DTC Tests Face Scrutiny at FDA, by GAO, and Congress

Last week produced a flurry of activity at the FDA and before Congress relating to regulation of field of DTC genetic tests. Here is a summary:

At the FDA:

The FDA sent out additional letters to fourteen more DTC companies, stating that the companies’ respective tests constitute in vitro diagnostic devices subject to FDA regulation. These letters mirror the original letters sent out in June to 23andMe, Navigenics, deCODE Genetics, Knome and Illumina, which we discussed here and here.

On July 19-20, the FDA convened its Public Meeting on the Oversight of Laboratory Developed Tests to discuss the history and current regulatory status of LDTs and status of DTC genetic tests. The meeting was divided into four sessions to address:

• patient and clinical considerations;
• clinical laboratory challenges;
• concerns, benefits, and risks of DTC testing; and
• education and outreach so laboratories can comply with regulations and physicians are enabled use the genetic information provided in these tests

GAO Report:

On July 22, the Government Accountability Office released its report Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Tests: Misleading Test Results Are Further Complicated by Deceptive Marketing and Other Questionable Practices and offered it as testimony during the hearing before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce in the House of Representatives.

The GAO posed as consumers and sent DNA samples from five people to four selected companies. It also examined a sample if fifteen companies’ advertising and marketing practices.
This report revealed numerous appalling flaws related to selected DTC test’s accuracy, company follow up with consumers, and consumer privacy protections. The report found the following five problems:

(1) each donor’s factual profile received disease risk predictions that varied across all four companies, indicating that identical DNA can yield contradictory results depending solely on the company it was sent to for analysis;

(2) these risk predictions often conflicted with the donors’ factual illnesses and family medical histories;

(3) none of the companies could provide the donors who submitted fictitious African American and Asian profiles with complete test results for their ethnicity but did not explicitly disclose this limitation prior to purchase;

(4) one company provided donors with reports that showed conflicting predictions for the same DNA and profile, but did not explain how to interpret these different results; and

(5) follow-up consultations offered by three of the companies provided only general information and not the expert advice the companies promised to provide.

Varied risk prediction from each company grossly undermines each company’s claim of superiority and accuracy, weakening the reliability of the test results. For example, a male “consumer,” age 48, received three different results about his risk for hypertension. One company claimed he had a below average risk of developing hypertension, a second company stated his risk was average, and a third company noted his risk was above average. Accordingly, if a real consumer would integrate this information to make lifestyles changes as advocate by one of the companies, he may be incentivized toward undesirable health behaviors based on a mistaken belief of lower risk.

A widely circulated YouTube video documented some companies’ dangerous blurring of risk and diagnosis during follow up with company representatives. Here is one example:

Fictitious consumer: “So if I’m high risk, does that mean I’ll definitely get breast cancer?”

Company representative: “You…you’d be in the high risk of, you know, pretty much getting it.”

The GAO classified this exchange as “horrifying” and “disconcerting.” It leads me to wonder how many real consumers received similar devastating and incorrect information when they attempted to follow up their own test results? How many went to their physicians with these results and remained unconvinced when the physicians attempted to reassure them? In the near future, these companies should brace themselves for the legal backlash that is sure to follow from consumers who experienced such troubling exchanges and may vent their anxiety and frustration in the form of legal complaints alleging negligence and emotional damages.

Before Congress

During the hearing on the Hill, Rep. Griffith echoed this cautious sentiment, suggesting when confronted with alarming genetic risk information, consumers are likely to panic first and ask questions later. The Genomics Law Report provides a summary of the hearing here.

Despite GAO’s conclusion that DTC companies provide results that are “ambiguous and misleading,” Rep. Burgess and Rep. Waxman voiced their disfavor of overly intrusive regulation and advocated for a system that would still allow consumers to access their personal genetic information.

However, the GAO report illustrates precisely why the model for these tests will continue to encounter problems without the guidance of a physician as gatekeeper and interpreter. In another exchange recorded on the YouTube video, a company representative tells one “consumer” he can eventually stop taking his prescription medicine for high cholesterol if he purchases and uses the company’s pricey vitamin supplements. Advice connecting risk to behavior and medication changes should require a visit to a healthcare provider, not a phone call to a faceless company representative with uncertain credentials.

Even if a company’s test is accurate and it ceases to disseminate misleading advice about the power of its supplements, consumers still want (and need) additional information and advice from healthcare professionals to interpret and act on the test results they receive.

-Katherine Drabiak-Syed

Berkeley Scheduled to Move Forward with Freshmen DNA Testing

Yesterday, Berkeley’s student newspaper The Daily Californian published on op-ed questioning Berkeley’s decision to move forward with its experiment designed collect DNA from consenting incoming freshman. The “Bring Your Genes to Cal” experiment originally made headlines over a month ago, when the New York Times and other major newspapers described the program and the corresponding polarized responses. In a few weeks, Berkeley is scheduled to send out information packets, informed consent forms, and buccal swab kits to the incoming freshman class to test for genetic variation related to their ability to process lactose, metabolize alcohol, and examine their levels of folic acid.

Mark Schlissel, MD, PhD, Professor of Immunology and Dean of Biological Sciences at Berkeley views the program as a lesson of how genetics and personalized medicine will impact students’ lives in the future. “We wanted to give students a sense of what’s coming, through genes that can provide them with useful information. I think it’s one of the best things we’ve done in years,” said Schlissel to the New York Times. Schlissel described how the campus will hold seminars and forums in the fall to discuss the significance of personal genetic information.

Despite Schlissel’s enthusiasm, the program is not without criticism. Jesse Reynolds, a policy analyst at the Center for Genetics and Society, acknowledged that educating incoming students on new genetic technologies can indeed constitute an important teachable experience, but raised several cautionary notes. First, Reynolds questioned whether students will freely consent to the test or whether they will feel subtle social pressure to submit a DNA sample. Second, and importantly, Reynolds asserted that by suggesting freshmen’s participation in this experiment, Berkeley is legitimizing or promoting the direct-to-consumer genetic testing industry.

As recent Berkeley alumnae Jillian Theil pointed out in her op-ed on Monday, the scientific validity of these tests when they are offered by direct-to-consumer (DTC) companies is still unknown. Earlier this month, the FDA stepped forward to assert that tests offered by companies such as 23andme and Navigenics are in fact invitro devices and fall under FDA review. But until the FDA and the companies offering DTC genetic tests work through the regulatory process, the current DTC genetic tests’ analytical and clinical validity remains uncertain.

Problematically, students will not fully learn about the complexities of federal regulation, genetic information, and how to contextually interpret it until after they receive their results during the fall discussion sessions on campus. Contrary to Schlissel’s categorization of these variants as innocuous information, bioethicist George Annas argued that a college student’s genetic variant relating to alcohol metabolism is far from harmless. “What if someone tests negative, and they don’t have the marker, so they think that means they can drink more? Like all genetic information, it’s potentially harmful,” asserted Annas in the New York Times.

Theil’s title hit the mark: proceed with caution, indeed. Students should know that similar tests offered in the marketplace are in the middle of potentially sweeping regulatory changes. Even if Berkeley’s tests are accurate, as Annas noted, students should interpret their genetic information carefully (should they choose to participate) and forgo basing any lifestyle decisions on their results.

--Katherine Drabiak-Syed

Newborn Blood Spot Banking in Canada

A controversy that began in Minnesota and Texas has spread north of the Canadian border to British Columbia. The BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) is opposing the potential research use, without parental consent, of 800,000 newborn blood spots stored in a facility operated by Iron Mountain of Burnaby, B.C. The BCCLA published a press release on May 12 explaining its opposition and its concerns regarding B.C. Legislative Assembly 2010, Bill 11. The BCCLA describes Bill 11 as: "a grab bag of miscellaneous legislative provisions, including sections 165-167 that give the Minister of Health power to collect, gather, use and share personal information without any notice to or consent from affected individuals."

In addition to opposing Bill 11, the BCCLA's David Eby and an unnamed parent are challenging the privacy practices of the B.C. Newborn Screening Program operated by the B.C. Women's Hospital. The hospital's president, Dr. Jan Christilaw, insists (in The Province), “No researcher is actually going to walk out of there with someone else’s blood.” However, at CBC News, the Screening Program's director confirms "some of the samples have ... been used by medical researchers to establish 'normal values and ranges'" to improve testing methods. Nonetheless, privacy advocates are not satisfied. The Globe and Mail (and others) quoted one worried parent, Rhian Walker:

“This was never, ever explained anywhere to me .... I think this would change a lot of parents’ perception of that test. You’re trying to do what’s best for your baby, so I’m a bit taken aback to learn that now that information is being stored and utilized in a way that I haven’t given consent for.”

Although, Eby wants samples stored without consent to be destroyed, Christilaw confirmed in The Vancouver Sun that "staff are finalizing an opt-out part of the program, so parents will be able to decide up front if they wish to participate in the screening."

While BCCLA's advocacy may or may not slow the progress of Bill 11, will it discourage the uptake of a valuable public health service?

Related:

Katherine Drabiak-Syed. Newborn blood spot banking: approaches to consent. PredictER Law and Policy Update. Indiana University Center for Bioethics. March 12, 2010.
Jere Odell. Newborn Blood Spots, Biobanks, and the Law: Research Ethics in the News. Indiana Bioethics. February 2010.
Link: National Newborn Screening and Genetics Resource Center

Other Predictive Health Ethics News

Dan Vorhaus. DNA Spit Kits Off Walgreens’ Shelves? Try Amazon.com. Genomics Law Report. May 13, 2010.
Michael Rugnetta. FDA Intervention Shelves Plan for Drugstore Genome Tests. Science Progress. May 13, 2010.
Andrew Pollack. Walgreens Delays Selling Personal Genetic Test Kit. The New York Times. May 12, 2010.
Courtney Hutchison. Over-the-Counter DNA Testing: Wave of the Future or Waste of Money? ABC News. May 11, 2010.
Philippa Brice. US genetic discrimination complaint. PHG Foundation News. May 7, 2010.
Sound Ethics. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. Sound Medicine. May 2, 2010.
Bridget M. Kuehn. NIH Launching Genetic Test Registry. JAMA. 2010;303(17):1685.
Keith Doyle. UK Biobank 'close to signing up 500,000 participants'. BBC News. April 24, 2010.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Human bodies in medicine and research: consultation. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. April 19, 2010.
Larry Greenemeier. Case Studies Reveal that Patents Can Hinder Genetic Research and Patient Care. Scientific American. April 16, 2010.

- J.O.

Pathway Genomics: the Final Tipping Point for FDA Regulation of DTC Genetic Tests?

On Monday, the New York Times reported that Pathway Genomics, a company selling direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic and ancestry tests partnered with Walgreens, who was poised to begin stocking its shelves across the nation with kits. Two days later, the FDA sent a letter to Pathway Genomics asking the company to either show it has regulatory approval or explain why the test does not fall under the purview of FDA’s regulations. As a result of this controversy, Walgreens announced it will postpone selling the kit until the company resolves the issue with the FDA.


Pathway Genomics, like other DTC genetic tests, offers DNA testing to provide consumers information relating to genetic markers for risk of developing health conditions, carrier status, drug responses, and adverse medication reactions. Its website promises “with Personal DNA Testing, you can take preventative steps to improve your future, and even extend your life.” Despite these assertions, Pathway Genomics maintains its test should not fall under FDA regulation because it is “not intended for use in diagnosis, treatment or for the mitigation or cure of a disease.” This fine (or nonexistent) line of what constitutes a medical test rather than an informational service was the same argument used by Navigenics and 23andme back in 2008 when they responded to cease and desist letters sent by the California Department of Public Health.



Up until this point, the FDA has declined to regulate tests and active ingredients that a company creates itself in its own laboratory (home brew tests.) [See our previous posting on the topic here and our Direct-to-Consumer Law & Policy Update here.] Accordingly, the FDA has not regulated home brews’ claims of clinical validity, analytic validity, or clinical utility. That is, consumers had no assurance whether the test correctly correlated with the presence, absence, or increased risk of a certain disease; whether the test’s positive or negative test result correlated with the gene sequence; or whether the company provided useful information to translate these results to the consumer.


The Genomics Law Report posits that the sudden change in FDA’s response reflects the fact that Pathway Genomics will be the first company to sell its kit in a store location rather than through the internet, which increases its visibility and availability to consumers.


It also magnifies the potential that consumers may misunderstand or be misled by test results. Even if the test itself provides accurate information, the nature of DTC genetic tests presents inherent shortcomings. First, there is no requirement for a physician to determine whether the test is medically indicated prior to ordering. Second, there is no mandatory genetic counseling to explain the significance and limitations of the results.


Like several other companies, Pathway Genomics charges additional fees for a consumer to purchase telephone sessions with a genetic counselor. Unlike other companies, Pathway Genomics states it will provide a free genetic counseling session if the company deems it “medically necessary.” This gracious offer misses the point that genetic counselors should always be part of the genetic testing equation. It also leaves us to wonder, how does Pathway Genomics decide what constitutes a medically necessary reason?


It seems Pathway Genomics’ business decision to partner with the drugstore giant may have finally caught the FDA’s attention. FDA’s investigation into Pathway Genomics’ test into may turn out to be the long awaited tipping point for FDA to revise its stance and begin to regulate DTC genetic tests.

-Katherine Drabiak-Syed

Havasupai Tribe and Arizona State University Settlement Agreement: ASU to Return the Blood Samples

On April 21, 2010 the New York Times reported that the Havasupai tribe and Arizona State University (ASU) arrived at a settlement agreement relating to litigation over ASU’s alleged misuse of the Havasupai tribe’s blood samples originally collected for diabetes research. (Visit our forthcoming Human Specimen Collection, Biobanking, and Genetic Research Law and Policy Update for more information on the case.)

After millions of dollars spent on litigation in various suits, the tribe and ASU entered into the settlement agreement in March of this year. The settlement contains several provisions including details for ASU’s performance obligations such as:

(1) ASU will pay the plaintiffs a sum of $700,000;

(2) ASU will return all blood samples in its possession; and

(3) ASU will return documents such as lab books and genealogy materials containing research derived from the blood samples, it will direct IRBs at the universities involved in the suit not to approve ongoing or new research using the samples, and it will provide the tribe a list of entities to which it previously transferred the samples.

The settlement agreement also set forth a creative five year collaborative between ASU and the tribe designed to address the tribe’s needs in the areas of education, health and nutrition, economic development, architecture, engineering, and legal governance. Several of these provisions include pursuing funding opportunities to build a high school near the reservation, partnering ASU nursing students to provide clinical care in Supai village, and working with the tribe to develop business plans related to its tourism programs.

Like many other settlements, this agreement specified a monetary exchange. ASU's transfer of $700,000 (split among the forty-one plaintiffs) seems nominal compared to plaintiffs’ request for $25 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages. However, unlike other agreements, the money was arguably not the central concern here and would never alone be sufficient to remedy plaintiffs’ alleged damages without addressing the use and possession of the blood samples.

The return of the samples and research materials highlights several important issues that suggest our current standards and assumptions governing biobanking research are inadequate to address the needs of all research subjects, especially if blood and DNA is particularly significant to a group's cultural values and sense of identity.

First, subjects must be fully informed when they provide consent to use their blood for genetic research and the scope of the research should not exceed the original consent. Second, using the blood for purposes beyond the scope of the original consent may present serious dignitary concerns that researchers may overlook because the substance of these concerns may not even register as a possible harm or risk. Indeed, one of the ASU researchers maintained she was advancing important research and refered to the tribe's claims as "hysterical." Lastly, the importance of how the samples are (mis)used can be so vital to a particular group that return of the samples may be the only mechanism to fully remedy the group’s alleged dignitary harms.

-Katherine Drabiak-Syed

Judge Grants Partial Summary Judgment to Plaintiffs: Myriad's Gene Patents Are Invalid

On March 29, Judge Sweet issued a ruling in Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office. Known as the lawsuit against Myriad Genetics, this case was posed to answer the widely debated question of whether human genes are patentable. In a 152 page opinion, the Court comprehensively addressed whether the defendants’ patents were valid under the standards set forth in 35 USC § 101 and patent law’s subsequent precedent.

For more information on the case, see our previous posting and our Law & Policy Update.

Judge Sweet granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs related to both the composition and the method claims, finding as a matter of law defendants’ patents were invalid under 35 USC § 101. (For more on the significance of summary judgment, see Genomic Law Report’s posting.) The Court dismissed the Constitutional claims against the USPTO based on the doctrine of Constitutional Avoidance. This means where it is possible to resolve plaintiffs claims without addressing the Constitutional questions, the Court is precluded from addressing these issues.

Defendants argued that by isolating and purifying DNA, they had sufficiently changed a product of nature into a fundamentally new product that satisfied subject matter patentability requirements. Judge Sweet responded to defendants’ arguments by systematically refuting each point. The Court thoroughly dismantled defendants’ reliance on precedent relating to products of nature in Parke-Davis, explaining that this case’s analysis only related to outdated dicta. Purification of a product of nature without additional handiwork or change to the substance is insufficient to meet the requirements for patentability because isolated DNA is not markedly different from native DNA, according to the Court. By definition, isolated DNA can be used for research tool applications where native DNA is unsuitable because it has an identical sequence.

Notably, Judge Sweet also took issue with defendants’ arguments that USPTO and the Court should treat patents for DNA identically to every other chemical. Unlike other chemicals, genes have a double nature because they are both chemical molecules and physical carriers of information. “DNA, and in particular, the ordering of the nucleotides, therefore serves as the physical embodiment of the laws of nature- those that define the construction of the human body,” wrote Judge Sweet. (124) These distinctions suggest that the Court recognizes the problematic implications of continuing to treat DNA as any other chemical- a frenetic race to patent the rest of the human genome without consideration of research or clinical care consequences.

The Court also invalidated defendants’ claims for analyzing and comparing sequences of the BRCA genes, finding that the claims did not meet the required physically transformative step. Preparatory processes such as isolating and sequencing the DNA only constitutes data gathering and are insufficient to transform an abstract mental process of comparing gene sequences into a transformative process. In addition, the Court invalidated defendants’ claim for comparing the growth rate of cells. In that patent, defendants claim stated that a slower growth of cells indicated a cancer therapeutic. Judge Sweet clarified that the essence of this claim merely recited the scientific method and constituted a patent on a basic scientific principle.

This opinion signals an important pause in frantic pursuit of more and more gene patents. Judge Sweet’s analysis commands us to rethink whether precedent ever actually supported patent eligibility for isolated DNA sequences or sequence comparison claims like Myriad’s.

The impact of this decision alone means that some of Myriad’s patents are invalid and it cannot enforce them in the future. However, defendants will likely appeal this decision to the Federal Circuit, which may choose to stay Judge Sweet’s ruling until it renders a final decision. If the final ruling happens to affirm this Court’s findings, then the USPTO would conform its examination policies to avoid issuing patents on isolated DNA or the comparison or analysis of DNA sequences.

-Katherine Drabiak-Syed

Transparency of Texas’ NBS Transfer and Reassessing Evasive Statutory Interpretation

A recent investigative report from the Texas Tribune revealed new information relating to the sharing of newborn blood spots (NBS) in Texas.

In November 2009, Texas Tribune reporters contacted the Texas Department of State Health Services (TDSHS) with a record request to review agency information and activities related to the NBS as permitted under the state’s Sunshine laws. TDSHS refused, maintaining that the NBS records were confidential. After parties filed the settlement with the court, Texas Tribune inquired again to obtain the records and found that TDSHS transferred hundreds of de-identified NBS to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology to build a mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) registry.

The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology designed the mtDNA registry as a forensics tool to identify missing persons, solve old crimes, and eventually, share the samples internationally for law enforcement and anti-terrorism efforts. Throughout the plaintiffs’ allegations and questions, TDSHS asserted it was storing and using the NBS for medical research, never mentioning any forensic use even through plaintiffs’ attorney James Harrington specifically inquired how TDSHS used the samples. TDSHS’ provision of information relating to the mtDNA registry would have been both directly pertinent and material to answering plaintiffs’ questions about the NBS disposition and how plaintiffs chose to proceed with the lawsuit.

In addition to the information on the mtDNA registry, the records request also uncovered email communications from the time when TDSHS began storing NBS at Texas A & M University. When the storage began, Texas A & M asked to issue a press release, but a TDSHS official stated that releasing this information made him “nervous” and would “only generate negative publicity.”

Although the decision revealed in the emails prevented public knowledge of storage for research use, it demonstrates a problematic mentality that transparency poses an unnecessary burden. Remaining in the dark about research using NBS is one issue, but failing to disclose (even when asked on several occasions) that the NBS are included in a registry for forensic and future law enforcement purposes creates a multitude of distinct issues. Both explicit knowledge and consent should be required to include one’s DNA in such a database.

Following terms of the settlement agreement, TDSHS’s website lists projects for which TDSHS uses the NBS. The mtDNA registry is now included on this list of projects, and TDSHS spokesperson Carrie Williams maintains that it falls within the category of “public health research.”

Sweeping forensic and law enforcement uses into the definition of public health research warrants close analysis. First, a plain reading of each definition would clearly show that the purpose of research into the causes of autism is not remotely connected to using DNA to identity a suspected criminal. Applying such a definition extends the limits of creative statutory interpretation too far. Second, states’ legislatures have attempted to impose limits on the use of NBS and other biological samples by creating exemptions or abbreviated pathways when the samples are used for public health research. Including forensic and law enforcement purposes ignores this precision and opens the possibility that samples would be shared for even more uses that would not disclosed to the public because the state health department could use this precedent to assume this use also would constitute “public health research.”

The potential for negative publicity alone should not serve as a barrier to transparency, but rather encourage public education for why TDSHS thought giving NBS to the mtDNA registry (with proper consent) would be beneficial. Dodging specific inquiries related to the uses of NBS, failing to disclose that they were given to this registry, and subsequently classifying the registry as a public health project have created even more of a publicity nightmare than TDSHS could have imagined. Other state health departments may be wise to assess whether their own policies encourage transparency, public engagement, and a sincere interpretation of what projects constitute public health research.


--Katherine Drabiak-Syed