Cookies

Like most websites The Pathologist uses cookies. In order to deliver a personalized, responsive service and to improve the site, we remember and store information about how you use it. Learn more.
Subscribe to Newsletter
Inside the Lab Laboratory management, Hematology, Quality assurance and quality control, Technology and innovation

Power to the People

Opinion on direct-to-consumer (DTC) lab tests is divided – while some believe that patients should take charge of their own health in every way, others are rightfully concerned that untrained eyes might misunderstand the meaning, significance or reliability of the results. Regardless of expert opinions on the subject, as medical technology becomes increasingly accessible, it seems that consumer testing is here to stay. But what is it that patients are learning from these tests – and can it be trusted? To find out, a team of researchers from Mount Sinai’s Icahn School of Medicine embarked on a cohort study of healthy adults using popular over-the-counter tests (1).

To examine the performance of these tests, 60 adults were administered 22 common laboratory tests from either a DTC company (Theranos, which uses fingerprick diagnostics) or clinical testing services (Quest and LabCorp, both of which use venipuncture). The tests included a complete blood count panel, leukocyte subsets, lipid panel, inflammation, kidney and liver labs. The blood draws were completed within the span of 6.5 hours; each patient had one venipuncture and one fingerprick early in the day, then another of each draw late in the day.

What did they find? The DTC test returned missing data more often than the clinical services (2.2 percent, as compared with 0.2 and 0 percent) and reported more measures outside the normal range (12.2 percent, as compared with 8.3 and 7.5 percent). Most notably, results for mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration, lymphocyte count, and cholesterol components were out of range more often than expected, with ratios between the consumer test and the lab services ranging from 1.6 to 4.5. Nonequivalence was also a problem, not just between the low-volume and standard tests, but also between the two clinical testing services – though here, again, the consumer test deviated most. Unexpectedly, inter-subject and inter-service variability had a significant impact on results, even within clinical testing services – a finding that may have implications for end-user interpretations of results, and ultimately for treatment decisions at the point of care.

What does this mean for DTC services? Should they be scrapped? Not necessarily; according to the report’s authors, these kinds of tests cost substantially less than traditional services, and are often more accessible for patients with limited time or mobility. Rather, they suggest that it’s important for test manufacturers and regulatory bodies to gain a greater understanding of the sources of variability, so that results can be interpreted in context and, eventually, testing technologies improved. As consumer testing doesn’t appear to be a transient phenomenon, the goal should be to provide results as accurate and reliable as possible.

Receive content, products, events as well as relevant industry updates from The Pathologist and its sponsors.
Stay up to date with our other newsletters and sponsors information, tailored specifically to the fields you are interested in

When you click “Subscribe” we will email you a link, which you must click to verify the email address above and activate your subscription. If you do not receive this email, please contact us at [email protected].
If you wish to unsubscribe, you can update your preferences at any point.

  1. BA Kidd et al., “Evaluation of direct-to-consumer low-volume lab tests in healthy adults”, J Clin Invest, 86318 (2016). PMID: 27018593.
About the Author
Michael Schubert

While obtaining degrees in biology from the University of Alberta and biochemistry from Penn State College of Medicine, I worked as a freelance science and medical writer. I was able to hone my skills in research, presentation and scientific writing by assembling grants and journal articles, speaking at international conferences, and consulting on topics ranging from medical education to comic book science. As much as I’ve enjoyed designing new bacteria and plausible superheroes, though, I’m more pleased than ever to be at Texere, using my writing and editing skills to create great content for a professional audience.

Register to The Pathologist

Register to access our FREE online portfolio, request the magazine in print and manage your preferences.

You will benefit from:
  • Unlimited access to ALL articles
  • News, interviews & opinions from leading industry experts
  • Receive print (and PDF) copies of The Pathologist magazine

Register