Exploration of experiences with and understanding of polygenic risk scores for bipolar disorder

The ethics of polygenic scores in psychiatry: minefield or opportunity for patient-centered psychiatry?

Recent advancements in psychiatric genetics have sparked a lively debate on the opportunities and pitfalls of incorporating polygenic scores into clinical practice. Yet, several ethical concerns have been raised, casting doubt on whether further development and implementation of polygenic scores would be compatible with providing ethically responsible care. While these ethical issues warrant thoughtful consideration, it is equally important to recognize the unresolved need for guidance on heritability among patients and their families. Increasing the availability of genetic counseling services in psychiatry should be regarded as a first step toward meeting these needs. As a next step, future integration of novel genetic tools such as polygenic scores into genetic counseling may be a promising way to improve psychiatric counseling practice. By embedding the exploration of polygenic psychiatry into the supporting environment of genetic counseling, some of the previously identified ethical pitfalls may be prevented, and opportunities to bolster patient empowerment can be seized upon. To ensure an ethically responsible approach to psychiatric genetics, active collaboration with patients and their relatives is essential, accompanied by educational efforts to facilitate informed discussions between psychiatrists and patients.

Addressing the ethical and societal challenges posed by genome-wide association studies of behavioral and brain-related traits

Genome-wide association studies have led to the identification of robust statistical associations of genetic variants with numerous brain-related traits, including neurological and psychiatric conditions, and psychological and behavioral measures. These results may provide insight into the biology underlying these traits and may facilitate clinically useful predictions. However, these results also carry the risk of harm, including possible negative effects of inaccurate predictions, violations of privacy, stigma and genomic discrimination, raising serious ethical and legal implications. Here, we discuss ethical concerns surrounding the results of genome-wide association studies for individuals, society and researchers. Given the success of genome-wide association studies and the increasing availability of nonclinical genomic prediction technologies, better laws and guidelines are urgently needed to regulate the storage, processing and responsible use of genetic data. Also, researchers should be aware of possible misuse of their results, and we provide guidance to help avoid such negative impacts on individuals and society.

A qualitative study exploring the consumer experience of receiving self-initiated polygenic risk scores from a third-party website

The number of people accessing their own polygenic risk scores (PRSs) online is rapidly increasing, yet little is known about why people are doing this, how they react to the information, and what they do with it. We conducted a qualitative interview-based study with people who pursued PRSs through Impute.me, to explore their motivations for seeking PRS information, their emotional reactions, and actions taken in response to their results. Using interpretive description, we developed a theoretical model describing the experience of receiving PRSs in a direct-to-consumer (DTC) context. Dissatisfaction with healthcare was an important motivator for seeking PRS information. Participants described having medical concerns dismissed and experiencing medical distrust, which drove them to self-advocate for their health, which ultimately led them to seek PRSs. Polygenic risk scores were often empowering for participants but could be distressing when PRS information did not align with participants' perceptions of their personal or family histories. Behavioural changes made in response to PRS results included dietary modifications, changes in vitamin supplementation and talk-based therapy. Our data provides the first qualitative insight into how people's lived experience influence their interactions with DTC PRSs.

Polygenic Risk and Episode Polarity Among Individuals With Bipolar Disorder

OBJECTIVE

The authors investigated associations between polygenic liabilities for bipolar disorder, major depression, and schizophrenia and episode polarity among individuals with bipolar disorder.

METHODS

The sample consisted of 2,705 individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorder at Danish psychiatric hospitals between January 1995 and March 2017. DNA was obtained from dried blood spots collected at birth as part of routine screening. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for bipolar disorder, major depression, and schizophrenia were generated using a meta-PRS method combining internally and externally trained components. Associations between PRS and polarity at first episode, polarity at any episode, and number of episodes with a given polarity were evaluated for each disorder-specific PRS using logistic and negative binominal regressions adjusted for the other two PRSs, age, sex, genotype platform, and five ancestral principal components.

RESULTS

PRS for bipolar disorder was positively associated with any manic episodes (odds ratio=1.23, 95% CI=1.09-1.38). PRS for depression was positively associated with any depressive (odds ratio=1.11, 95% CI=1.01-1.23) and mixed (odds ratio=1.15, 95% CI=1.03-1.28) episodes and negatively associated with any manic episodes (odds ratio=0.76, 95% CI=0.69-0.84). PRS for schizophrenia was positively associated with any manic episodes (odds ratio=1.13, 95% CI=1.01-1.27), but only when psychotic symptoms were present (odds ratio for psychotic mania: 1.27, 95% CI=1.05-1.54; odds ratio for nonpsychotic mania: 1.06, 95% CI=0.93-1.20). These patterns were similar for first-episode polarity and for the number of episodes within each pole.

CONCLUSIONS

PRSs for bipolar disorder, major depression, and schizophrenia are associated with episode polarity and psychotic symptoms in a congruent manner among individuals with bipolar disorder.

Clinical genetic counseling and translation considerations for polygenic scores in personalized risk assessments: A Practice Resource from the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Polygenic scores (PGS) are primed for use in personalized risk assessments for common, complex conditions and population health screening. Although there is growing evidence supporting the clinical validity of these scores in certain diseases, presently, there is no consensus on best practices for constructing PGS or demonstrated clinical utility in practice. Despite these evidence gaps, individuals can access their PGS information through commercial entities, research programs, and clinical programs. This prompts the immediate need for educational resources for clinicians encountering PGS information in clinical practice. This practice resource is intended to increase genetic counselors' and other healthcare providers' understanding and comfort with PGS used in personalized risk assessments. Drawing on best practices in clinical genomics, we discuss the unique considerations for polygenic-based (1) testing, (2) clinical genetic counseling, and (3) translation to population health services. This practice resource outlines the emerging uses of PGS, as well as the critical limitations of this technology that need to be addressed before wide-scale implementation.

Models of communication for polygenic scores and associated psychosocial and behavioral effects on recipients: A systematic review

PURPOSE

This study aimed to systematically review current models for communicating polygenic scores (PGS) and psycho-behavioral outcomes of receiving PGSs.

METHODS

Original research on communicating PGSs and reporting on psycho-behavioral outcomes was included. Search terms were applied to 5 databases and were limited by date (2009-2021).

RESULTS

In total, 28 articles, representing 17 studies in several disease settings were identified. There was limited consistency in PGS communication and evaluation/reporting of outcomes. Most studies (n = 14) presented risk in multiple ways (ie, numerically, verbally, and/or visually). Three studies provided personalized lifestyle advice and additional resources. Only 1 of 17 studies reported using behavior change theory to inform their PGS intervention. A total of 8 studies found no evidence of long-term negative psychosocial effects up to 12 months post result. Of 14 studies reporting on behavior, 9 found at least 1 favorable change after PGS receipt. When stratified by risk, 7 out of 9 studies found high PGS was associated with favorable changes including lifestyle, medication, and screening. Low-risk PGS was not associated with maladaptive behaviors (n = 4).

CONCLUSION

PGS has the potential to benefit health behavior. High variability among studies emphasizes the need for developing standardized guidelines for communicating PGSs and evaluating psycho-behavioral outcomes. Our findings call for development of best communication practices and evidence-based interventions informed by behavior change theories.

Perceptions of causal attribution and attitudes to genetic testing among people with schizophrenia and their first-degree relatives

Rapid advances in the genetics of psychiatric disorders mean that diagnostic and predictive genetic testing for schizophrenia risk may one day be a reality. This study examined how causal attributions for schizophrenia contribute to interest in a hypothetical genetic test. People with schizophrenia and first-degree relatives of people with schizophrenia were recruited through a schizophrenia research bank and mental health organisation. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 13 individuals with schizophrenia and 8 first-degree relatives. Transcripts were subjected to a qualitative analysis using the thematic analysis framework. Five themes were developed: (i) "It is like a cocktail", with most participants aware that both genetic and environmental factors contributed to causation, and many mentioning the positive impact of genetic causal explanations; (ii) "Knowledge is power" (i.e., in favour of genetic testing); (iii) Genetic testing provides opportunities for early intervention and avoiding triggers, with participants citing a wide range of perceived benefits of genetic testing but few risks; (iv) Views on reproductive genetic testing for schizophrenia risk with a few participants viewing it as "playing God" but not necessarily being against it; and (v) "It snowballs", whereby participants' understanding of genetics was sophisticated with most believing that multiple rather than single genes contributed to schizophrenia. In conclusion, many individuals had a sound understanding of the role of genetic testing if it were to become available, with evidence of insight into the role of multiple genes and the contribution of other risk factors that may interact with any inherited genetic risk.

Perspectives of diverse Spanish- and English-speaking patients on the clinical use of polygenic risk scores

PURPOSE

As polygenic risk scores (PRS) emerge as promising tools to inform clinical care, there is a pressing need for patient-centered evidence to guide their implementation, particularly in diverse populations. Here, we conducted in-depth interviews of diverse Spanish- and English-speaking patients to explore their perspectives on clinical PRS.

METHODS

We enrolled 30 biobank participants aged 35-50 years through a purposive sampling strategy, ensuring that >75% self-reported as African/African American or Hispanic/Latinx and half were Spanish-speaking. Semistructured interviews in Spanish or English explored attitudes toward PRS, barriers to adoption, and communication preferences. Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

Perceived utility of clinical PRS focused on the potential for personal health benefits, and most participants stated that high-risk results would prompt physician consultations and health behavior changes. There was little concern among participants about the limited predictive power of PRS for non-European populations. Barriers to uptake of PRS testing and adoption of PRS-related recommendations included socioeconomic factors, insurance status, race, ethnicity, language, and inadequate understanding of PRS. Participants favored in-person PRS result disclosure by their physician.

CONCLUSION

Findings provide valuable insight into diverse patients' attitudes and potential barriers related to clinical PRS, guiding future research and patient-centered clinical implementation.

Why do people seek out polygenic risk scores for complex disorders, and how do they understand and react to results?

We sought to explore individuals' motivations for using their direct-to-consumer genetic testing data to generate polygenic risk scores (PRSs) using a not-for-profit third-party tool, and to assess understanding of, and reaction to their results. Using a cross-sectional design, users of Impute.me who had already accessed PRS results were invited to complete an online questionnaire asking about demographics, motivations for seeking PRSs, understanding and interpretation of PRSs, and two validated scales regarding reactions to results-the Impact of Event Scale Revised (IES-R) and the Feelings About genomiC Testing Results (FACToR). Independent samples T-tests and ANOVA were used to explore associations between the variables. 227 individuals participated in the study. The most frequently reported motivation was general curiosity (98.2%). Only 25.6% of participants correctly answered all questions assessing understanding/interpretation of PRSs. Over half of participants (60.8%) experienced a negative reaction (upset, anxious, and/or sad on FACToR scale) after receiving their PRSs and 5.3% scored over the threshold for potential post-traumatic stress disorder on the IES-R. Lower understanding about PRS was associated with experiencing a negative psychological reaction (P values <0.001). Higher quality pre-test information, particularly to improve understanding, and manage expectations for PRS may be useful in limiting negative psychological reactions.

Communicating polygenic risk scores in the familial breast cancer clinic

OBJECTIVE

To describe the communication of polygenic risk scores (PRS) in the familial breast cancer setting.

METHODS

Consultations between genetic healthcare providers (GHP) and female patients who received their PRS for breast cancer risk were recorded (n = 65). GHPs included genetic counselors (n = 8) and medical practitioners (n = 5) (i.e. clinical geneticists and oncologists). A content analysis was conducted and logistic regression was used to assess differences in communication behaviors between genetic counselors (n = 8) and medical practitioners (n = 5).

RESULTS

Of the 65 patients, 31 (47.7 %) had a personal history of breast cancer, 18 of whom received an increased PRS (relative risk >1.2). 25/34 unaffected patients received an increased PRS. Consultations were primarily clinician-driven and focused on biomedical information. There was little difference between the biomedical information provided by genetic counselors and medical practitioners. However, genetic counselors were significantly more likely to utilize strategies to build patient rapport and counseling techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide one of the earliest reports on how breast cancer PRSs are communicated to women.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Key messages for communicating PRSs were identified, namely: discussing differences between polygenic and monogenic testing, the multifactorial nature of breast cancer risk, polygenic inheritance and current limitation of PRSs.

Could Polygenic Risk Scores Be Useful in Psychiatry?: A Review

IMPORTANCE

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are predictors of the genetic susceptibility to diseases, calculated for individuals as weighted counts of thousands of risk variants in which the risk variants and their weights have been identified in genome-wide association studies. Polygenic risk scores show promise in aiding clinical decision-making in many areas of medical practice. This review evaluates the potential use of PRS in psychiatry.

OBSERVATIONS

On their own, PRS will never be able to establish or definitively predict a diagnosis of common complex conditions (eg, mental health disorders), because genetic factors only contribute part of the risk and PRS will only ever capture part of the genetic contribution. Combining PRS with other risk factors has potential to improve outcome prediction and aid clinical decision-making (eg, determining follow-up options for individuals seeking help who are at clinical risk of future illness). Prognostication of adverse physical health outcomes or response to treatment in clinical populations are of great interest for psychiatric practice, but data from larger samples are needed to develop and evaluate PRS.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Polygenic risk scores will contribute to risk assessment in clinical psychiatry as it evolves to combine information from molecular, clinical, and lifestyle metrics. The genome-wide genotype data needed to calculate PRS are inexpensive to generate and could become available to psychiatrists as a by-product of practices in other medical specialties. The utility of PRS in clinical psychiatry, as well as ethical issues associated with their use, should be evaluated in the context of realistic expectations of what PRS can and cannot deliver. Clinical psychiatry has lagged behind other fields of health care in its use of new technologies and routine clinical data for research. Now is the time to catch up.

The emerging field of polygenic risk scores and perspective for use in clinical care

Genetic testing is used widely for diagnostic, carrier and predictive testing in monogenic diseases. Until recently, there were no genetic testing options available for multifactorial complex diseases like heart disease, diabetes and cancer. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been invaluable in identifying single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with increased or decreased risk for hundreds of complex disorders. For a given disease, SNPs can be combined to generate a cumulative estimation of risk known as a polygenic risk score (PRS). After years of research, PRSs are increasingly used in clinical settings. In this article, we will review the literature on how both genome-wide and restricted PRSs are developed and the relative merit of each. The validation and evaluation of PRSs will also be discussed, including the recognition that PRS validity is intrinsically linked to the methodological and analytical approach of the foundation GWAS together with the ethnic characteristics of that cohort. Specifically, population differences may affect imputation accuracy, risk magnitude and direction. Even as PRSs are being introduced into clinical practice, there is a push to combine them with clinical and demographic risk factors to develop a holistic disease risk. The existing evidence regarding the clinical utility of PRSs is considered across four different domains: informing population screening programs, guiding therapeutic interventions, refining risk for families at high risk, and facilitating diagnosis and predicting prognostic outcomes. The evidence for clinical utility in relation to five well-studied disorders is summarized. The potential ethical, legal and social implications are also highlighted.