Public awareness of genetic nondiscrimination laws in four states and perceived importance of life insurance protections

Progress in Translating Glaucoma Genetics Into the Clinic: A Review

Precision medicine is paving the way for personalised risk assessment, and its translation into glaucoma clinics holds potential to change current management paradigms. Our understanding of glaucoma's genetic architecture has expanded in recent years, recognising both monogenic and polygenic contributions. Genetic testing within glaucoma populations can provide additional information for clinicians to support decision-making. Here, we review the evidence base for genetic variants strongly associated with glaucoma and outline a vision for translating these learnings into the clinic. Integrating clinical and genetic information will provide clinicians and patients with the strongest evidence to deliver personalised glaucoma management.

Revolutionising Cardio-Oncology Care with Precision Genomics

Cardiovascular disease is the worldwide leading cause of mortality among survivors of cancer due in part to the cardiotoxicity of anticancer therapies. This paper explores the progress in precision cardio-oncology, particularly in genetic testing and therapeutics, and its impact on cardiovascular diseases in clinical and laboratory settings. These advancements enable clinicians to better assess risk, diagnose conditions, and deliver personalised, cost-effective therapeutics. Through case studies of cancer-therapy-related cardiac dysfunction, clonal haematopoiesis of indeterminate potential, and polygenic risk scoring, we demonstrate the benefits of incorporating precision genomics in individualised care in cardio-oncology. Furthermore, leveraging real-world genomic data in clinical settings can advance our understanding of long noncoding RNAs and microRNAs, which play important regulatory roles in cardio-oncology. Additionally, employing human-induced pluripotent stem cells to stratify risk and guide prevention strategies represents a promising avenue for modelling precision cardio-oncology. While these advancements showcase the significant progress in genetic approaches, they also raise substantial ethical, legal, and societal concerns. Regulatory oversight of genetic and genomic technologies should therefore evolve suitably to keep up with rapid advancements in technology and analysis. Provider education is crucial for the appropriate use of new genetic and genomic applications, including on the existing protection available for patients regarding genetic information. This can provide confidence for diverse study groups to advance genetic studies looking to develop a comprehensive understanding and effective clinical applications for heterogeneous populations. In clinical settings, the implementation of genetic and genomic applications within electronic medical records can offer point-of-care clinical decision support, thus providing timely information to guide clinical management decisions.

"Should I Let Them Know I Have This?": Multifaceted Genetic Discrimination and Limited Awareness of Legal Protections among Individuals with Hereditary Cancer Syndromes

INTRODUCTION

Hereditary cancer syndromes (HCS), such as hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) and Lynch syndrome (LS), represent approximately 10% of all cancers. Along with medical burdens associated with the genetic risk of developing cancer, many individuals face stigma and discrimination. Genetic discrimination refers to negative treatment, unfair profiling, or harm based on genetic characteristics, manifesting as "felt" stigma (ostracization without discriminatory acts) or "enacted" stigma (experiencing discriminatory acts). This study aimed to describe concerns and experiences of genetic discrimination faced by individuals with HCS.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with individuals with molecularly confirmed HCS residing in Ontario, British Columbia, and Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Purposive sampling was applied to obtain a diverse sample across demographic characteristics. Study procedures were informed by interpretive description; data were thematically analyzed using constant comparison.

RESULTS

Seventy-three participants were interviewed (39 HBOC, 34 LS; 51 females, 21 males, 1 gender-diverse; aged 25-80). Participants described multifaceted forms of genetic discrimination across healthcare, insurance, employment, and family/social settings. Participants valued the Genetic Nondiscrimination Act's protective intent but demonstrated limited knowledge of its existence and provisions. Limited knowledge, coupled with policy constraints in non-legislative settings and third-party use of proxy genetic information, hindered participants' ability to whistleblow or seek recourse.

CONCLUSION

Our results illuminate a disconnection between the intended protective effects of genetic nondiscrimination legislation and ongoing genetic discrimination faced by individuals with hereditary conditions. To better support these individuals, this study encourages public outreach and knowledge translation efforts to increase awareness of nondiscrimination legal protections.

Polygenic Risk Scores Driving Clinical Change in Glaucoma

Glaucoma is a clinically heterogeneous disease and the world's leading cause of irreversible blindness. Therapeutic intervention can prevent blindness but relies on early diagnosis, and current clinical risk factors are limited in their ability to predict who will develop sight-threatening glaucoma. The high heritability of glaucoma makes it an ideal substrate for genetic risk prediction, with the bulk of risk being polygenic in nature. Here, we summarize the foundations of glaucoma genetic risk, the development of polygenic risk prediction instruments, and emerging opportunities for genetic risk stratification. Although challenges remain, genetic risk stratification will significantly improve glaucoma screening and management.

"Uninsurable because of a genetic test": a qualitative study of consumer views about the use of genetic test results in Australian life insurance

Genetic testing can provide valuable information to mitigate personal disease risk, but the use of genetic results in life insurance underwriting is known to deter many consumers from pursuing genetic testing. In 2019, following Australian Federal Parliamentary Inquiry recommendations, the Financial Services Council (FSC) introduced an industry-led partial moratorium, prohibiting life insurance companies from using genetic test results for policies up to $AUD500,000. We used semi-structured interviews to explore genetic test consumers' experiences and views about the FSC moratorium and the use of genetic results by life insurers. Individuals who participated in an online survey and agreed to be re-contacted to discuss the issue further were invited. Interviews were 20-30-min long, conducted via video conference, transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive content analysis. Twenty-seven participants were interviewed. Despite the moratorium, concerns about genetic discrimination in life insurance were prevalent. Participants reported instances where life insurers did not consider risk mitigation when assessing risk for policies based on genetic results, contrary to legal requirements. Most participants felt that the moratorium provided inadequate protection against discrimination, and that government legislation regulating life insurers' use of genetic results is necessary. Many participants perceived the financial limits to be inadequate, given the cost-of-living in Australia. Our findings indicate that from the perspective of participants, the moratorium has not been effective in allaying fears about genetic discrimination or ensuring adequate access to life insurance products. Concern about genetic discrimination in life insurance remains prevalent in Australia.

Challenges to genetic testing for germline mutations associated with breast cancer among African Americans

Inequities in preventive cancer screening, diagnosis, treatment, and inferior cancer outcomes continue to pose challenges across the cancer continuum. While the exact reasons for these inferior outcomes are unknown, multiple barriers to various domains of social determinants of health (SDOH) play a vital role, leading to inequities in cancer care. These include barriers to transportation, housing, and food insecurities, contributing to delays in preventive screening and treatment. Furthermore, aggressive biologies also exist across various racial profiles with accompanying germline mutations. For example, African Americans (AAs) have a higher incidence of triple-negative breast cancer subtype and a high prevalence of BRCA1/2 gene mutations, increasing the risk of multiple cancers, warranting high-risk screening for these populations. Unfortunately, other barriers, such as financial insecurities, low health literacy rates, and lack of awareness, lead to delays in cancer screening and genetic testing, even with available high-risk screening and risk reduction procedures. In addition, physicians receive minimal interdisciplinary training to address genetic assessment, interpretation of the results, and almost no additional training in addressing the unique needs of racial minorities, leading to suboptimal delivery of genetic assessment provision resources among AAs. In this review, we discuss the confluence of factors and barriers limiting genetic testing among AAs and highlight the prevalence of germline mutations associated with increased risk of breast cancer among AAs, reflecting the need for multi-panel germline testing as well as education regarding hereditary cancer risks in underserved minorities.

Community concerns about genetic discrimination in life insurance persist in Australia: A survey of consumers offered genetic testing

Fears of genetic discrimination in life insurance continue to deter some Australians from genetic testing. In July 2019, the life insurance industry introduced a partial, self-regulated moratorium restricting the use of genetic results in underwriting, applicable to policies up to certain limits (eg AUD$500,000 for death cover).We administered an online survey to consumers who had taken, or been offered, clinical genetic testing for adult-onset conditions, to gather views and experiences about the moratorium and the use of genetic results in life insurance, including its regulation.Most respondents (n = 367) had undertaken a genetic test (89%), and had a positive test result (76%; n = 243/321). Almost 30% (n = 94/326) reported testing after 1 July 2019. Relatively few respondents reported knowing about the moratorium (16%; n = 54/340) or that use of genetic results in life insurance underwriting is legal (17%; n = 60/348). Only 4% (n = 14/350) consider this practice should be allowed. Some respondents reported ongoing difficulties accessing life insurance products, even after the moratorium. Further, discrimination concerns continue to affect some consumers' decision-making about having clinical testing and applying for life insurance products, despite the Moratorium being in place. Most respondents (88%; n = 298/340) support the introduction of legislation by the Australian government to regulate this issue.Despite the introduction of a partial moratorium in Australia, fears of genetic discrimination persist, and continue to deter people from genetic testing. Consumers overwhelmingly consider life insurers should not be allowed to use genetic results in underwriting, and that federal legislation is required to regulate this area.

Attitude Disparity and Worrying Scenarios in Genetic Discrimination-Based on Questionnaires from China

Objectives: As genetic testing is increasingly used in non-medical fields, the judgment of people's potential conditions based on predictive genetic information inevitably causes genetic discrimination (henceforth GD). This article aimed to systematically investigate the disparity in attitudes and worrying scenarios concerning GD in China. Methods: A questionnaire survey of 555 respondents was conducted. Statistical tests were used to examine disparity in attitudes between gender, age, and education. A descriptive analysis was also conducted to explore other worrying scenarios. Results: It shows that (1) men are more tolerant of GD compared to women, and (2) participants aged between 18 and 30 years old possess the highest objection to GD. However, (3) no indication can attest to the relationship between educational level and perspective on GD. In addition, (4) the acceptance of gene testing in the three most common scenarios is ranked in descending order as follows: partner choice, insurance services, and recruitment. Moreover, (5) worrying scenarios relating to GD include: education, social occasions, medical services, fertility, shopping, and so on. Conclusions: Based on the results, suggestions proposed include developing a blacklist mechanism in the field of genetic data application and strengthening the security regulations for the commercial use of genetic data.

Expectations, concerns, and attitudes regarding whole-genome sequencing studies: a survey of cancer patients, families, and the public in Japan

Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is being used in research and clinical settings in cancer genomics. Studies show that cancer patients generally have positive attitudes toward tumor profiling tests; however, few works revealed their attitudes toward WGS. This study clarifies the expectations, concerns, and result preferences of cancer patients (CPs), family members (FMs) and general adults (GAs) regarding WGS study in Japan. We conducted an anonymous survey with 1204 CPs, 5968 FMs, and 2915 GAs in 2021. Despite low awareness of the WGS studies, CPs had the highest expectations for it. FMs had a higher level of concern than CPs and GAs; feeling anxious by knowing the results, being treated unfavorably if germline findings were detected. Both the FMs and CPs were highly concerned about the protection of genetic information. CPs preferred results with actionability, however, only half preferred to know germline findings. Given the possibility of detecting variants across multidisciplinary diseases and the long-term continuity of WGS research, a system is needed in which study participants can consult and receive decision-making support at any time according to their needs.

Genetic testing and insurance implications: Surveying the US general population about discrimination concerns and knowledge of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)

Globally, due to public concerns of genetic discrimination, some countries and insurance industries have adopted policies restricting insurer use of genetic information, such as the US Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). This study reports on combined analysis of two surveys assessing public knowledge of GINA and concerns of genetic discrimination in a diverse U.S. sample (N=1616). We focus on whether occupation, genetic testing history, and insurance status are correlated with knowledge of GINA or concerns of discrimination. While bivariate analysis identified some populations with higher subjective/objective knowledge and concern relative to counterparts, multivariable regression identified very few significant associations with outcomes of interest. Overall, this study highlights lack of awareness and understanding of GINA, even among subpopulations hypothesized to have greater knowledge of the law. These findings have implications for the broader debate around insurer use of genetic information.

Risk-Stratified Approach to Breast Cancer Screening in Canada: Women's Knowledge of the Legislative Context and Concerns about Discrimination from Genetic and Other Predictive Health Data

The success of risk-stratified approaches in improving population-based breast cancer screening programs depends in no small part on women’s buy-in. Fear of genetic discrimination (GD) could be a potential barrier to genetic testing uptake as part of risk assessment. Thus, the objective of this study was twofold. First, to evaluate Canadian women’s knowledge of the legislative context governing GD. Second, to assess their concerns about the possible use of breast cancer risk levels by insurance companies or employers. We use a cross-sectional survey of 4293 (age: 30–69) women, conducted in four Canadian provinces (Alberta, British Colombia, Ontario and Québec). Canadian women’s knowledge of the regulatory framework for GD is relatively limited, with some gaps and misconceptions noted. About a third (34.7%) of the participants had a lot of concerns about the use of their health information by employers or insurers; another third had some concerns (31.9%), while 20% had no concerns. There is a need to further educate and inform the Canadian public about GD and the legal protections that exist to prevent it. Enhanced knowledge could facilitate the implementation and uptake of risk prediction informed by genetic factors, such as the risk-stratified approach to breast cancer screening that includes risk levels.

Genetic Discrimination: The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act's Impact on Practice and Research

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) provides federal safeguards to prohibit employer or insurance discrimination based on personal or familial genetic information or conditions. Awareness of the implications of genetic testing in individuals and families and of state and federal legislation in place for their protection is an essential component of oncology nursing practice. This article discusses the critical role of the oncology nurse in interacting with and providing information about GINA to patients in a cancer care setting engaged in genetic assessment.

Study protocol: the Australian genetics and life insurance moratorium-monitoring the effectiveness and response (A-GLIMMER) project

Background

The use of genetic test results in risk-rated insurance is a significant concern internationally, with many countries banning or restricting the use of genetic test results in underwriting. In Australia, life insurers’ use of genetic test results is legal and self-regulated by the insurance industry (Financial Services Council (FSC)). In 2018, an Australian Parliamentary Inquiry recommended that insurers’ use of genetic test results in underwriting should be prohibited. In 2019, the FSC introduced an industry self-regulated moratorium on the use of genetic test results. In the absence of government oversight, it is critical that the impact, effectiveness and appropriateness of the moratorium is monitored. Here we describe the protocol of our government-funded research project, which will serve that critical function between 2020 and 2023.

Methods

A realist evaluation framework was developed for the project, using a context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) approach, to systematically assess the impact of the moratorium for a range of stakeholders. Outcomes which need to be achieved for the moratorium to accomplish its intended aims were identified, and specific data collection measures methods were developed to gather the evidence from relevant stakeholder groups (consumers, health professionals, financial industry and genetic research community) to determine if aims are achieved. Results from each arm of the study will be analysed and published in peer-reviewed journals as they become available.

Discussion

The A-GLIMMER project will provide essential monitoring of the impact and effectiveness of the self-regulated insurance moratorium. On completion of the study (3 years) a Stakeholder Report will be compiled. The Stakeholder Report will synthesise the evidence gathered in each arm of the study and use the CMO framework to evaluate the extent to which each of the outcomes have been achieved, and make evidence-based recommendations to the Australian federal government, life insurance industry and other stakeholders.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-021-00634-2.

Massively Parallel Sequencing for Rare Genetic Disorders: Potential and Pitfalls

There have been two major eras in the history of gene discovery. The first was the era of linkage analysis, with approximately 1,300 disease-related genes identified by positional cloning by the turn of the millennium. The second era has been powered by two major breakthroughs: the publication of the human genome and the development of massively parallel sequencing (MPS). MPS has greatly accelerated disease gene identification, such that disease genes that would have taken years to map previously can now be determined in a matter of weeks. Additionally, the number of affected families needed to map a causative gene and the size of such families have fallen: de novo mutations, previously intractable by linkage analysis, can be identified through sequencing of the parent-child trio, and genes for recessive disease can be identified through MPS even of a single affected individual. MPS technologies include whole exome sequencing (WES), whole genome sequencing (WGS), and panel sequencing, each with their strengths. While WES has been responsible for most gene discoveries through MPS, WGS is superior in detecting copy number variants, chromosomal rearrangements, and repeat-rich regions. Panels are commonly used for diagnostic purposes as they are extremely cost-effective and generate manageable quantities of data, with no risk of unexpected findings. However, in instances of diagnostic uncertainty, it can be challenging to choose the right panel, and in these circumstances WES has a higher diagnostic yield. MPS has ethical, social, and legal implications, many of which are common to genetic testing generally but amplified due to the magnitude of data (e.g., relationship misattribution, identification of variants of uncertain significance, and genetic discrimination); others are unique to WES and WGS technologies (e.g., incidental or secondary findings). Nonetheless, MPS is rapidly translating into clinical practice as an extremely useful part of the clinical armamentarium.

Return of Research-Related Genetic Test Results and Genetic Discrimination Concerns: Facilitators and Barriers of Genetic Research Participation in Diverse Groups

BACKGROUND

Most genetics studies lack the diversity necessary to ensure that all groups benefit from genetic research.

OBJECTIVES

To explore facilitators and barriers to genetic research participation.

METHODS

We conducted a survey on genetics in research and healthcare from November 15, 2017 to February 28, 2018 among adult Kaiser Permanente (KP) members who had been invited to participate in the KP biobank (KP Research Bank). We used logistic regression to calculate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing the willingness to participate in genetic research under different return of results scenarios and genetic discrimination concerns between groups, according to their demographic characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 57,331 KP members were invited to participate, and 10,369 completed the survey (18% response rate). Respondents were 65% female, 44% non-Hispanic White (NH White), 22% Asian/Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (Asian/PI), 19% non-Hispanic Black (NH Black), and 16% Hispanic. Respondents willing to participate in genetic research ranged from 22% with no results returned to 87% if health-related genetic results were returned. We also found variation by race/ethnicity; when no results were to be returned, Asian/PIs, Hispanics, and NH Blacks were less likely to want to participate than NH Whites (p < 0.05). However, when results were returned, disparities in the willingness to participate disappeared for NH Blacks and Hispanics. Genetic discrimination concerns were more prevalent in Asian/PIs, Hispanics, and NH Blacks than in NH Whites (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Policies that prohibit the return of results and do not address genetic discrimination concerns may contribute to a greater underrepresentation of diverse groups in genetic research.

APOL1 Genetic Testing in Living Kidney Transplant Donors

The presence of 2 apolipoprotein L1 gene (APOL1) risk variants is associated with increased risk for chronic kidney disease and end-stage kidney disease. Inferior allograft outcomes following transplantation with kidneys from donors with 2 risk variants have also been reported. These data, coupled with anecdotal case reports and a recent cohort study of living donors, raise important questions about the potential increased kidney disease risk for living donors with APOL1 risk variants and the need for testing as part of the standard living donor evaluation process. We identify a series of questions that are central to the development of clinical policy regarding APOL1 testing of potential living kidney donors given the current uncertainty over the clinical implications of having 2 risk variants. We explore the ethical challenges that arise when determining when and to whom APOL1 testing should be offered, what potential donors should be told about APOL1 testing, how test results should be used to determine suitability for donation, if and when recipients should have access to results, and how clinical policy regarding APOL1 testing should be established.

Genetic Testing Across Young Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Breast Cancer Survivors: Facilitators, Barriers, and Awareness of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

AIMS

This study compared facilitators and barriers to genetic testing and determined awareness about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) across young Hispanic and non-Hispanic white (NHW) breast cancer (BC) survivors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Women diagnosed with BC of age ≤50 years in 2009-2012 were recruited through the Florida State Cancer Registry to complete a questionnaire.

RESULTS

There were 1182 participants of which 61% (174/285) of Hispanic patients, and 65% (580/897) of NHW patients had BC testing. Among untested participants, the most common barriers were lack of testing recommendation (44% Hispanics, 32% NHW; p = 0.02) and cost-related concerns (41% Hispanics, 40% NHW; p = 0.83). Among tested participants, the top facilitators were as follows: (1) "To benefit my family's future" (70% Hispanic, 68% NHW), (2) "My doctor recommended testing" (60% Hispanic, 54% NHW), and (3) "Minimal cost to me" (59% Hispanic, 72% NHW). Only 27% of tested and 15% of untested women were aware of GINA; misuse of test results was reported as a barrier for only 6.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of genetic testing recommendation are lower among Hispanics, but both groups reported additional barriers. Most are unaware of GINA, yet misuse is not a highly cited barrier. Findings suggest the need to educate providers on the importance of recommending testing to all who meet criteria; increase awareness of newer options for more affordable testing; and bolster facilitators that may increase testing uptake.

Prohibiting Genetic Discrimination to Promote Science, Health, and Fairness

Protections against genetic discrimination advance genetics research and the clinical use of genetics, as well as ensure the ethical use of genetic data. Ten years after the passage of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), the American Society of Human Genetics remains a staunch advocate for GINA's strong implementation and for other laws that enhance protections for the public.

A Case Report of Suspected Malignant Hyperthermia: How Will the Diagnosis Affect a Patient's Insurability?

The purpose of this case report is to increase awareness that a diagnosis of malignant hyperthermia may have long-lasting or permanent effects on a patient's insurance eligibility or premiums despite legislation providing varying levels of protection from preexisting conditions or genetic discrimination. We present a case of severe rigors, unexplained severe metabolic acidosis, and severe hyperthermia in a patient after general anesthesia for extensive head and neck surgery. The patient was treated for malignant hyperthermia and demonstrated a significant clinical improvement with the administration of dantrolene. Even with an “almost certain” diagnosis of malignant hyperthermia by clinical presentation, genetic testing was negative and the gold-standard caffeine-halothane contracture test has yet to be performed. Laboratory results, clinical grading scales, and genetic testing support a diagnosis of malignant hyperthermia but the gold standard is a live muscle biopsy and caffeine-halothane contracture test. A clinical diagnosis of MH or a positive caffeine-halothane contracture test could result in exclusion from genetic discrimination legislature due to the fact that diagnosis can be confirmed without genetic testing. The fate of the Affordable Care Act may also affect how insurance companies scrutinize this disease. Improving accuracy of MH diagnosis in hospital discharge records will be crucial.

Genetic and Genomic Consultation: Are We Ready for Direct-to-Consumer Telegenetics?

Telegenetics, the application of telemedicine in the context of genetic services, is a growing market. One of the recent developments in this field is the use of direct-to-consumer (DTC) marketing to promote and advertise genetic and genomic consultant services to consumers. Using Google.com, we identified providers that promote their telegenetics services online. By analyzing their websites, we identify and examine key points regarding DTC telegenetics: how are telegenetics services portrayed, how is informed consent obtained, and what protections are offered to clients' personal health information? We found that the portrayal of a wide range of telegenetics services on providers' websites is extremely positive. The risks associated with the implementation of telegenetics were rarely mentioned. Consent forms were often unavailable and did not cover all of the relevant information. The measures for protecting clients' personal health information by telegenetics providers were found to be generally inadequate and weak. We concluded that DTC telegenetics may increase patients' access to genetic counseling with affordable costs. However, before further developing DTC telegenetics, more research and regulatory improvements are required to guarantee truthful advertising, ensure informed consent, secure personal health data sharing, and warrant adequate privacy protection.

What do people think about genetics? A systematic review

Genetics is increasingly becoming a part of modern medical practice. How people think about genetics' use in medicine and their daily lives is therefore essential. Earlier studies indicated mixed attitudes about genetics. However, this might be changing. Using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) as a guideline, we initially reviewed 442 articles that looked at awareness, attitudes, knowledge, and perception of risks among the general and targeted recruitment populations. After fitting our criteria (from the last 5 years, conducted in the USA, non-provider populations, quantitative results reported, and assessed participants 18 years and older), finally 51 eligible articles were thematically coded and presented in this paper. Awareness is reported as relatively high in the studies reviewed. Attitudes are mixed but with higher proportions reporting positive attitudes towards genetic testing and counseling. Self-reported knowledge is reasonably high, specifically with the effects of specific programs developed to raise knowledge levels of the general and targeted recruited populations. Perception of risk is somewhat aligned with actual risk. With the reasonable positive reports of genetic awareness and knowledge, there is similar positive attitude and perception of risk, supporting the need for continued dissemination of such knowledge. Given interest in incorporating community participation in genomic educational strategies, we provide this review as a baseline from which to launch community-specific educational supports and tools.

Shared decision making: Implications for return of results from whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing

In this issue, Kaphingst and colleagues report on young breast cancer patient's preferences for learning about various results from genomic sequencing. In our commentary, we discuss the results in light of the burgeoning clinical use of whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing (WES/WGS). In particular, we consider findings in the context of a Shared Decision Making approach to return of results. We also identify additional important factors to consider that may influence patient preferences that were largely absent from the paper by Kaphingst and colleagues, including cultural context, costs of testing, and provider factors.

Tensions in ethics and policy created by National Precision Medicine Programs

Precision medicine promises to use genomics and other data-intensive approaches to improve diagnosis and develop new treatments for major diseases, but also raises a range of ethical and governance challenges. Implementation of precision medicine in “real world” healthcare systems blurs the boundary between research and care. This has implications for the meaning and validity of consent, and increased potential for discrimination, among other challenges. Increased sharing of personal information raises concerns about privacy, commercialization, and public trust. This paper considers national precision medicine schemes from the USA, the UK, and Japan, comparing how these challenges manifest in each national context and examining the range of approaches deployed to mitigate the potential undesirable social consequences. There is rarely a “one size” fits all solution to these complex problems, but the most viable approaches are those which take account of cultural preferences and attitudes, available resources, and the wider political landscape in which national healthcare systems are embedded.

Breast Cancer Risk Estimation and Personal Insurance: A Qualitative Study Presenting Perspectives from Canadian Patients and Decision Makers

Genetic stratification approaches in personalized medicine may considerably improve our ability to predict breast cancer risk for women at higher risk of developing breast cancer. Notwithstanding these advantages, concerns have been raised about the use of the genetic information derived in these processes, outside of the research and medical health care settings, by third parties such as insurers. Indeed, insurance applicants are asked to consent to insurers accessing their medical information (implicitly including genetic) to verify or determine their insurability level, or eligibility to certain insurance products. This use of genetic information may result in the differential treatment of individuals based on their genetic information, which could lead to higher premium, exclusionary clauses or even the denial of coverage. This phenomenon has been commonly referred to as "Genetic Discrimination" (GD). In the Canadian context, where federal Bill S-201, An Act to prohibit and prevent genetic discrimination, has recently been enacted but may be subject to constitutional challenges, information about potential risks to insurability may raise issues in the clinical context. We conducted a survey with women in Quebec who have never been diagnosed with breast cancer to document their perspectives. We complemented the research with data from 14 semi-structured interviews with decision-makers in Quebec to discuss institutional issues raised by the use of genetic information by insurers. Our results provide findings on five main issues: (1) the reluctance to undergo genetic screening test due to insurability concerns, (2) insurers' interest in genetic information, (3) the duty to disclose genetic information to insurers, (4) the disclosure of potential impacts on insurability before genetic testing, and (5) the status of genetic information compared to other health data. Overall, both groups of participants (the women surveyed and the decision-makers interviewed) acknowledged having concerns about GD and reported a need for better communication tools discussing insurability risk. Our conclusions regarding concerns about GD and the need for better communication tools in the clinical setting may be transferable to the broader Canadian context.

Review: Genetic research on alcohol use outcomes in African American populations: A review of the literature, associated challenges, and implications

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There have been remarkable advances in understanding genetic influences on complex traits; however, individuals of African descent have been underrepresented in genetic research.

METHODS

We review the limitations of existing genetic research on alcohol phenotypes in African Americans (AA) including both twin and gene identification studies, possible reasons for underrepresentation of AAs in genetic research, the implications of the lack of racially diverse samples, and special considerations regarding conducting genetic research in AA populations.

RESULTS

There is a marked absence of large-scale AA twin studies so little is known about the genetic epidemiology of alcohol use and problems among AAs. Individuals of African descent have also been underrepresented in gene identification efforts; however, there have been recent efforts to enhance representation. It remains unknown the extent to which genetic variants associated with alcohol use outcomes in individuals of European and African descent will be shared. Efforts to increase representation must be accompanied by careful attention to the ethical, legal, and social implications of genetic research. This is particularly true for AAs due to the history of abuse by the biomedical community and the persistent racial discrimination targeting this population.

CONCLUSIONS AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

Lack of representation in genetic studies limits our understanding of the etiological factors that contribute to substance use and psychiatric outcomes in populations of African descent and has the potential to further perpetuate health disparities. Involving individuals of diverse ancestry in discussions about genetic research will be critical to ensure that all populations benefit equally from genetic advances. (Am J Addict 2017;26:486-493).

Genes, cells, and biobanks: Yes, there's still a consent problem

From a research perspective, the interest in biobanking continues to intensify. Governments and industry have invested heavily in biobanks, as exemplified by initiatives like the United Kingdom Biobank and United States' Precision Medicine Initiative. But despite this enthusiasm, many profound legal and ethical challenges remain unresolved. Indeed, there continues to be disagreements about how best to obtain consent and the degree and nature of control that research participants retain over donated samples and health information. Emerging social trends-including concerns about commercialization and perceived rights of continuing control ("biorights")-seem likely to intensify these issues.

Beyond the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act: ethical and economic implications of the exclusion of disability, long-term care and life insurance

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) was intended to protect individuals in the USA from discrimination based on their genetic data, but does not apply to life, long-term care or disability insurance. Patient advocates and ethicists have argued that GINA does not go far enough. Others express concerns for the viability of insurance companies if millions of potential customers know more than professional actuaries. Here we discuss the exclusion of certain insurance types from GINA. We explore the ethical and economic implications of this distinction, and potential paths forward. We suggest that because long-term care and disability insurance can be essential for well-being, there is no good reason to place them in a class with life insurance and therefore beyond GINA's reach.

Ethical issues in the evaluation of adults with suspected genetic neuromuscular disorders

Genetic testing is rapidly becoming an increasingly significant part of the diagnostic armamentarium of neuromuscular clinicians. Although technically easy to order, the results of such testing, whether positive or negative, have potentially enormous consequences for the individual tested and for family members. As a result, ethical considerations must be in the forefront of the physician's agenda when obtaining genetic testing. Informed consent is an important starting point for discussions between physicians and patients, but the counseling embedded in the informed consent process must be an ongoing part of subsequent interactions, including return of results and follow-up. Patient autonomy, including the right to know and right not-to-know results, must be respected. Considerations of capacity, physician beneficence and nonmaleficence, and privacy all play roles in the process. Muscle Nerve 54: 997-1006, 2016.

Enhancing Literacy in Cardiovascular Genetics: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Advances in genomics are enhancing our understanding of the genetic basis of cardiovascular diseases, both congenital and acquired, and stroke. These advances include finding genes that cause or increase the risk for childhood and adult-onset diseases, finding genes that influence how patients respond to medications, and the development of genetics-guided therapies for diseases. However, the ability of cardiovascular and stroke clinicians to fully understand and apply this knowledge to the care of their patients has lagged. This statement addresses what the specialist caring for patients with cardiovascular diseases and stroke should know about genetics; how they can gain this knowledge; how they can keep up-to-date with advances in genetics, genomics, and pharmacogenetics; and how they can apply this knowledge to improve the care of patients and families with cardiovascular diseases and stroke.

Past, Present, and Future of Informed Consent in Pain and Genomics Research: Challenges Facing Global Medical Community

In recent decades, there has been a revision of the role of institutional review boards with the intention of protecting human subjects from harm and exploitation in research. Informed consent aims to protect the subject by explaining all of the benefits and risks associated with a specific research project. To date, there has not been a review published analyzing issues of informed consent in research in the field of genetic/Omics in subjects with chronic pain, and the current review aims to fill that gap in the ethical aspects of such investigation. Despite the extensive discussion on ethical challenges unique to the field of genetic/Omics, this is the first attempt at addressing ethical challenges regarding Informed Consent Forms for pain research as the primary focus. We see this contribution as an important one, for while ethical issues are too often ignored in pain research in general, the numerous arising ethical issues that are unique to pain genetic/Omics suggest that researchers in the field need to pay even greater attention to the rights of subjects/patients. This article presents the work of the Ethic Committee of the Pain-Omics Group (www.painomics.eu), a consortium of 11 centers that is running the Pain-Omics project funded by the European Community in the 7th Framework Program theme (HEALTH.2013.2.2.1-5-Understanding and controlling pain). The Ethic Committee is composed of 1 member of each group of the consortium as well as key opinion leaders in the field of ethics and pain more generally.

Evolution of Hereditary Breast Cancer Genetic Services: Are Changes Reflected in the Knowledge and Clinical Practices of Florida Providers?

AIMS

We describe practitioner knowledge and practices related to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) in an evolving landscape of genetic testing.

METHODS

A survey was mailed in late 2013 to Florida providers who order HBOC testing. Descriptive statistics were conducted to characterize participants' responses.

RESULTS

Of 101 respondents, 66% indicated either no genetics education or education through a commercial laboratory. Although 79% of respondents were aware of the Supreme Court ruling resulting in the loss of Myriad Genetics' BRCA gene patent, only 19% had ordered testing from a different laboratory. With regard to pretest counseling, 78% of respondents indicated they usually discuss 11 of 14 nationally recommended elements for informed consent. Pretest discussion times varied from 3 to 120 min, with approximately half spending <20 min. Elements not routinely covered by >40% of respondents included (1) possibility of a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) and (2) issues related to life/disability insurance. With regard to genetic testing for HBOC, 88% would test an unaffected sister of a breast cancer patient identified with a BRCA VUS.

CONCLUSIONS

Results highlight the need to identify whether variability in hereditary cancer service delivery impacts patient outcomes. Findings also reveal opportunities to facilitate ongoing outreach and education.

Introducing Genetic Tests With Uncertain Implications in Living Donor Kidney Transplantation

Genetic mutations in apolipoprotein L1 (ApoL1) are associated with kidney disease. Apolipoprotein L1 mutations are common in African Americans (∼39% and 12% have 1 and 2 high-risk alleles, respectively). Carrying 2 ApoL1 risk alleles may explain much of the excess rate of kidney failure in African Americans compared to European Americans. Apolipoprotein L1 also has implications for kidney transplantation. Kidney grafts from deceased donors with 2 ApoL1 risk alleles have worse graft survival, but outcomes appear unaffected by recipient ApoL1 status. Unknown is whether donation increases the risk of kidney failure in living donors with 2 ApoL1 risk alleles and whether their donated kidneys have worse graft survival. There are 4 options to consider: (1) remain silent about ApoL1 risk alleles and renal failure and wait for more data; (2) counsel about race, ApoL1, and subsequent renal failure abstractly but remain agnostic about donor testing until more data are available; (3) provide counseling and encourage genotyping of prospective living donors of African ancestry as part of the living donor workup; or (4) mandate testing of all prospective living donors. We support option 3, and recommend, with donor permission, to discuss the results with potential recipients to promote informed decision-making. We also argue for a voluntary donor registry that collects long-term follow-up information. We provide ethical arguments to support these recommendations.

Global trends on fears and concerns of genetic discrimination: a systematic literature review

Since the 1990s, developments in the field of genetics have led to many questions on the use and possible misuse of genetic information. 'Genetic discrimination' has been defined as the differential treatment of asymptomatic individuals or their relatives on the basis of their real or assumed genetic characteristics. Despite the public policy attention around genetic discrimination, there is currently still much confusion surrounding this phenomenon. On the one hand, there is little evidence of the occurrence of genetic discrimination. On the other hand, it appears that people remain concerned about this theme, and this fear influences their health and life choices. This article makes use of a systematic literature review to investigate what is already known about the nature, extent and background of these fears and concerns. The 42 included studies have found considerable levels of concerns about genetic discrimination. Concerns dominate in insurance contexts and within personal interactions. The extent of concerns appears to vary depending on the type of genetic illness. Furthermore, installed laws prohibiting genetic discrimination do not seem to alleviate existing fears. This raises important questions as to the origins of these fears. Based on the findings, recommendations for future research are made. First, research on the background of fears is needed. Second, future research needs to assess more fully all different forms (for example, direct and indirect) of genetic discrimination. Thirdly, it has to be studied whether genetic discrimination is a form of discrimination that is distinguishable from discrimination based on an illness or disability. Finally, a last element that should be addressed in future research is the most recent developments in research on genomics, such as next-generation sequencing or genome-wide association studies.

Confidentiality & the Risk of Genetic Discrimination: What Surgeons Need to Know

In the past decade, laws have been passed to provide legal protections against genetic discrimination. Many members of the public and medical providers are unaware of the legislation, and concerns about genetic privacy can prevent delivery of optimal medical care. Patient health information, including genetic testing and family history, is protected under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Additional protections are granted through the Americans with Disabilities Act, state laws, and the Affordable Care Act. Communicating a genetic test result back to a patient is important for medical management decisions and family members.