Survey: 90% Open to Genetic Testing for Med Tailoring

Queen Mary University of London
Biochemist working with microscope

Biochemist working with microscope

Pharmacogenomics – an individual's genetic response to medications – is an increasingly important strand of personalised healthcare but little is known about the public's views on it. Researchers at Queen Mary University of London, working with key partners, have carried out a first-of-its-kind public consultation to gather the public's views on pharmacogenetics.

How a person responds to medication is sometimes influenced by their genetic makeup. Some medications do not work as well for people with certain genetic variations, and in other cases can lead to serious side effects. Side effects account for one in 16 hospital admissions and have been estimated to cost the NHS £2.2 billion annually – demonstrating how important pharmacogenetic testing could be.

Queen Mary is a world leader in the application of genomics to personalise healthcare – from the 100,000 Genomes Project to the Barts Life Science Precision Medicine Programme. Genomics helps us understand how disease and treatments impact different patient groups. Through personalised or precision healthcare, we can address health inequalities and improve the lives of people in our local community and across the world. Understanding how people feel about genomics and personalised healthcare is crucial to ensure uptake of these technologies.

To gauge the public's attitudes on pharmacogenetics, a research team, led by Dr Emma Magavern at Queen Mary University of London in collaboration with the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen), surveyed a representative sample of UK adults. Dr Magavern's team worked with the NHS England Network of Excellence for Pharmacogenomics and Medicines Optimisation and the Participant Panel at Genomics England. 2,719 responses were obtained (a response rate of 58%).

Key findings from the survey include:

  • Only half of participants knew that variations in DNA can predict either efficacy or side effects from a medication
  • People who were prescribed medication were almost twice as likely to want a PGx test
  • Most people (59%) reported experiencing either no benefit or a side effect from a medication.

Dr Emma Magavern, NIHR Clinical Academic Lecturer in Queen Mary's Centre for Clinical Pharmacology and Precision Medicine who led the study, said: "This survey shows that many people in the UK feel that they have taken medication which has not been good for them, and most understand that people can respond differently to the same medication. There is widespread public support for personalising prescribing with genetic information and including this within NHS clinical care nationally, in partnership with patients and highlighting the key role of patient agency."

Dr Rich Scott, Chief Executive Officer at Genomics England, said: "Pharmacogenomics holds enormous promise for improving health and helping to shift healthcare from reaction to prevention – and these results show it's vital that the public are partners, not passengers, on this journey.

"This study shows that the public welcome using genetic testing to help make drug prescription safer and more effective, and that people want to be able to access their own data themselves. This is all vital information as we develop the digital infrastructure and evidence on how routine use of pharmacogenomics could become a routine part of healthcare in the coming years and have a real impact on patient care."

Dave McCormick, a member of the Participant Panel at Genomics England, said: "The Participant Panel were delighted to be involved in this important work. We are excited about the future for pharmacogenomics and encouraged that patients are being involved from the outset."

 This study was supported by NIHR Biomedical Research Centres at Barts and Manchester.

/Public Release. This material from the originating organization/author(s) might be of the point-in-time nature, and edited for clarity, style and length. Mirage.News does not take institutional positions or sides, and all views, positions, and conclusions expressed herein are solely those of the author(s).View in full here.