Suchergebnisse

<i>Objective and Methods:</i> We describe the insurance behaviour of subjects (n = 271) who had previously taken a predictive genetic test for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC); 31% of them were mutation positive, indicating a high risk of cancer. One year after testing, the subjects were sent a questionnaire including questions about their present life and health insurance before participation in the study, and their actual and planned purchase of the insurance policies during the testing programme which comprised a pre-test counselling session, a period for reflection, the testing, and a test disclosure session. <i>Results:</i> Thirty percent reported that they already had a life insurance and 14% a health insurance before participating in the study. The mutation-positive subjects possessed a health insurance significantly more often than the mutation-negative individuals (21 vs. 11%, p = 0.02) and a similar trend was observed for life insurance (36 vs. 28%, p = 0.12). Life and health insurance policies purchased just before testing was reported by 3 and 2% of the subjects, respectively. Life and health insurance policies purchased after testing were reported by 3 and <1%, respectively, and planned purchase by 3 and 2%, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups defined by mutation status in reports of life or health insurance behaviour during or after the programme. <i>Conclusion:</i> According to self-reported data, the mutation-positive subjects did not differ from the others in the purchase of life or health insurance policies. However, the mutation-positive individuals reported that they possessed health insurance policies before entering the study more often than their counterparts.

Biobanks accumulate huge amounts of research findings, including participants' genomic data. Increasingly this leads to biobanks receiving research results that could be of clinical significance to biobank participants. The EU Horizon 2020 Project 'Genetics Clinic of the Future' surveyed European biobanks' perceptions of the legal and regulatory requirements for communicating individual research results to donors. The goal was to gain background knowledge for possible future guidelines, especially relating to the consent process. The Survey was implemented using a web-based Webropol tool. The questionnaire was sent at the end of 2015 to 351 European biobanks in 13 countries that are members of BBMRI-ERIC (Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure–European Research Infrastructure Consortium). Seventy-two biobanks responded to the survey, representing each of the 13 BBMRI Member States. Respondents were mainly individuals responsible for the governance of biobanks. The replies indicate that the majority of the respondents thought that their national legislation allowed them to contact participants to communicate results, and that research participants had the right to request their results. However, respondents' understanding of their national legislation varied even within member states. Our results indicate that legislation applied to biobanks in many countries may be scattered and difficult to interpret. In BBMRI-ERIC, there is an ongoing discussion about the need for European recommendations on sharing genomic biobank results with donors, which may pave the way for more coherent global guidelines. Our results form a basis for this work.

As the availability of genetic tests has grown rapidly during the last decade along with the increasing knowledge of the genetic background of rare inherited diseases, sending DNA samples to another country for analysis has become more of a routine than an exception in clinical diagnostics. Nonetheless, few studies of cross-border genetic testing of rare diseases in the European Union (EU) have been carried out, and data about the challenges and problems related to cross-border testing are lacking. The purpose of this study was to investigate the experiences of the molecular genetic laboratories and the clinical genetics units concerning the cross-border genetic testing of rare diseases in the Member States of the EU. Data were collected using web-based questionnaires and phone interviews targeted at laboratories and clinical units registered with the Orphanet database. The specific aims were to clarify the volume, quality and challenges of cross-border genetic testing. The results revealed, for example, that the variability of the required documentation creates confusion and, unexpectedly, sample dispatch was considered a major problem in cross-border testing. In addition, the differences between countries regarding the reimbursement and authorization policies of cross-border testing were significant, thus confirming the pre-existing assumption about unequal access to genetic testing in the different Member States. To facilitate and organize cross-border testing, common practices need to be created at the level of the EU, and follow-up studies are needed to monitor their effects.

<i>Objectives:</i> Regarding the recent attention to develop policies regarding the provision of clinical genetic testing services, access to, acceptance, utilisation and regulation of genetic services was investigated in selected European countries as well as one non-European country. <i>Methods:</i> Data were collected on the basis of relevant international reports and sources accessible via the internet, from self- designed, internationally administered surveys and with the help of a panel of experts from European countries participating in several workshops as well as from National European Societies of Human Genetics. <i>Results:</i> A selection of divergent health care systems was reviewed and compared (e.g. Finland, Germany, Portugal, Sweden, UK, France, Italy, Spain, Czech Republic, Lithuania and Serbia/Montenegro). For the evaluation of clinical validity and utility of genetic testing, background information was provided focussing on DNA-based testing for heritable disorders with a strong genetic component (usually due to the action of a single gene). <i>Conclusions: </i>There is great heterogeneity in genetic testing services among the countries surveyed. It is premature to mandate that genetic testing provided by clinical services meets professional standards regarding clinical validity and utility, because there is to date no consensus within the scientific community and among health care providers to what extent clinical validity and utility can and need to be assessed. Points to consider in the process of developing such standards are proposed.

The definition of "genetic testing" is not a simple matter, and the term is often used with different meanings. The purpose of this work was the collection and analysis of European (and other) legislation and policy instruments regarding genetic testing, to scrutinise the definitions of genetic testing therewith contained the following: 60 legal documents were identified and examined—55 national and five international ones. Documents were analysed for the type (context) of testing and the material tested and compared by legal fields (privacy and confidentiality, data protection, biobanks, insurance and labour law, forensic medicine); some instruments are very complex and deal with various legal fields at the same time. There was no standard for the definitions used, and different approaches were identified (from wide general, to some very specific and technically based). Often, legal documents did not contain any definitions, and many did not distinguish between genetic testing and genetic information. Genetic testing was more often defined in non-binding legal documents than in binding ones. Definitions are core elements of legal documents, and their accuracy and harmonisation (particularly within a particular legal field) is critical, not to compromise their enforcement. We believe to have gathered now the evidence for adopting the much needed differentiation between (a) "clinical genetics testing", (b) "genetics laboratory-based genetic testing" and (c) "genetic information", as proposed before.

Genetic testing is a term used in different settings, often with very different meanings. There are only very few studies published about the various possible definitions of "genetic testing", and evidence is lacking from its use in professional practise. The need for precise definitions is particularly felt when producing legislation, policy recommendations or professional guidelines. EuroGentest Unit 3 (Clinical, Community and Public Health Genetics) had, as one of its objectives, to analyse definitions of "genetic testing" and propose consensus working definitions, if possible. To assess what was meant when using this term, in each individual professional context, a questionnaire was developed to evaluate if a consensus definition was desirable and achievable and what items or information should be included in the scope of such a definition. The questionnaire was sent to all EuroGentest partners and other registered users of its website; 135 answers were received, a response rate of 22%. The need for a consensus definition was acknowledged by the vast majority, although there was much less concordance about the possibility of attaining one. Clinical geneticists were the most supportive for context-dependent definitions. Conflicting perspectives arose, however, when discussing the inclusion of some type of tests, material or technology used. At issue seemed to be the distinction between the concepts of genetic material-based testing and genetic information.

Given the cost constraints of the European health-care systems, criteria are needed to decide which genetic services to fund from the public budgets, if not all can be covered. To ensure that high-priority services are available equitably within and across the European countries, a shared set of prioritization criteria would be desirable. A decision process following the accountability for reasonableness framework was undertaken, including a multidisciplinary EuroGentest/PPPC-ESHG workshop to develop shared prioritization criteria. Resources are currently too limited to fund all the beneficial genetic testing services available in the next decade. Ethically and economically reflected prioritization criteria are needed. Prioritization should be based on considerations of medical benefit, health need and costs. Medical benefit includes evidence of benefit in terms of clinical benefit, benefit of information for important life decisions, benefit for other people apart from the person tested and the patient-specific likelihood of being affected by the condition tested for. It may be subject to a finite time window. Health need includes the severity of the condition tested for and its progression at the time of testing. Further discussion and better evidence is needed before clearly defined recommendations can be made or a prioritization algorithm proposed. To our knowledge, this is the first time a clinical society has initiated a decision process about health-care prioritization on a European level, following the principles of accountability for reasonableness. We provide points to consider to stimulate this debate across the EU and to serve as a reference for improving patient management.

Given the cost constraints of the European health-care systems, criteria are needed to decide which genetic services to fund from the public budgets, if not all can be covered. To ensure that high-priority services are available equitably within and across the European countries, a shared set of prioritization criteria would be desirable. A decision process following the accountability for reasonableness framework was undertaken, including a multidisciplinary EuroGentest/PPPC-ESHG workshop to develop shared prioritization criteria. Resources are currently too limited to fund all the beneficial genetic testing services available in the next decade. Ethically and economically reflected prioritization criteria are needed. Prioritization should be based on considerations of medical benefit, health need and costs. Medical benefit includes evidence of benefit in terms of clinical benefit, benefit of information for important life decisions, benefit for other people apart from the person tested and the patient-specific likelihood of being affected by the condition tested for. It may be subject to a finite time window. Health need includes the severity of the condition tested for and its progression at the time of testing. Further discussion and better evidence is needed before clearly defined recommendations can be made or a prioritization algorithm proposed. To our knowledge, this is the first time a clinical society has initiated a decision process about health-care prioritization on a European level, following the principles of accountability for reasonableness. We provide points to consider to stimulate this debate across the EU and to serve as a reference for improving patient management.