While the story looks at genetic tests for prescribing psychiatric drugs broadly, it also uses one test in particular as a focal point. The story notes that this test, called GeneSight, cost one patient $3,800. The story also notes that GeneSight is covered by Medicare. Those are great points to make in a story like this one. However, since the story also notes that there are a lot of other, similar tests on the market, it would have been good to tell readers a little bit more about cost. Is $3,800 about average for testing costs? Is there a range that these tests fall into? Do other insurers pay for GeneSight? The story would have been stronger if it had touched on these issues. We would have liked to see more detail about the company-funded studies mentioned, especially sample size and the odds ratios or degree of benefit. It is easy and tempting to discredit studies because they are company-funded, but this does not necessarily mean they are wrong — simply that we should proceed with caution in interpreting them. And it’s true that in many cases, the company is the only group interested in investing the time/money to do the necessary research. With that being said, the story does note that “Finding a test to more precisely target treatment could help troubled people find help more quickly, cut down on side effects, and save money.” And, when discussing GeneSight in particular, the story points to “company-funded studies showing that when [patients with depression] took the medications recommended by the test, they had fewer symptoms after eight weeks compared with patients who did not use the test.” We’ll award a Satisfactory and leave the suggestions for next time. This area could have been stronger. The story begins with an anecdote about a patient who was prescribed a drug based in part on the results of a genetic test. That patient became suicidal within three weeks and checked himself into a mental hospital. That sort of story tells readers very little about risks associated with these genetic tests, precisely because it is anecdotal — and there was very little else in the story about potential harms. For example, the story quotes one researcher as saying that claims about such genetic tests are “not harmless and may be quite dangerous.” But the story doesn’t tell us what that means. Why aren’t these claims harmless? Why may they be dangerous? We suspect that the biggest harm here is in the high cost of the test. But what if the test is wrong? It might also cause delays in finding the “right” drug for patients — especially if the genetic test takes time to run and if doctors weigh the test results over clinical judgment or other factors, leading to poorer decisions. The focus of the story is on quality of evidence. It emphasizes the lack of independently-funded studies that have evaluated the efficacy of these genetic tests. Based on a review by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting, “virtually all the evidence that these psychiatric tests work is based on limited studies funded by the companies themselves or researchers they fund, including all five studies used to promote GeneSight on the company’s website.” It would have been good to put some numbers there — “virtually all the evidence” is a somewhat vague description — but we think it does address the Quality of Evidence question in a meaningful way. Worth noting: an annotated version of this story that appeared on the New England Center for Investigative Reporting’s site includes links to supporting information that is of interest. It would have been good if the version of the story that appeared in the Globe had let readers know that the annotated version (and supporting documents) were available. No disease mongering here. A very strong point for the story. It quotes multiple industry and expert sources, with industry sources clearly identified. The story looks at the field of genetic testing to identify psychiatric drugs most likely to be effective to treat specific mental conditions in a given patient. The alternative to using such testing is for psychiatrists to prescribe drugs based on their diagnosis, which is often determined by symptoms. The story doesn’t state this explicitly, and that would have been useful. But the story does note that psychiatry does have “a lack of definitive tests for conditions and treatments alike,” and that doctors often take a “trial-and-error approach to medications.” We think the story did enough here to earn a Satisfactory rating. The story makes clear that many of these tests are currently available. The story notes that “Genetic tests to identify the most effective psychiatric drugs are the hot new technology in the race to create personalized treatments based on people’s DNA” and that “[m]ore than 600,000 of these tests have likely been administered in the last three years.” While it may have been nice to mention that genetic testing is done in some other fields (eg. to determine breast cancer risk) to provide context, the story does enough to earn a Satisfactory rating. This work doesn’t appear to be based on a news release at all — and even if it were, it clearly goes far beyond anything a news release might include.
Genetic tests for psychiatric drugs spur hope, doubts