Background: The successful integration of pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing into clinical care will require attention to patient attitudes. In this study, we aimed to identify the major reasons why patients would or would not consider PGx testing and whether these factors differed by race, socioeconomic and insurance status, and medical history. Methods: We developed and conducted a survey within the adult patient population of the Duke Family Medicine Center. Results: Of 75 completed surveys (65% African-American), 77% indicated they were ‘very likely’ or ‘somewhat likely’ to take a PGx test. Respondents who had experienced a side effect were significantly more likely to indicate they would take a PGx test and expressed greater interest in learning more about testing than those who had not. Drug safety and effectiveness were the major reasons to have PGx testing. Privacy concerns and lack of insurance coverage for testing were the major reasons to decline testing. Conclusions: We found no differences in interest in PGx tests by race or socioeconomic status, but found stronger interest from those with a history of side effects and private insurance. While the overall support of PGx testing is encouraging, greater reassurance of medical privacy and development of educational resources are needed.

1.
Evans WE, McLeod HL: Pharmacogenomics – drug disposition, drug targets, and side effects. N Engl J Med 2003;348:538–549.
2.
Phillips KA, Veenstra DL, Oren E, Lee JK, Sadee W: Potential role of pharmacogenomics in reducing adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. JAMA 2001;286:2270–2279.
3.
Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN: Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 1998;279:1200–1205.
4.
Suh DC, Woodall BS, Shin SK, Hermes-De Santis ER: Clinical and economic impact of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients. Ann Pharmacother 2000;34:1373–1379.
5.
Bond CA, Raehl CL: Adverse drug reactions in United States hospitals. Pharmacotherapy 2006;26:601–608.
6.
Pirmohamed M, James S, Meakin S, Green C, Scott AK, Walley TJ, Farrar K, Park BK, Breckenridge AM: Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients. BMJ 2004;329:15–19.
7.
The Royal Society: Pharmacogenetics dialogue, 2005. Available at http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=3779.
8.
Rogausch A, Prause D, Schallenberg A, Brockmoller J, Himmel W: Patients’ and physicians’ perspectives on pharmacogenetic testing. Pharmacogenomics 2006;7:49–59.
9.
Fargher EA, Eddy C, Newman W, Qasim F, Tricker K, Elliott RA, Payne K: Patients’ and healthcare professionals’ views on pharmacogenetic testing and its future delivery in the NHS. Pharmacogenomics 2007;8:1511–1519.
10.
Almarsdottir AB, Bjornsdottir I, Traulsen JM: A lay prescription for tailor-made drugs – focus group reflections on pharmacogenomics. Health Policy 2005;71:233–241.
11.
Bevan JL, Lynch JA, Dubriwny TN, Harris TM, Achter PJ, Reeder AL, Condit CM: Informed lay preferences for delivery of racially varied pharmacogenomics. Genet Med 2003;5:393–399.
12.
Rothstein MA: Public attitudes about pharmacogenomics; in Rothstein MA (ed): Pharmacogenomics: Social, Ethical, and Clinical Dimensions. New Jersey, Wiley-Liss, 2003, pp 3–27.
13.
Kinney AY, Choi YA, DeVellis B, Kobetz E, Millikan RC, Sandler RS: Interest in genetic testing among first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients. Am J Prev Med 2000;18:249–252.
14.
Nordin K, Bjork J, Berglund G: Factors influencing intention to obtain a genetic test for a hereditary disease in an affected group and in the general public. Prev Med 2004;39:1107–1114.
15.
Shields AE, Blumenthal D, Weiss KB, Comstock CB, Currivan D, Lerman C: Barriers to translating emerging genetic research on smoking into clinical practice. Perspectives of primary care physicians. J Gen Intern Med 2005;20:131–138.
16.
Goodman LA: Simple models for the analysis of association in cross-classifications having ordered categories. J Am Stat Assoc 1979;74:537–552.
17.
Tambor ES, Rimer BK, Strigo TS: Genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility: awareness and interest among women in the general population. Am J Med Genet 1997;68:43–49.
18.
Sanderson SC, Wardle J, Jarvis MJ, Humphries SE: Public interest in genetic testing for susceptibility to heart disease and cancer: a population-based survey in the UK. Prev Med 2004;39:458–464.
19.
Tercyak KP, Peshkin BN, Wine LA, Walker LR: Interest of adolescents in genetic testing for nicotine addiction susceptibility. Prev Med 2006;42:60–65.
20.
Hipps YG, Roberts JS, Farrer LA, Green RC: Differences between African Americans and Whites in their attitudes toward genetic testing for Alzheimer’s disease. Genet Test 2003;7:39–44.
21.
Lipkus IM, Iden D, Terrenoire J, Feaganes JR: Relationships among breast cancer concern, risk perceptions, and interest in genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility among African-American women with and without a family history of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999;8:533–539.
22.
Kinney AY, Croyle RT, Dudley WN, Bailey CA, Pelias MK, Neuhausen SL: Knowledge, attitudes, and interest in breast-ovarian cancer gene testing: a survey of a large African-American kindred with a BRCA1 mutation. Prev Med 2001;33:543–551.
23.
Kessler L, Collier A, Brewster K, Smith C, Weathers B, Wileyto EP, Halbert CH: Attitudes about genetic testing and genetic testing intentions in African-American women at increased risk for hereditary breast cancer. Genet Med 2005;7:230–238.
24.
Satia JA, McRitchie S, Kupper LL, Halbert CH: Genetic testing for colon cancer among African-Americans in North Carolina. Prev Med 2006;42:51–59.
25.
Lerman C, Hughes C, Benkendorf JL, Biesecker B, Kerner J, Willison J, Eads N, Hadley D, Lynch J: Racial differences in testing motivation and psychological distress following pretest education for BRCA1 gene testing. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999;8:361–367.
26.
Armstrong K, Micco E, Carney A, Stopfer J, Putt M: Racial differences in the use of BRCA1/2 testing among women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer. JAMA 2005;293:1729–1736.
27.
Halbert CH, Kessler L, Stopfer JE, Domchek S, Wileyto EP: Low rates of acceptance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 test results among African American women at increased risk for hereditary breast-ovarian cancer. Genet Med 2006;8:576–582.
28.
Haga SB, Burke W: Pharmacogenetic testing: not as simple as it seems. Genet Med 2008;10:391–395.
29.
Slaughter LM: The genetic information nondiscrimination act: why your personal genetics are still vulnerable to discrimination. Surg Clin North Am 2008;88:723–738.
30.
Persky S, Kaphingst KA, Condit CM, McBride CM: Assessing hypothetical scenario methodology in genetic susceptibility testing analog studies: a quantitative review. Genet Med 2007;9:727–738.
31.
Ropka ME, Wenzel J, Phillips EK, Siadaty M, Philbrick JT: Uptake rates for breast cancer genetic testing: a systematic review. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:840–855.
32.
Patel KJ, Kedia MS, Bajpai D, Mehta SS, Kshirsagar NA, Gogtay NJ: Evaluation of the prevalence and economic burden of adverse drug reactions presenting to the medical emergency department of a tertiary referral centre: a prospective study. BMC Clin Pharmacol 2007;7:8.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.