs was cloned at the National Institutes of Health, and the gene was patented but has not been licensed. The ASPA gene for Canavan disease was cloned and patented by Miami Children's Hospital. Miami Children's Hospital did not inform family members and patient groups that had contributed to the gene discovery that it was applying for a patent, and pursued restrictive licensing practices when a patent issued in 1997. This led to intense controversy, litigation, and a sealed, nonpublic 2003 settlement that apparently allowed for nonexclusive licensing. A survey of laboratories revealed a possible price premium for ASPA testing, with per-unit costs higher than for other genetic tests in the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society case studies. The main conclusion from comparing genetic testing for Tay-Sachs and Canavan diseases, however, is that patenting and licensing conducted without communication with patients and advocates cause mistrust and can lead to controversy and litigation, a negative model to contrast with the positive model of patenting and licensing for genetic testing of cystic fibrosis.

Genetic testing for long QT syndrome exemplifies patenting and exclusive licensing with different outcomes at different times. Exclusive licensing from the University of Utah changed the business model from sole provider to two US providers of long QT syndrome testing. Long QT syndrome is associated with mutations in many genes, 12 of which are now tested by two competing firms in the United States, PGxHealth and GeneDx. Until 2009, PGxHealth was the sole provider, based largely on exclusive rights to patents from the University of Utah and elsewhere. University of Utah patents were initially licensed to DNA Sciences, whose patent rights were acquired by Genaissance, and then by Clinical Data, Inc., which owns PGxHealth. In 2002, DNA Sciences, Inc., "cleared the market" by sending cease-and-desist patent enforcement letters to university and reference laboratories offering long QT syndrome genetic testing. There was no test on the market for a 1- to 2-year period. From 2005-2008, most long QT syndrome-related patents were controlled by Clinical Data, Inc., and its subsidiary PGxHealth. Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc., secured countervailing exclusive patent rights starting in 2006, also from the University of Utah, and broke the PGxHealth monopoly in early 2009, creating a duopoly for genetic testing in the United States and expanding the number of genes for which commercial testing is available from 5 to 12.

Hereditary hemochromatosis is an iron metabolism disorder that leads to excess iron buildup, especially in the heart, liver, and pancreas. Mutations in the HFE gene are the single most common cause of hereditary hemochromatosis, which can be treated effectively if diagnosed early. Patents cover the HFE gene, related proteins, screening methods, and testing kits. Most initial testing for hereditary hemochromatosis is biochemical, but HFE deoxyribonucleic acid testing or genotyping is used to confirm a diagnosis of inherited hemochromatosis. Concerns over patents covering HFE testing emerged in 2002, when scholars argued that exclusive licensing and the patent-enabled sole provider model then in place led to high prices and limited access. Critics of the sole provider model noted that the test was available at multiple laboratories before the enforcement of patents. By 2007, however, Bio-Rad Limited, acquired the key intellectual property and sublicensed it widely. In part because of broad, nonexclusive licensing, there are now multiple providers and testing technologies, and research continues. This case study illustrates how both changes in intellectual property ownership and evolving clinical utility of HFE genetic testing in the last decade have effected the licensing of patents and availability of genetic testing.

Researchers at the Center for Public Genomics at Duke University analyzed how patenting and licensing affect clinical access to genetic testing in the United States. The research was requested by the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society. Conditions studied were breast and ovarian cancers, colon cancers, Alzheimer disease, cystic fibrosis, hearing loss, hereditary hemochromatosis, long QT syndrome, spinocerebellar ataxia, Tay-Sachs disease, and Canavan disease.

Genetic testing for Alzheimer disease includes genotyping for apolipoprotein E, for late-onset Alzheimer disease, and three rare autosomal dominant, early-onset forms of Alzheimer disease associated with different genes (APP, PSEN1, and PSEN2). According to researchers, patents have not impeded research in the field, nor were patents an important consideration in the quest for the genetic risk factors. Athena Diagnostics holds exclusive licenses from Duke University for three "method" patents covering apolipoprotein E genetic testing. Athena offers tests for apolipoprotein E and genes associated with early-onset, autosomal-dominant Alzheimer disease. One of those presenilin genes is patented and exclusively licensed to Athena; the other presenilin gene was patented but the patent was allowed to lapse; and one (amyloid precursor protein) is patented as a research tool. Direct-to-consumer testing is available for some Alzheimer disease-related genes, apparently without a license. Athena Diagnostics consolidated its position in the market for Alzheimer disease genetic testing by collecting exclusive rights to patents arising from university research. Duke University also used its licenses to Athena to enforce adherence to clinical guidelines, including elimination of the service from Smart Genetics, which was offering direct-to-consumer risk assessment based on apolipoprotein E genotyping.

Purpose: To describe how investigators in a multisite randomized clinical trial addressed scientific and ethical issues involved in creating risk models based on genetic testing for African American participants., Methods: The following informed our decision whether to stratify risk assessment by ethnicity: evaluation of epidemiological data, appraisal of benefits and risks of incorporating ethnicity into calculations, and feasibility of creating ethnicity-specific risk curves. Once the decision was made, risk curves were created based on data from a large, diverse study of first-degree relatives of patients with Alzheimer disease., Results: Review of epidemiological data suggested notable differences in risk between African Americans and whites and that Apolipoprotein E genotype predicts risk in both groups. Discussions about the benefits and risks of stratified risk assessments reached consensus that estimates based on data from whites should not preclude enrolling African Americans, but population-specific risk curves should be created if feasible. Risk models specific to ethnicity, gender, and Apolipoprotein E genotype were subsequently developed for the randomized clinical trial that oversampled African Americans., Conclusion: The Risk Evaluation and Education for Alzheimer Disease study provides an instructive example of a process to develop risk assessment protocols that are sensitive to the implications of genetic testing for multiple ethnic groups with differing levels of risk.