Suppr超能文献

面向消费者的心血管疾病基因检测:意义与无意义

The sense and nonsense of direct-to-consumer genetic testing for cardiovascular disease.

作者信息

Janssens A C J W, Wilde A A M, van Langen I M

出版信息

Neth Heart J. 2011 Feb;19(2):85-88. doi: 10.1007/s12471-010-0069-x. Epub 2011 Jan 15.

Abstract

Expectations are high that increasing knowledge of the genetic basis of cardiovascular disease will eventually lead to personalised medicine-to preventive and therapeutic interventions that are targeted to at-risk individuals on the basis of their genetic profiles. Most cardiovascular diseases are caused by a complex interplay of many genetic variants interacting with many non-genetic risk factors such as diet, exercise, smoking and alcohol consumption. Since several years, genetic susceptibility testing for cardiovascular diseases is being offered via the internet directly to consumers. We discuss five reasons why these tests are not useful, namely: (1) the predictive ability is still limited; (2) the risk models used by the companies are based on assumptions that have not been verified; (3) the predicted risks keep changing when new variants are discovered and added to the test; (4) the tests do not consider non-genetic factors in the prediction of cardiovascular disease risk; and (5) the test results will not change recommendations of preventive interventions. Predictive genetic testing for multifactorial forms of cardiovascular disease clearly lacks benefits for the public. Prevention of disease should therefore remain focused on family history and on non-genetic risk factors as diet and physical activity that can have the strongest impact on disease risk, regardless of genetic susceptibility.

摘要

人们寄予厚望的是,对心血管疾病遗传基础了解的不断增加最终将带来个性化医疗——即基于高危个体的基因图谱进行预防和治疗干预。大多数心血管疾病是由许多基因变异与许多非基因风险因素(如饮食、运动、吸烟和饮酒)之间复杂的相互作用引起的。几年以来,心血管疾病的基因易感性检测通过互联网直接向消费者提供。我们讨论了这些检测无用的五个原因,即:(1)预测能力仍然有限;(2)公司使用的风险模型基于未经证实的假设;(3)当发现新的变异并添加到检测中时,预测风险不断变化;(4)检测在预测心血管疾病风险时未考虑非基因因素;(5)检测结果不会改变预防干预的建议。对多因素形式的心血管疾病进行预测性基因检测显然对公众没有益处。因此,疾病预防应继续侧重于家族病史以及对疾病风险影响最大的非基因风险因素,如饮食和体育活动,而不论基因易感性如何。

相似文献

1
The sense and nonsense of direct-to-consumer genetic testing for cardiovascular disease.
Neth Heart J. 2011 Feb;19(2):85-88. doi: 10.1007/s12471-010-0069-x. Epub 2011 Jan 15.
2
An epidemiological perspective on the future of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing.
Investig Genet. 2010 Oct 4;1(1):10. doi: 10.1186/2041-2223-1-10.
3
Direct-to-consumer personal genome testing and cancer risk prediction.
Cancer J. 2012 Jul-Aug;18(4):293-302. doi: 10.1097/PPO.0b013e3182610e38.
4
Internet-Based Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: A Systematic Review.
J Med Internet Res. 2015 Dec 14;17(12):e279. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4378.
5
Statement of the American Society of Clinical Oncology: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility, Adopted on February 20, 1996.
J Clin Oncol. 1996 May;14(5):1730-6; discussion 1737-40. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1996.14.5.1730.
6
Consumer Testing for Disease Risk: ACOG Committee Opinion Summary, Number 816.
Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Jan 1;137(1):203-204. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004201.
7
Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: to test or not to test, that is the question.
S Afr Med J. 2013 Jul 4;103(8):510-2. doi: 10.7196/samj.7049.
8
Overview of the epidemiology methods and applications: strengths and limitations of observational study designs.
Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2010;50 Suppl 1(s1):10-2. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2010.526838.
9
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
10
Committee Opinion No. 724: Consumer Testing for Disease Risk.
Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Nov;130(5):e270-e273. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002401.

引用本文的文献

1
The audacity of interpretation: Protecting patients or piling on?
Appl Transl Genom. 2014 Sep 1;3(3):68-69. doi: 10.1016/j.atg.2014.06.003.
2
The NHJ 2012 in retrospect: which articles are cited most?
Neth Heart J. 2012 Dec;20(12):481-2. doi: 10.1007/s12471-012-0336-0.
3
A randomized trial of genetic information for personalized nutrition.
Genes Nutr. 2012 Oct;7(4):559-66. doi: 10.1007/s12263-012-0290-x. Epub 2012 Mar 11.
5
On the futility of screening for genes that make you fat.
PLoS Med. 2011 Nov;8(11):e1001114. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001114. Epub 2011 Nov 1.
6
Direct-to-consumer personalized genomic testing.
Hum Mol Genet. 2011 Oct 15;20(R2):R132-41. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddr349. Epub 2011 Aug 9.

本文引用的文献

1
An epidemiological perspective on the future of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing.
Investig Genet. 2010 Oct 4;1(1):10. doi: 10.1186/2041-2223-1-10.
3
Genomewide association studies and assessment of the risk of disease.
N Engl J Med. 2010 Jul 8;363(2):166-76. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra0905980.
4
Translating genomic analyses into improved management of coronary artery disease.
Future Cardiol. 2010 Jul;6(4):507-21. doi: 10.2217/fca.10.28.
5
Active cascade screening in primary inherited arrhythmia syndromes: does it lead to prophylactic treatment?
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Jun 8;55(23):2570-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.12.063.
6
Multigenic condition risk assessment in direct-to-consumer genomic services.
Genet Med. 2010 May;12(5):279-88. doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181d5f73b.
7
DNA testing for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a cost-effectiveness model.
Eur Heart J. 2010 Apr;31(8):926-35. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq067. Epub 2010 Mar 18.
10
Personal genome testing: do you know what you are buying?
Am J Bioeth. 2009;9(6-7):11-3. doi: 10.1080/15265160902894005.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验