Being More Realistic about the Public Health Impact of Genomic Medicine


article has not abstract


Published in the journal: . PLoS Med 7(10): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000347
Category: Policy Forum
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000347

Summary

article has not abstract

Summary Points

Before genomic information is used in public health screening, it must be shown that:

  • such information predicts disease risk better than phenotypic information;

  • cost-effective interventions exist for those at increased genetic risk;

  • these interventions are more cost-effective than population-level interventions;

  • genetic risk information motivates desired behaviour change.

Currently there are no examples of genetic screening for disease risk that satisfy these criteria.

In the 1990s, during the era of the Human Genome Project, many researchers were very optimistic about the capacity of such large-scale genetic projects to revolutionize the prevention of disease (e.g., [1],[2]). Many predicted that whole populations would be screened for their genetic susceptibility to common diseases, such as cancer and heart disease. Healthy individuals who carried susceptibility alleles would be advised to change their behaviour (e.g., exercise more, maintain a healthier diet, stop smoking), or be given drugs or other treatments to reduce their risks of developing these diseases.

Ten years on, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have changed our understanding of the aetiology of many common diseases such as type 1 diabetes and obesity, but they have not identified major susceptibility alleles for most common diseases. With a few exceptions, susceptibility alleles for the most common human diseases have proven to be very weakly predictive of disease risk, with odds ratios for individual alleles typically ranging from 1.1 to 1.6 [3][5]. The susceptibility “genes” identified to date account for only a small percentage of the known genetic variation in disease risk, and the relationship between these genetic variants and environmental risk factors has yet to be fully investigated [3],[6].

Despite these limitations, many researchers continue to advocate the use of genetic information to predict disease risk (e.g., [7]) and a number of private companies now offer this as a service on an individual basis. Is genetic risk prediction feasible from a public health perspective, in the way that many originally envisaged?

In principle, individual genetic variants could potentially provide reasonable prediction of disease risk, if the findings for multiple susceptibility alleles were combined statistically [8][12]. Modelling of this approach has produced conflicting assessments about its likely utility (e.g., [13][16]). The same has been true of empirical tests of genetic prediction of common complex traits (see [17] for a list of recent studies).

In many contexts, information from multiple genetic variants does not appear to provide better prediction than known risk factors such as family history or environmental risks. For instance, Lango and colleagues [18] found that 18 genetic variants that individually predicted an increased risk of diabetes were not able to discriminate between type 2 diabetes cases and controls and only marginally improved upon predictions using age, body mass index (BMI), and sex. Studies of genomic prediction of coronary heart disease and cardiovascular events have also found that genotypic information is less predictive of disease risk than are age, blood pressure, cholesterol, triglycerides, cigarette use, and diabetes [19],[20]. On the other hand, there are some cases in which genotypic information discriminates between subpopulations that differ markedly in disease risk. For instance, Pharoah and colleagues [21] found that combinations of breast cancer susceptibility alleles discriminated between women at low and high risk of breast cancer on the basis of family history.

The difference in success of prediction between these empirical studies is perhaps not surprising; disease prevalence and heritability are important determinants of the clinical utility of a genetic test. Also, genetic associations often vary by population, because population level variations in location, ethnicity, age, and other factors influence the prevalence not only of genetic risk factors for common diseases, but also of environmental and behavioural risk factors for common diseases, such as tobacco and alcohol use, diet, and exercise [22]. Consequently, the predictive capacity and clinical utility of genetic tests will depend upon the population in which they are used and the disease(s) for which risk is being predicted. Thus it is not possible to make any overarching statement about the utility of predictive genetic tests. We can, however, outline some of the likely constraints on the implementation of population-wide screening using genetic tests to predict disease risk.

Constraints on Public Health Impact

Cost-Effectiveness of Predictive Genomic Medicine

Advocates of the preventive use of genetic risk information often simply assume that preventive interventions will be cost-effective if genotypic information can be shown to predict disease risk (e.g. [7]). From a public health perspective, however, population-wide screening (genetic or otherwise) is ethically justifiable only if there is an efficacious and cost-effective intervention to prevent the disorder in those who are identified as being at increased risk [23][25]. For common cancers, such as colorectal and breast cancer, regular monitoring and early treatment can reduce mortality, and there are also preventive medications for hypercholesterolemia and high blood pressure.

However, even if efficacious interventions are available, we need large controlled trials to assess whether providing these interventions to asymptomatic individuals at increased genetic risk is more cost-effective than treating all persons displaying physiological risk factors (such as elevated blood pressure or cholesterol) [26],[27]. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening provides a cautionary example. A positive PSA test is modestly predictive of the risk of developing invasive cancer of the prostate [28] but epidemiological modelling shows that 1,500 men need to be screened to prevent one death from prostate cancer and this death would be averted at the cost of unnecessary surgery for 80 low-risk men whose quality of life would be seriously impaired [29].

Behavioural Impacts of Genetic Risk Information

Some advocates of genomic medicine simply assume that giving genetic risk information will prompt individuals to change their behaviour in desired directions [26],[30]. It is not clear that this is the case [8],[31]. Information about genetic susceptibility to disease only seems to have, at most, a small negative psychological impact on result recipients ([32][34]), but inappropriate communication of genetic risk information may actually undermine individuals' beliefs about their ability to change their behaviour [35],[36].

There is some evidence that genetic risk information may make individuals assume that prevention requires pharmacological intervention [37]. For example, genetic risk information about familial hypercholesterolaemia [35] increased individuals' beliefs that the best way to reduce their risk was to use lipid-lowering medication rather than to change their diet or increase exercise. Wright et al. [36] found that smokers who were told that they had a genetic predisposition to nicotine dependence were more likely to believe that they needed to use a drug to quit smoking, despite the fact that most smokers quit unaided [38].

It is also unclear whether genetic risk information produces sustained changes in risk behaviour [34]. Studies have shown that testing positively for a genetic predisposition to lung cancer increased smoking cessation attempts [39] and reduced the number of cigarettes smoked [40] but neither of these changes lasted for more than six months. Another study reported genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer promoted healthy lifestyle changes in approximately half of all patients tested, but behaviour change did not differ between carriers and non-carriers of the gene [41].

Competing Population Health Strategies

Predictive genomic medicine adopts a “high risk” strategy [25] that targets interventions at individuals who are at the highest risk of developing a disease [9]. Public health professionals are concerned that an uncritical embrace of “high risk” strategies will displace more effective strategies that aim to shift population distributions of risk exposures, for example by reducing the population prevalence of cigarette smoking, per capita alcohol consumption, average blood pressure, or the consumption of energy-dense foods [25].

Population-based tobacco control strategies, such as taxing cigarettes and reducing opportunities to smoke, have halved cigarette smoking rates in Australia [42] and the US [43] over the past three decades. These population-based strategies are more efficient than high-risk strategies [25] because fewer resources are needed to increase taxes on tobacco products, ban cigarette advertising, and restrict opportunities to smoke than are needed to screen whole populations in order to identify and intervene with the minority at high genetic risk of becoming nicotine dependent or developing tobacco-related diseases, if they smoke tobacco [9],[44].

There are similar arguments for the greater efficiency of population-based strategies in reducing risky alcohol use, obesity, and diabetes. These strategies aim to reduce population access to cheap energy-dense foods and increase opportunities to exercise. Based on the successful experiences in tobacco control, such strategies will probably include: increased taxes on, reductions in the promotion of, and decreased availability of, energy-dense foods; and redesigning urban environments to reduce sedentary behaviour and increase opportunities for incidental exercise in everyday life [45],[46].

Subversive Uses of Genomic Risk Information

Public health professionals are also concerned about the potential misuse of genetic risk information by industries that wish to promote harmful forms of consumption (tobacco, alcohol, energy dense foods, and gambling). These industries are likely to advocate for population-wide genetic screening in order to undermine public health policies that will reduce the use of their products in the population [47].

Analyses of industry documents [48] demonstrate that this is why the tobacco industry funded behavioural and molecular genetic research on smoking and tobacco-related disease in the 1970s and 1980s. A strategic decision was taken to promote genetic explanations of tobacco-related disease (initially promoted by the geneticist R.A. Fisher). By locating the risks of smoking in the genome of the individual smokers, this research could be used to exonerate tobacco smoking as a cause of disease [48].

The alcohol industry has also promoted the idea that alcohol-related problems only occur in a minority of genetically vulnerable drinkers [49]. The policy implication favoured by the industry is that alcohol problems are better addressed by identifying and intervening with problem drinkers rather than adopting effective strategies for reducing population-level alcohol consumption, such as increased taxation and reduced availability of alcohol [50]. The gambling industry has recently funded research into the genetics and neurobiology of problem gambling [51] for presumably similar strategic reasons. The food industries will find genetic explanations of obesity similarly useful in undermining population-wide strategies to reduce obesity by modifying obesogenic environments [46].

The Necessity for Technology Evaluation

The major public health challenge in formulating a policy toward population-wide genomic screening will be in discovering how to obtain whatever public health benefits genomic medicine delivers for common diseases without undermining effective population health policies that reduce exposure to the common risk factors responsible for the high prevalence of these diseases in developed countries [9].

Public health utility should, however, be differentiated from the usefulness of genetic information in a medical context. Research may identify low-frequency genetic variants with large effects that can be used in matching treatments to patients in clinical settings. Rare variants may also identify promising new targets for drugs to treat common diseases. But the usefulness of such variants for public health screening will be limited because of their low frequency in the population.

Although early research has not shown a strong improvement in predictive power when genetic and environmental factors are combined to estimate disease risk, the use of Mendelian randomisation may enable epidemiologists to assess the causal role of environmental factors in common diseases [52]. If the relationship between genetic and environmental risk factors can be better characterised, the utility of public health screening tests may be improved by combining phenotypic and environmental information and administering such tests to subsets of the population who have other indicators of increased risk (such as a history of early-onset disease in first-degree relatives).

But it is clear that genetic screening of whole populations is unlikely to transform preventive health in the ways predicted 10 years ago. The integration of individual genomic risk prediction into public health disease prevention strategies will require good evidence that this approach improves on the cost-effectiveness of existing population level interventions. The utility and cost-effectiveness of predictive genomics, like any other new health technology, should be evaluated disease-by-disease and population-by-population. Its utility will depend not only upon the costs of genetic screening (which have fallen rapidly) but also on: the effectiveness of treating those at increased risk; the morbidity and mortality that these preventive interventions avert and cause; and on our ability to prevent the subversive use of genomic information by interested industries to undermine effective public health policies. Until we have a much stronger evidence base, and more data on interactions between genotypes and common environmental exposures, advocates of genomic medicine should be much more modest than some have been in the claims they make about its likely impacts upon population health.


Zdroje

1. CollinsFS

1999 Shattuck lecture—medical and societal consequences of the Human Genome Project. N Engl J Med 341 28 37

2. van OmmenGJ

BakkerE

den DunnenJT

1999 The human genome project and the future of diagnostics, treatment, and prevention. Lancet 354 Suppl 1 SI5 10

3. DonnellyP

2008 Progress and challenges in genome-wide association studies in humans. Nature 456 728 31

4. HindorffLA

SethupathyP

JunkinsHA

RamosEM

MehtaJP

2009 Potential etiologic and functional implications of genome-wide association loci for human diseases and traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106 9362 7

5. ManolioTA

BrooksLD

CollinsFS

2008 A HapMap harvest of insights into the genetics of common disease. J Clin Invest 118 1590 605

6. ManolioTA

CollinsFS

CoxNJ

GoldsteinDB

HindorffLA

2009 Finding the missing heritability of complex diseases. Nature 461 747 53

7. GulcherJ

StefanssonK

2010 Genetic risk information for common diseases may indeed be already useful for prevention and early detection. Eur J Clin Invest 40 56 63

8. KhouryMJ

2003 Genetics and genomics in practice: the continuum from genetic disease to genetic information in health and disease. Genet Med 5 261 268

9. KhouryMJ

YangQ

GwinnM

LittleJ

FlandersWD

2004 An epidemiological assessment of genomic profiling for measuring susceptibility to common diseases and targeting interventions. Genet Med 6 38 47

10. KraftP

HunterDJ

2009 Genetic risk prediction—are we there yet? N Engl J Med 360 1701 3

11. PharoahPD

AntoniouA

BobrowM

ZimmernRL

EastonDF

2002 Polygenic susceptibility to breast cancer and implications for prevention. Nat Genet 31 33 6

12. VisscherPM

2008 Sizing up human height variation. Nat Genet 40 489 490

13. ClaytonDG

2009 Prediction and interaction in complex disease genetics: experience in type 1 diabetes. PLoS Genet 5 e1000540 doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000540

14. JanssensAC

AulchenkoYS

ElefanteS

BorsboomGJ

SteyerbergEW

2006 Predictive testing for complex diseases using multiple genes: fact or fiction? Genet Med 8 395 400

15. WrayNR

GoddardME

VisscherPM

2007 Prediction of individual genetic risk to disease from genome-wide association studies. Genome Res 17 1520 8

16. WrayNR

YangJ

GoddardME

VisscherPM

2010 The genetic interpretation of area under the ROC curve in genomic profiling. PLoS Genet 6 e1000864 doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000864

17. JanssensAC

van DuijnCM

2009 Genome-based prediction of common diseases: methodological considerations for future research. Genome Med 1 20

18. LangoH

PalmerCN

MorrisAD

ZegginiE

HattersleyAT

2008 Assessing the combined impact of 18 common genetic variants of modest effect sizes on type 2 diabetes risk. Diabetes 57 3129 35

19. KathiresanS

MelanderO

AnevskiD

GuiducciC

BurttNP

2008 Polymorphisms associated with cholesterol and risk of cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med 358 1240 1249

20. Van der NetJB

JanssensACJW

SijbrandsEJG

SteyerbergEW

2009 Value of genetic profiling for the prediction of coronary heart disease. Am Heart J 158 105 110

21. PharoahPD

AntoniouAC

EastonDF

PonderBA

2008 Polygenes, risk prediction, and targeted prevention of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 358 2796 803

22. VisscherPM

HillWG

WrayNR

2008 Heritability in the genomics era—concepts and misconceptions. Nat Rev Genet 9 255 66

23. EvansJP

SkrzyniaC

BurkeW

2001 The complexities of predictive genetic testing. BMJ 322 1052 6

24. KhouryMJ

McCabeLL

McCabeER

2003 Population screening in the age of genomic medicine. N Engl J Med 348 50 8

25. RoseG

1992 The strategy of preventive medicine Oxford Oxford University Press

26. HagaSB

KhouryMJ

BurkeW

2003 Genomic profiling to promote a healthy lifestyle: not ready for prime time. Nat Genet 34 347 50

27. RansohoffDF

KhouryMJ

2010 Personal genomics: information can be harmful. Eur J Clin Invest 40 64 8

28. FiorentinoM

CapizziE

LodaM

2010 Blood and tissue biomarkers in prostate cancer: state of the art. Urol Clin North Am 37 131 41

29. BarrattAL

StocklerMR

2009 Screening for prostate cancer: explaining new trial results and their implications to patients. Med J Aust 191 226 9

30. HunterDJ

KhouryMJ

DrazenJM

2008 Letting the genome out of the bottle—will we get our wish? N Engl J Med 358 105 7

31. PetoJ

2001 Cancer epidemiology in the last century and the next decade. Nature 411 390 295

32. GreenRC

RobertsJS

CupplesLA

RelkinNR

WhitehousePJ

2009 Disclosure of APOE genotype for risk of Alzheimer's disease. N Engl J Med 361 245 54

33. CameronLD

ShermanKA

MarteauTM

BrownPM

2009 Impact of genetic risk information and type of disease on perceived risk, anticipated affect, and expected consequences of genetic tests. Health Psychol 28 307 16

34. McBrideCM

BowenD

BrodyLC

ConditCM

CroyleRT

2010 Future health applications of genomics: priorities for communication, behavioral, and social sciences research. Am J Prev Med 38 556 65

35. SeniorV

MarteauTM

WeinmanJ

2000 Impact of genetic testing on causal models of heart disease and arthritis: an analogue study. Psychol Health 14 1077 1088

36. WrightAJ

WeinmanJ

MarteauTM

2003 The impact of learning of a genetic predisposition to nicotine dependence: an analogue study. Tob Control 12 227 30

37. MarteauTM

WeinmanJ

2006 Self-regulation and the behavioural response to DNA risk information: a theoretical analysis and framework for future research. Soc Sci Med 62 1360 1368

38. ChapmanS

MacKenzieR

2010 The global research neglect of unassisted smoking cessation: causes and consequences. PLoS Med 7 e1000216 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000216

39. McBrideCM

BeplerG

LipkusIM

LynaP

SamsaG

2002 Incorporating genetic susceptibility feedback into a smoking cessation program for African-American smokers with low income. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 11 521 528

40. SandersonSC

HumphriesSE

HubbartC

2008 Psychological and behavioural impact of genetic testing smokers for lung cancer risk: a phase II exploratory trial. J Health Psychol 13 481 494

41. WatsonM

FosterC

EelesR

EcclesD

AshleyS

2004 Psychosocial impact of breast/ovarian (BRCA1/2) cancer-predictive genetic testing in a UK multi-centre clinical cohort. Br J Cancer 91 1787 1794

42. WhiteV

HillD

SiahpushM

BobevskiI

2003 How has the prevalence of cigarette smoking changed among Australian adults? Trends in smoking prevalence between 1980 and 2001. Tob Control 12 (Suppl 2_ ii67 74

43. PierceJP

GilpinEA

EmerySL

WhiteMM

RosbrookB

1998 Has the California tobacco control program reduced smoking? JAMA 280 893 899

44. HallWD

MaddenP

LynskeyM

2002 The genetics of tobacco use: methods, findings and policy implications. Tob Control 11 119 124

45. ChaloupkaFJ

2010 Beyond tax: the need for research on alcohol pricing policies. Addiction 105 397 8

46. KruegerH

WilliamsD

KaminskyB

McLeanD

2007 The health impact of smoking and obesity and what to do about it Toronto University of Toronto Press

47. HallWD

GartnerCE

CarterA

2008 The genetics of nicotine addiction liability: ethical and social policy implications. Addiction 103 350 359

48. GundleKR

DingelMJ

KoenigBA

2010 ‘To prove this is the industry's best hope’: big tobacco's support of research on the genetics of nicotine addiction. Addiction 105 974 983

49. HallWD

2005 British drinking: a suitable case for treatment? BMJ 331 527 528

50. BaborT

MillerP

EdwardsG

2010 Vested interests, addiction research and public policy. Addiction 105 4 5

51. VreckoS

2008 Capital ventures into biology: biosocial dynamics in the industry and science of gambling. Econ Soc 37 50 67

52. Davey SmithG

EbrahimS

LewisS

HansellAL

PalmerLJ

2005 Genetic epidemiology and public health: hope, hype, and future prospects. Lancet 366 1484 98

Štítky
Interní lékařství

Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS Medicine


2010 Číslo 10

Nejčtenější v tomto čísle

Tomuto tématu se dále věnují…


Kurzy

Zvyšte si kvalifikaci online z pohodlí domova

Jistoty a nástrahy antikoagulační léčby aneb kardiolog - neurolog - farmakolog - nefrolog - právník diskutují
nový kurz
Autoři: doc. MUDr. Štěpán Havránek, Ph.D., prof. MUDr. Roman Herzig, Ph.D., doc. MUDr. Karel Urbánek, Ph.D., prim. MUDr. Jan Vachek, MUDr. et Mgr. Jolana Těšínová, Ph.D.

Léčba akutní pooperační bolesti
Autoři: doc. MUDr. Jiří Málek, CSc.

Nové antipsychotikum kariprazin v léčbě schizofrenie
Autoři: Prof. MUDr. Cyril Höschl, DrSc., FRCPsych.

Familiární transthyretinová periferní polyneuropatie
Autoři: MUDr. Radim Mazanec, Ph.D.

Diabetes mellitus a kardiovaskulární riziko, možnosti jeho ovlivnění
Autoři:

Všechny kurzy
Kurzy Doporučená témata Časopisy
Přihlášení
Zapomenuté heslo

Nemáte účet?  Registrujte se

Zapomenuté heslo

Zadejte e-mailovou adresu se kterou jste vytvářel(a) účet, budou Vám na ni zaslány informace k nastavení nového hesla.

Přihlášení

Nemáte účet?  Registrujte se