Attitudes of Dilated Cardiomyopathy Patients and Investigators Toward Genomic Study Enrollment, Consent Process, and Return of Genetic Results

The DCM Project Portal: A direct-to-participant platform of The DCM Research Project

Study objective

To develop a digital platform to conduct family-based, dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) genetic research.

Design

The DCM Project Portal, a direct-to-participant electronic recruitment, consent, and communication tool, was designed using prior experience with traditional enrollment methods and characteristics and feedback of current participants.

Participants

DCM patients (probands) and their family members enrolled from June 7, 2016 to March 15, 2020 at 25 US advanced heart failure programs.

Results

The portal was designed as a self-guided, three module (registration, eligibility, and consent) process with supporting informational and messaging resources integrated throughout. The experience is tailored to user type and the format adaptable with programmatic growth. Characteristics of participants of the recently completed DCM Precision Medicine Study were assessed as an exemplary user population. A majority of the diverse (34 % non-Hispanic Black (NHE-B), 9.1 % Hispanic; 53.6 % female) proband (n = 1223) and family member (n = 1781) participants aged ≥18 years reported not at all or rarely having problems learning about their health from written information (81 %) and a high confidence in completing medical forms (77.2 % very much or often confident), supporting a self-guided model. A majority of participants across age and race-ethnicity groups reported internet access, with highest rates of no reported access in those ≥77 years (31.9 %), NHE-B (25.2 %), and Hispanic (22.9 %), a similar pattern to those reported by the US Census Bureau as of 2021.

Conclusions

The portal is an example of a digital approach to family-based genetic research that offers opportunity to improve access and efficiency of research operations.

The DCM Project Portal: A direct-to-participant platform of The DCM Research Project

Study Objective

To develop a digital platform to conduct family-based, dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) genetic research.

Design

Innovative approaches are needed to achieve large family enrollment targets. The DCM Project Portal, a direct-to-participant electronic recruitment, consent, and communication tool, was designed using prior experience with traditional enrollment methods, characteristics and feedback of current participants, and internet access of the US population.

Participants

DCM patients (probands) and their family members.

Results

The portal was designed as a self-guided, three module (registration, eligibility, and consent) process with internally created supporting informational and messaging resources integrated throughout. The experience can be tailored to user type and the format adapted with programmatic growth. Characteristics of participants of the recently completed DCM Precision Medicine Study were assessed as an exemplary user population. A majority of the diverse (34% non-Hispanic Black (NHE-B), 9.1% Hispanic; 53.6% female) proband (n=1223) and family members (n=1781) participants aged ≥18 years reported not at all or rarely having problems learning about their health from written information (81%) and a high confidence in completing medical forms (77.2% very much or often confident). A majority of participants across age and race-ethnicity groups reported internet access, with highest rates of no reported access in those ≥77 years, NHE-B, and Hispanic, which reflects patterns similar to rates reported by the US Census Bureau as of 2021.

Conclusions

Digital enrollment tools offer opportunity to improve access and efficiency. The portal is an example of a digital approach to family-based genetic research.

Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives

Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders’ perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.

Evidence-Based Assessment of Genes in Dilated Cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND

Each of the cardiomyopathies, classically categorized as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), and arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy, has a signature genetic theme. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy are largely understood as genetic diseases of sarcomere or desmosome proteins, respectively. In contrast, >250 genes spanning >10 gene ontologies have been implicated in DCM, representing a complex and diverse genetic architecture. To clarify this, a systematic curation of evidence to establish the relationship of genes with DCM was conducted.

METHODS

An international panel with clinical and scientific expertise in DCM genetics evaluated evidence supporting monogenic relationships of genes with idiopathic DCM. The panel used the Clinical Genome Resource semiquantitative gene-disease clinical validity classification framework with modifications for DCM genetics to classify genes into categories on the basis of the strength of currently available evidence. Representation of DCM genes on clinically available genetic testing panels was evaluated.

RESULTS

Fifty-one genes with human genetic evidence were curated. Twelve genes (23%) from 8 gene ontologies were classified as having definitive (BAG3, DES, FLNC, LMNA, MYH7, PLN, RBM20, SCN5A, TNNC1, TNNT2, TTN) or strong (DSP) evidence. Seven genes (14%; ACTC1, ACTN2, JPH2, NEXN, TNNI3, TPM1, VCL) including 2 additional ontologies were classified as moderate evidence; these genes are likely to emerge as strong or definitive with additional evidence. Of these 19 genes, 6 were similarly classified for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and 3 for arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy. Of the remaining 32 genes (63%), 25 (49%) had limited evidence, 4 (8%) were disputed, 2 (4%) had no disease relationship, and 1 (2%) was supported by animal model data only. Of the 16 evaluated clinical genetic testing panels, most definitive genes were included, but panels also included numerous genes with minimal human evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

In the curation of 51 genes, 19 had high evidence (12 definitive/strong, 7 moderate). It is notable that these 19 genes explain only a minority of cases, leaving the remainder of DCM genetic architecture incompletely addressed. Clinical genetic testing panels include most high-evidence genes; however, genes lacking robust evidence are also commonly included. We recommend that high-evidence DCM genes be used for clinical practice and that caution be exercised in the interpretation of variants in variable-evidence DCM genes.