Direct-to-patient marketing of a genetic test to predict HIV disease progression
During the past month, some staff members at the AIDS Action Committee in Boston have been repeatedly contacted by sales reps from a company called Smart Genetics, which makes a test called HIVmirror. They’ve been asking for community input and help to spread the word about the HIVmirror.
The test analyzes the genetic structure of a person’s DNA to look for two specific mutations known as CCR5-Delta 32 and CCR2-64I.
In persons who are already infected with HIV, these mutations have been associated with slower-than-usual progression of HIV infection to AIDS. The mutations may also reduce the chances that an HIV-negative person will become infected.
Smart Genetics is marketing the HIVmirror test directly to consumers for $99. Their sales angle is that people will have additional “peace of mind” if they know they have genes that would slow the progression of HIV infection.
However, I have some serious concerns about the test and its marketing:
1) First, I don’t see any reason why a person should order this test on their own, without consulting a doctor. The test doesn’t indicate whether a person is HIV-positive or HIV-negative, so the concerns about confidentiality and stigma that motivate people to have anonymous HIV antibody tests wouldn’t apply here. There’s no stigma about having genes that might make a person a slow progressor.
2) Perhaps more important: What practical use would this information have to a person?
For HIV-positive persons: Although the presence of one or both genes might slow HIV progression, an HIV-positive person would still need to see their doctor regularly, have CD4 and viral load tests several times a year, and follow the guidelines for when to start or change HIV treatment. One danger is that, if an HIV-positive person concluded from the test that they were a “slow progressor,” they might decide to go it alone and not see a doctor regularly nor start treatment in a timely way.
For HIV-negative persons: If a person learned that they had one or both of these mutations, they might mistakenly think they were “immune” to being infected with the virus. This might lead to greater risk-taking that could ultimately increase their risk of becoming infected.
3) If a person were to have this test, I think they should do it under a doctor’s guidance. The doctor could provide context for the results, with the appropriate cautions for both HIV-positive and HIV-negative persons. But my guess is that most doctors would view the test as unnecessary, since it has few, if any, practical implications for preventing or treating HIV. That may be the reason why Smart Genetics has chosen to market direct to consumers – if you can’t find a compelling reason for a doctor to order a test, try marketing to the patient.
The POZ web site has an article from earlier this year about the HIVmirror test, with more opinions about the concerns that have been raised about it. Here’s the link.
