Can a genetic test predict risk of opioid addiction?

opioid addiction

The opioid crisis is an ongoing tragedy, with fatal overdoses costing thousands of lives each year. Although opioids are an essential part of modern medicine, the National Institute on Drug Abuse reports that 8 to 12 percent of people on long-term opioid therapy develop an opioid use disorder. But what if this risk could be mitigated through genetic testing?

Prescient Medicine recently introduced its LifeKit Predict , a gene screening test to determine who is at risk for opioid addiction. The company states that it “can identify with 88 percent specificity that someone may have a risk for opioid dependency” and “provides assurance—with 97 percent sensitivity—that an individual may not have increased genetic risk for opioid dependency.”

Similar claims have been made by Proove Bioscience, which introduced a genetic test in 2016. But a STAT investigation found that “the opioid risk test lacks a firm scientific basis.”

In other words, strong claims require substantial evidence. The idea of a genetic test for opioid addiction risk is appealing given the rising numbers of overdose fatalities. But any such test has to address two key questions: Is is possible in principle? And does it work in practice?

Genes and addiction

The pathway from gene variant to behavior is very complex. Research into genetic factors in opioid addiction has found “evidence for genetic susceptibility to substance use disorders” in twin studies, but non-genetic factors are known to play a role as well.

opioid addiction 7 30 2The National Institute on Drug Abuse states that “genetic factors account for between 40 and 60 percent of a person’s vulnerability to addiction; this includes the effects of environmental factors on the function and expression of a person’s genes.”

Genes thought to be involved include the dopamine receptor genes DRD2, DRD3, and DRD4, as well as the opioid receptor genes OPRM1, OPRD1, and OPRK1. Prescient research  lists a total of 16 gene variants as relevant, pinpointing specific single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that in combination may elevate the risk of opioid addiction.

But gene testing often finds seemingly pathogenic variants that turn out to have no clinical significance. A person can be a perfect genetic match for a disorder but have no symptoms. So at a clinical level, that person does not have the disorder. Only in a handful of cases does a specific gene variant lead to a precise fate: Huntington’s disease is a textbook example.

Opioid addiction is generally conceived in terms of the biopsychosocial model. As Maia Szalavitz explains in “Unbroken Brain”: “There are three critical elements to it; the behavior has a psychological purpose; the specific learning pathways involved make it become nearly automatic and compulsive; and it doesn’t stop when it is no longer adaptive.”

Thus, a genetic test to identify an increased risk for opioid addiction is plausible in principle. But non-genetic factors make it tricky in practice.

Ready for the real world?

There are at present no clinical studies of efficacy or real-world reports of success or failure rates with Prescient’s LifeKit Predict tool. Prescient acknowledges that “the use of genetic algorithms to determine predictive risk scores is still a relativey [sic] new science. Prospective, longitudinal studies are needed to better definne [sic] the breadth of the test’s importance.”

Related article:  Vacation hazard: Your gut bacteria picks up souvenirs, too

Prescient derived its predictive model as follows: “Thirty-seven patients diagnosed with prescription opioid or heroin addiction and thirty age and gender matched controls were used to derive the predictive score.” An additional 138 samples were used to calculate sensitivity and specificity.

These terms have precise meanings in statistical analysis, but a simple example captures the essentials. A molar (butterfly) rash is very sensitive for lupus but not very specific. It is rarely seen in any disorder other than lupus, so if a person has it, lupus should be suspected. But it is only seen in about half of people with lupus, so absence of a butterfly rash doesn’t mean you can rule out lupus.

The sensitivity and specificity in the ranges given by Prescient represent a significant risk for false positives and false negatives, potentially limiting the real-world value of this approach. A test that misses too many people at risk of addiction or that tags too many people who are not at risk would not be clinically useful.

opioid 7 30 18 2Yale University professor Joel Gelertner, an expert in genetics and addiction, has expressed skepticism “that the reported predictive power would hold up when applied to larger datasets, and argued that in the absence of better validation, physicians should not use this type of testing.”

Moreover, genetic testing will have to compete against existing tools for opioid risk assessment. The Current Opioid Misuse Measure (COMM-9 ) is a simple and familiar instrument for evaluating opioid addiction risk. And the National Institute on Drug Abuse just introduced “a new scientifically validated, online screening tool designed to assess a patient’s risk for substance misuse and substance use disorder” called TAPS, available online.

The COMM-9 and TAPS are very low cost, easy to use, and give results quickly. By contrast, genetic screening tests are expensive and require weeks to get results. It is not clear at this point if genetic testing offers any advantages over these existing tools.

At present opioid addiction risk is more readily assessed using tools that are already available and understood. Genetic testing like Prescient’s new tool needs to demonstrate reliability in clinical settings before the costs and risks of this approach can be justified. For now it is probably premature to expect this kind of genetic testing to be sufficiently useful to be adopted clinically.

Roger Chriss is a technical consultant in Washington state, where he specializes in mathematics and research.

Outbreak
Outbreak Daily Digest
Biotech Facts & Fallacies
Talking Biotech
Genetics Unzipped
Nigeriacotton

Video: We can ‘finally’ grow GMOs—Nigerian farmer explains why developing countries need biotech crops

Nigerian farmer Patience Koku discusses the GMO crop trials she is conducting on her farm, and why growers can "rise ...
mag insects image superjumbo v

Disaster interrupted: Which farming system better preserves insect populations: Organic or conventional?

A three-year run of fragmentary Armageddon-like studies had primed the journalism pumps and settled the media framing about the future ...
dead bee desolate city

Are we facing an ‘Insect Apocalypse’ caused by ‘intensive, industrial’ farming and agricultural chemicals? The media say yes; Science says ‘no’

The media call it the “Insect Apocalypse”. In the past three years, the phrase has become an accepted truth of ...
breastfeeding bed x facebook x

Infographic: We know breastfeeding helps children. Now we know it helps mothers too

When a woman becomes pregnant, her risk of type 2 diabetes increases for the rest of her life, perhaps because ...
organic hillside sweet corn x

Organic v conventional using GMOs: Which is the more sustainable farming?

Many consumers spend more for organic food to avoid genetically modified products in part because they believe that “industrial agriculture” ...
benjamin franklin x

Are most GMO safety studies funded by industry?

The assertion that biotech companies do the research and the government just signs off on it is false ...
gmo corn field x

Do GMO Bt (insect-resistant) crops pose a threat to human health or the environment?

Bt is a bacterium found organically in the soil. It is extremely effective in repelling or killing target insects but ...
favicon

Environmental Working Group: EWG challenges safety of GMOs, food pesticide residues

Known by some as the "Environmental Worrying Group," EWG lobbies for tighter GMO legislation and famously puts out annual "dirty dozen" list of fruits and ...
m hansen

Michael Hansen: Architect of Consumers Union ongoing anti-GMO campaign

Michael K. Hansen (born 1956) is thought by critics to be the prime mover behind the ongoing campaign against agricultural biotechnology at Consumer Reports. He is an ...
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.
Send this to a friend