Disclosure of clinically actionable genetic variants to thoracic aortic dissection biobank participants

Nephrologists' Views on a Workflow for Returning Genetic Results to Research Participants

Introduction

Returning research-based genetic results (gRoR) to participants in nephrology research can improve care; however, the practice raises implementational questions and no established guidelines for this process currently exist. Nephrologists' views on this issue can inform the process but are understudied.

Methods

We developed a conceptual workflow for gRoR from literature and experience, covering aspects such as which results to return, how, and by whom. We surveyed US nephrologists to gauge their views on the workflow and anticipated barriers and collected participants' demographics, including professional backgrounds.

Results

A total of 201 adult and pediatric nephrologists completed the survey. Most of them agreed that all diagnostic kidney-related results (93%), secondary findings (80%), and kidney-related risk variants (83%) should be returned. No significant differences were found between adult and pediatric nephrologists' responses, except that 48% of adult nephrologists versus 26% of pediatric nephrologists supported returning polygenic risk scores (PRS) (P < 0.01). Seventy-nine percent wanted to know about research results before clinical confirmation. Most of them (63%) believed a genetic counselor should return clinically confirmed results. Key barriers included the cost of clinical validation (77%) and the unavailability of genetic counseling services (63%). Facilitators included educational resources on genetic kidney diseases (91%), a referral list of experts (89%), and clear clinical care guidelines (89%). We discuss findings' implications and provide "points to consider."

Conclusion

There is significant interest in gRoR among nephrologists; however, logistical and economic concerns need addressing. Identified facilitators can help large nephrology studies planning to return genetic results to participants.

Facilitating return of actionable genetic research results from a biobank repository: Participant uptake and utilization of digital interventions

Research participants report interest in receiving genetic research results. How best to return results remains unclear. In this randomized pilot study, we sought to assess the feasibility of returning actionable research results through a two-step process including a patient-centered digital intervention as compared with a genetic counselor (GC) in the Penn Medicine biobank. In Step 1, participants with an actionable result and procedural controls (no actionable result) were invited to digital pre-disclosure education and provided options for opting out of results. In Step 2, those with actionable results who had not opted out were randomized to receive results via a digital disclosure intervention or with a GC. Five participants (2%) opted out of results after Step 1. After both steps, 52 of 113 (46.0%) eligible cases received results, 5 (4.4%) actively declined results, 34 (30.1%) passively declined, and 22 (19.5%) could not be reached. Receiving results was associated with younger age (p < 0.001), completing pre-disclosure education (p < 0.001), and being in the GC arm (p = 0.06). Being older, female, and of Black race were associated with being unable to reach. Older age and Black race were associated with passively declining. Forty-seven percent of those who received results did not have personal or family history to suggest the mutation, and 55.1% completed clinical confirmation testing. The use of digital tools may be acceptable to participants and could reduce costs of returning results. Low uptake, disparities in uptake, and barriers to confirmation testing will be important to address to realize the benefit of returning actionable research results.

Genome-wide association meta-analysis identifies risk loci for abdominal aortic aneurysm and highlights PCSK9 as a therapeutic target

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a common disease with substantial heritability. In this study, we performed a genome-wide association meta-analysis from 14 discovery cohorts and uncovered 141 independent associations, including 97 previously unreported loci. A polygenic risk score derived from meta-analysis explained AAA risk beyond clinical risk factors. Genes at AAA risk loci indicate involvement of lipid metabolism, vascular development and remodeling, extracellular matrix dysregulation and inflammation as key mechanisms in AAA pathogenesis. These genes also indicate overlap between the development of AAA and other monogenic aortopathies, particularly via transforming growth factor β signaling. Motivated by the strong evidence for the role of lipid metabolism in AAA, we used Mendelian randomization to establish the central role of nonhigh-density lipoprotein cholesterol in AAA and identified the opportunity for repurposing of proprotein convertase, subtilisin/kexin-type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors. This was supported by a study demonstrating that PCSK9 loss of function prevented the development of AAA in a preclinical mouse model.

Uptake of Genetic Research Results and Patient-Reported Outcomes With Return of Results Incorporating Web-Based Predisclosure Education

PURPOSE

We developed a web-based education intervention as an alternative to predisclosure education with a genetic counselor (GC) to reduce participant burden and provider costs with return of genetic research results.

METHODS

Women at three sites who participated in 11 gene discovery research studies were contacted to consider receiving cancer genetic research results. Participants could complete predisclosure education through web education or with a GC. Outcomes included uptake of research results, factors associated with uptake, and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 819 participants, 178 actively (21.7%) and 167 passively (20.4%) declined return of results; 474 (57.9%) were enrolled. Most (60.3%) received results although this was lower than the 70% uptake we hypothesized. Passive and active decliners were more likely to be Black, to have less education, and to have not received phone follow-up after the invitation letter. Most participants selected web education (88.5%) as an alternative to speaking with a GC, but some did not complete or receive results. Knowledge increased significantly from baseline to other time points with no significant differences between those who received web versus GC education. There were no significant increases in distress between web and GC education.

CONCLUSION

Interest in web-based predisclosure education for return of genetic research results was high although it did not increase uptake of results. We found no negative patient-reported outcomes with web education, suggesting that it is a viable alternative delivery model for reducing burdens and costs of returning genetic research results. Attention to attrition and lower uptake of results among Black participants and those with less formal education are important areas for future research.

A systematic review supporting the Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines on the management of heritable aortopathies

BACKGROUND

To support the development of clinical practice guidelines on the management of patients with genetic aortopathies and arteriopathies, a writing committee from the Society for Vascular Surgery has commissioned this systematic review.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and searched multiple databases for studies addressing six questions identified by the Society for Vascular Surgery guideline committee about evaluating and managing patients with genetic aortopathies and arteriopathies. Studies were selected and appraised by pairs of independent reviewers.

RESULTS

We included 12 studies in this systematic review. We did not identify studies about the long-term outcomes of endovascular repair for aortic aneurysm in patients with heritable aortopathy or about new aortic events in pregnant women with a history of aortic dissection (AD) or aneurysm. A small case series demonstrated a 100% survival rate and 100% aortic intervention-free survival at 15 months (range, 7-28 months) after endograft repair for type B AD. A positive genetic diagnosis was discovered in 36% of patients with aortic aneurysms and dissections who had no risk factors for hereditary aortopathies, and these patients had a mortality rate of 11% at a median follow-up duration of 5 months. Black patients had lower 30-day mortality than White patients (5.6% vs 9.0%, respectively), but they had a higher overall aortic reintervention rate at 30 days after AD repair (47% vs 27%, respectively). Aortic reinterventions owing to aneurysmal expansion and endoleak at 30 days were higher in Black patients than White patients. The certainty of evidence was judged to be very low across all the outcomes evaluated in this systematic review.

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests high survival after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B AD in young patients with heritable aortopathies, but with limited long-term follow-up. Genetic testing in patients with acute aortic aneurysms and dissections had a high yield. It was positive for most patients with risk factors for hereditary aortopathies and in more than one-third for all other patients, and was associated with new aortic events within 15 years.

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.

Investigating Psychological Impact after Receiving Genetic Risk Results-A Survey of Participants in a Population Genomic Screening Program

Genomic screening programs have potential to benefit individuals who may not be clinically ascertained, but little is known about the psychological impact of receiving genetic results in this setting. The current study sought to further the understanding of individuals’ psychological response to receiving an actionable genetic test result from genomic screening. Telephone surveys were conducted with patient-participants at 6 weeks and 6 months post genetic result disclosure between September 2019 and May 2021 and assessed emotional response to receiving results via the FACToR, PANAS, and decision regret scales. Overall, 354 (29.4%) study participants completed both surveys. Participants reported moderate positive emotions and low levels of negative emotions, uncertainty, privacy concern, and decision regret over time. There were significant decreases in negative emotions (p = 0.0004) and uncertainty (p = 0.0126) between time points on the FACToR scale. “Interested” was the highest scoring discrete emotion (T1 3.6, T2 3.3, scale 0−5) but was significantly lower at 6 months (<0.0001). Coupled with other benefits of genomic screening, these results of modest psychological impact waning over time adds support to clinical utility of population genomic screening programs. However, questions remain regarding how to elicit an emotional response that motivates behavior change without causing psychological harm.

Incidental Findings in Study Participants: What Is the Researcher’s Obligation?

Background: As technology advances and genomic testing becomes commonplace, incidental findings, or the discovery of unrelated results, have increased. The American College of Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) established recommendations for the return of pathologic variants in 78 genes in the clinical setting based on medically actionable conditions from genes linked with preventable or treatable diseases. However, the lack of policy in the research setting poses a serious ethical dilemma for researchers, potentially threatening the participant’s trust and willingness to contribute to a process with more significant risk than benefit. Purpose: Our goal was to determine the preferred ethical approach to handling incidental research findings and suggest a new standard for investigators and participants. Methods: By employing Wueste’s IAJD Framework of ethical evaluation, the current research policy, as well as a proposed policy, were analyzed, and then a policy analysis was employed to ascertain feasibility. Results and Discussion: The current policy of leaving the decision of returning incidental findings up to the researcher’s discretion is an ethical failure from the consequential, deontological, and intellectual freedom perspectives. However, the proposed policy of implementing the ACMG guidance for researchers to satisfy ethical demands reinforces its moral fortitude. In a period of increasing public awareness, the community, which is the prospective research pool, has increased demands for autonomy and less paternalistic behavior from medicine and science. This paper synthesizes recommendations by numerous organizations to establish a mutually beneficial policy that will ensure the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) goal, stated in the 2014 Joint Rule, of making participants “partners” in research a reality.

A Novel Human Biospecimen Repository for Clinical and Molecular Investigation of Thoracic Aortopathy

Thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) is a heritable aortopathy with significant morbidity and mortality, affecting children and adults. Genetic causes, pathobiological mechanisms, and prognostic markers are incompletely understood. In 2015, the Collaborative Human Aortopathy Repository (CHAR) was created to address these fundamental gaps. Patients with thoracic aortopathy, associated genetic diagnoses, or aortic valve disease are eligible for prospective enrollment. Family members and controls are also enrolled. Detailed clinical and family data are collected, and blood and aortic tissue biospecimens are processed for broad usage. A total of 1047 participants were enrolled. The mean age in 834 affected participants was 47 ± 22 (range <1 to 88) years and 580 were male (70%). A total of 156 (19%) were under the age of 21 years. Connective tissue diagnoses such as Marfan syndrome were present in 123 (15%). Unaffected participants included relatives (N = 176) and healthy aorta tissue controls (N = 37). Aortic or aortic valve biospecimens were acquired from over 290 and 110 participants, respectively. RNA and protein were extracted from cultured aortic smooth muscle cells (SMCs) for 90 participants. Over 1000 aliquots of aortic SMCs were cryopreserved. The CHAR’s breadth, robust biospecimen processing, and phenotyping create a unique, multipronged resource to accelerate our understanding of human aortopathy.

Returning actionable genomic results in a research biobank: Analytic validity, clinical implementation, and resource utilization

Over 100 million research participants around the world have had research array-based genotyping (GT) or genome sequencing (GS), but only a small fraction of these have been offered return of actionable genomic findings (gRoR). Between 2017 and 2021, we analyzed genomic results from 36,417 participants in the Mass General Brigham Biobank and offered to confirm and return pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants (PLPVs) in 59 genes. Variant verification prior to participant recontact revealed that GT falsely identified PLPVs in 44.9% of samples, and GT failed to identify 72.0% of PLPVs detected in a subset of samples that were also sequenced. GT and GS detected verified PLPVs in 1% and 2.5% of the cohort, respectively. Of 256 participants who were alerted that they carried actionable PLPVs, 37.5% actively or passively declined further disclosure. 76.3% of those carrying PLPVs were unaware that they were carrying the variant, and over half of those met published professional criteria for genetic testing but had never been tested. This gRoR protocol cost approximately $129,000 USD per year in laboratory testing and research staff support, representing $14 per participant whose DNA was analyzed or $3,224 per participant in whom a PLPV was confirmed and disclosed. These data provide logistical details around gRoR that could help other investigators planning to return genomic results.

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.