“The genomics revolution is here,” according to Dr. James Meigs and, with it, the hope that medical diagnostics and treatments will be revolutionized accordingly.  Two recently published studies, however, suggest the current means of detecting type 2 diabetes or the risk that it might develop at some point in a person’s life are just as accurate as genetic testing is.

Meigs, assistant professor of medicine for Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, wrote that, for adults, a typical doctor’s appointment reveals everything needed to be known about a patient’s potential for getting type 2 diabetes.  Genetic testing is likely to be more useful when done during childhood but he questions how much a person would alter his or her lifestyle if genetic screening indicated a high likelihood of disease.

Meigs’ research tested 2,377 participants of the Framingham Offspring Study for 18 gene variants that signal type 2 diabetes.  The diabetes risk for each gene in question ranged from 5% to 37% and Meigs’ research indicated a cumulative risk for disease with each gene carried by an individual.

Risk factors of a non-genetic nature include family history, poor nutritional value of a person’s diet, inadequate exercise, and excess weight, all factors that can be identified during an office visit.  While it is believed that genetics and environment are both contributing factors to diabetes development, the complex nature of the interplay between these two factors makes it difficult to isolate specific risk factors.

The Meigs genetic screening did successfully predict who was more likely to develop diabetes but the accuracy rate for genetic screening was not considered significantly better than a good old-fashioned visit to the doctor.

A second study, conducted at Lund University in Malmo, Sweden, found similar results.  This study enlisted 16,061 study participants from Sweden and 2,770 from Finland for genetic screening of 16 gene variants associated with type 2 diabetes.  Their findings indicate an initial prediction rate only slightly better than a conventional medical evaluation but the genetic testing proved better as study participants were monitored over an extended period of time.

The ‘New England Journal of Medicine’ carries the full details of both studies in its November 20 issue.