Search

Background: Consumer genomic testing for nutrition and wellness, (nutritional genomics), is becoming increasingly popular. Concurrently, health-care practitioners (HPs) working in private practice (including doctors interested in integrative medicine, private genetic counsellors, pharmacists, dieticians, naturopaths and nutritionists) are involved as test facilitators or interpreters. Objective: To explore Australian consumers’ and HPs’ experiences with nutrigenomic testing. Method: Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted using predominantly purposive sampling. The two data sets were analysed individually, then combined, using a constant comparative, thematic approach. Results: Overall, 45 interviews were conducted with consumers (n = 18) and HPs (n = 27). Many of the consumer interviewees experienced chronic ill-health. Nutrigenomic testing was perceived as empowering and a source of hope for answers. While most made changes to their diet/supplements post-test, self-reported health improvements were small. A positive relationship with their HP appeared to minimize disappointment. HPs’ adoption and views of nutrigenomic testing varied. Those enthusiastic about testing saw the possibilities it could offer. However, many felt nutrigenomic testing was not the only ‘tool’ to utilize when offering health care. Discussion: This research highlights the important role HPs play in consumers’ experiences of nutrigenomics. The varied practice suggests relevant HPs require upskilling in this area to at least support their patients/clients, even if nutrigenomic testing is not part of their practice. Patient or public contribution: Advisory group included patient/public group representatives who informed study design; focus group participants gave feedback on the survey from which consumer interviewees were sourced. This informed the HP data set design. Interviewees from HP data set assisted with snowball sampling.

Purpose: To determine the diagnostic yield and clinical impact of exome sequencing (ES) in patients with suspected monogenic kidney disease. Method(s): We performed clinically accredited singleton ES in a prospectively ascertained cohort of 204 patients assessed in multidisciplinary renal genetics clinics at four tertiary hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. Result(s): ES identified a molecular diagnosis in 80 (39%) patients, encompassing 35 distinct genetic disorders. Younger age at presentation was independently associated with an ES diagnosis (p < 0.001). Of those diagnosed, 31/80 (39%) had a change in their clinical diagnosis. ES diagnosis was considered to have contributed to management in 47/80 (59%), including negating the need for diagnostic renal biopsy in 10/80 (13%), changing surveillance in 35/80 (44%), and changing the treatment plan in 16/80 (20%). In cases with no change to management in the proband, the ES result had implications for the management of family members in 26/33 (79%). Cascade testing was subsequently offered to 40/80 families (50%). Conclusion(s): In this pragmatic pediatric and adult cohort with suspected monogenic kidney disease, ES had high diagnostic and clinical utility. Our findings, including predictors of positive diagnosis, can be used to guide clinical practice and health service design.Copyright © 2020, The Author(s).

PURPOSE: To determine the diagnostic yield and clinical impact of exome sequencing (ES) in patients with suspected monogenic kidney disease. METHODS: We performed clinically accredited singleton ES in a prospectively ascertained cohort of 204 patients assessed in multidisciplinary renal genetics clinics at four tertiary hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. RESULTS: ES identified a molecular diagnosis in 80 (39%) patients, encompassing 35 distinct genetic disorders. Younger age at presentation was independently associated with an ES diagnosis (p < 0.001). Of those diagnosed, 31/80 (39%) had a change in their clinical diagnosis. ES diagnosis was considered to have contributed to management in 47/80 (59%), including negating the need for diagnostic renal biopsy in 10/80 (13%), changing surveillance in 35/80 (44%), and changing the treatment plan in 16/80 (20%). In cases with no change to management in the proband, the ES result had implications for the management of family members in 26/33 (79%). Cascade testing was subsequently offered to 40/80 families (50%). CONCLUSION: In this pragmatic pediatric and adult cohort with suspected monogenic kidney disease, ES had high diagnostic and clinical utility. Our findings, including predictors of positive diagnosis, can be used to guide clinical practice and health service design.

Personal genomic tests (PGTs) for multiple purposes are marketed to ostensibly healthy people in Australia. These tests are generally marketed and purchased online commercially or can be ordered through a health professional. There has been minimal engagement with Australians about their interest in and experience with ordering a PGT. As part of a multistage, interdisciplinary project, an online survey (Stage 2 of the Genioz study) was available from May 2016 to May 2017. In total, 3253 respondents attempted the survey, with 2395 completed Australian responses from people with and without experience of having a PGT: 72% were female; 59% of the whole sample were undertaking/or had a university education; and, overall, age ranged from 18—over 80. A total of 571 respondents reported having had a genetic test, 373 of these classifiable as a PGT. A bivariate analysis suggests people who have undergone PGT in our sample were: women aged 25 and over; or in a high socioeconomic group, or have a personal or family diagnosis of a genetic condition (P ≤ 0.03). After a multivariate analysis, socioeconomic status and a genetic condition in the family were not of significance. The most common types of PGT reported were for carrier status and ancestry. Findings suggest greater awareness of, and an increasing demand for non-health related PGT in Australia. To support both consumers and health care professionals with understanding PGT results, there is a need for appropriate support and resources.

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 w

This paper uses consumer health informatics as a framework toexplore whether and how direct-to-consumer personal genomictesting can be regarded as a form of information which assistsconsumers to manage their health. It presents findings fromqualitative content analysis of web sites that offer testingservices, and of transcripts from focus groups conducted aspart a study of the Australian public’s expectations of personalgenomics. Content analysis showed that service offerings havesome features of consumer health information but lackconsistency. Focus group participants were mostly unfamiliarwith the specifics of test reports and related informationservices. Some of their ideas about aids to knowledge were inline with the benefits described on provider web sites, but someexpectations were inflated. People were ambivalent aboutwhether these services would address consumers’ health needs,interests and contexts and whether they would supportconsumers’ health self-management decisions and outcomes.There is scope for consumer health informatics approaches torefine the usage and the utility of direct-to-consumer personalgenomic testing. Further research may focus on how uptake isaffected by consumers’ health literacy or by services’engagement with consumers about what they really want.

This paper uses consumer health informatics as a framework to explore whether and how direct-to-consumerpersonal genomic testing can be regarded as a form of information which assists consumers to manage their health. It presents findings from qualitative content analysis of web sites that offer testing services, and of transcripts from focus groups conducted as part a study of the Australian public's expectations of personal genomics. Content analysis showed that service offerings have some features of consumer health information but lack consistency. Focus group participants were mostly unfamiliar with the specifics of test reports and related information services. Some of their ideas about AIDS to knowledge were in line with the benefits described on provider web sites, but some expectations were inflated. People were ambivalent about whether these services would address consumers' health needs, interests and contexts and whether they would support consumers' health self management decisions and outcomes. There is scope for consumer health informatics approaches to refine the usage and the utility of direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing. Further research may focus on how uptake is affected by consumers' health literacy or by services' engagement with consumers about what they really want.