No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Lessons learned during the process of reporting individual genomic results to participants of a population-based biobank
Abstract
The return of individual genomic results (ROR) to research participants is still in its early phase, and insight on how individuals respond to ROR is scarce. Studies contributing to the evidence base for best practices are crucial before these can be established. Here, we describe a ROR procedure conducted at a population-based biobank, followed by surveying the responses of almost 3000 participants to a range of results, and discuss lessons learned from the process, with the aim of facilitating large-scale expansion. Overall, participants perceived the information that they received with counseling as valuable, even when the reporting of high risks initially caused worry. The face-to-face delivery of results limited the number of participants who received results. Although the participants highly valued this type of communication, additional means of communication need to be considered to improve the feasibility of large-scale ROR. The feedback collected sheds light on the value judgements of the participants and on potential responses to the receipt of genetic risk information. Biobanks in other countries are planning or conducting similar projects, and the sharing of lessons learned may provide valuable insight and aid such endeavors.
... Challenges related to designing the invitation letter and study-related materials particularly in terms of transparency and managing expectations, were identified (Leitsalu et al. 2021(Leitsalu et al. , 2022. In RbG studies design, legal obligations, such as disclosing the study's nature and purpose, can be perceived differently depending on how the information is presented. ...
... Step 1 reported satisfaction with the information provided before (see Table 1 for the type of information provided in the letter) and during the RbG2 study. In a sort of feedback loop, participation and engagement may result in increased health and scientific literacy (as suggested in previous studies (Beskow et al. , 2012aBudin-Ljosne et al. 2013;Leitsalu et al. 2022), which may benefit the understanding of future studies, as implied by the study personnel in the FGD (Step 3). ...
... To tailor information material to different preferences, it is crucial to consider participants' attitudes towards the disclosure of their carrier status. On the one hand, transparency is crucial for ensuring full understanding, making informed decisions about participation, and the realistic expectations about RoRR and the study outcome (Leitsalu et al. 2022). On the other hand, transparency regarding the study's purpose and participation eligibility should not be at the expense of the individual's (or relative's) right not to know genetic information (Beskow et al. 2011(Beskow et al. , 2012aBeskow 2017). ...
Recall-by-genotype (RbG) is a bottom-up approach using existing genetic data to design follow-up stratified studies. Genetic information may be partially disclosed at invitation, thus raising ethical issues which call for defined best practices for disclosure and communication in RbG approaches. Within the context of the ProtectMove sub-project of the Cooperative Health Research in South Tyrol (CHRIS) study, we investigated research participant perspectives on RbG communication strategies (Step 1 and 4, questionnaire with a subsample of CHRIS participants with and without previous experience of RbG, respectively). Additionally, we explored researchers’ and study personnel’s experience with RbG (Step 2 and 3, focus group discussion). In step 1 (N = 95), participants were generally satisfied with the study process. Most (71.6%) wanted to know their carrier status for personal and collective benefit. Tailored disclosure strategies and transparent, effective, and well-thought-out communication approaches were advocated by study personnel (Step 2, N = 6) and researchers (Step 3, N = 7). Challenges in dealing with uncertainty, concerns caused by RbG invitations, and the possibility of misunderstanding were also raised. In step 4 (N = 369), participants valued being informed of study details at the first invitation stage, and generally felt comfortable towards RbG study invitations (58.5%) and to receiving genetic information after the study (58.5–81.6%). Comfort and perceived impact of disclosure of genetic information varied according to the type of variant being potentially disclosed. This study suggested designing communication strategies, based on clear and understandable explanations, sensitive to participant expectations and preferences, developing case-by-case solutions for disclosure.
... In all projects where genetic risks are communicated to the EstBB participants, feedback is collected to understand how participants perceive genetic information in general, as well as the impact of potentially unexpected information regarding increased genetic risk. Notably, participants tend to report positive feelings after receiving results, even when receiving high-risk information 11,92 and, as such, provide crucial input for the broader implementation of the communication of individual research results to biobank participants. ...
... The groundwork for the large-scale implementation of communicating individual genetic results to unselected EstBB participants was laid by a pilot study conducted in 2017-2018 which relied on the faceto-face delivery of results 92 . It covered a wide range of results, including genetic risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease, and recommendations of how this risk can be modified by improving lifestyle. ...
Large biobanks have set a new standard for research and innovation in human genomics and implementation of personalized medicine. The Estonian Biobank was founded a quarter of a century ago, and its biological specimens, clinical, health, omics, and lifestyle data have been included in over 800 publications to date. What makes the biobank unique internationally is its translational focus, with active efforts to conduct clinical studies based on genetic findings, and to explore the effects of return of results on participants. In this review, we provide an overview of the Estonian Biobank, highlight its strengths for studying the effects of genetic variation and quantitative phenotypes on health-related traits, development of methods and frameworks for bringing genomics into the clinic, and its role as a driving force for implementing personalized medicine on a national level and beyond.
... Thus, worries concerning PRS-induced fatalism or over-optimism related to one's disease risk remain unconfirmed (Hunter et al. 2008;Claassen et al. 2010). Given that receiving PRS results has not been found to lead to significant psychosocial distress (e.g., Halmesvaara et al. 2022;Wade 2019) and attitudes toward receiving the estimates have generally been positive (e.g., Leitsalu et al. 2023), it is perhaps not surprising that adverse effects are not seen at the behavioral level either. However, similar caveats concerning the effect heterogeneity apply as described above. ...
Polygenic risk scores (PRS) for different diseases are expected to become more widely available to the public in the coming decades. In addition to the investigation of the clinical relevance of polygenic risk scores, an assessment of the health behavioral impact is needed. The present study used data from a personalized medicine project that combined genomic and traditional health data to evaluate respondents' risk for common diseases. Specifically, we investigated if supplementing traditional risk estimates of type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease with PRS influenced respondents' self-reported physical activity, alcohol consumption, fruit/vegetable consumption or prompted the respondents to seek medical treatment/examination. As an exploratory hypothesis, we also tested if there was an interaction between the disease risk level and the experimental/control group for any of the outcomes. A randomized controlled trial was conducted, where the experimental group (n = 216 for seeking treatment and 523–459 for other outcomes) received risk estimates based on traditional risk and PRS, and the control group (n = 216 and 526–498) based solely on traditional risk factors. On average, approximately 80 days elapsed between the risk disclosure and outcome measurements. We found no significant difference between the groups regarding health behavior (ps > .28, ds < 0.07) or likelihood of seeking medical treatment/examination (p = .86, OR = 1.06). Likewise, no significant interactions were detected (ps > .08, ds < .11, ORs < 1.2). We conclude that we did not find support for either a beneficial or detrimental effect of supplementing traditional risk estimates with PRSs. However, several limitations should be noted when generalizing the results.
Invasive biological samples collected during clinical care represent a valuable yet underutilized source of information about human biology. However, the challenges of working with clinical personnel and the invasive nature of sample collection in biomedical studies can hinder the acquisition of sufficiently large sample sizes for robust statistical analyses. In addition, the incorporation of demographic data from participants is crucial for ensuring the inclusiveness of representative populations, identifying at‐risk groups, and addressing healthcare disparities. Drawing on both research experiences and the existing literature, this article provides recommendations for researchers aiming to undertake efficient and impactful projects involving invasive human samples. The suggested strategies include: (1) establishing productive collaborations with clinicians; (2) optimizing sample quality through meticulous collection and handling procedures; and (3) strategically implementing a retrospective model to capitalize on existing invasive sample repositories. When established, cooperative work between clinical health care workers and biological anthropologists can yield insights into human biology that have the potential to improve human health and wellbeing.
Large biobanks have set a new standard for research and innovation in human genomics and implementation of personalised medicine. The Estonian Biobank was founded a quarter of a century ago, and its biological specimens, clinical, health, omics, and lifestyle data have been included in over 800 publications to date. What makes the biobank unique internationally is its translational focus, with active efforts to conduct clinical studies based on genetic findings, and to explore the effects of return of results on participants. In this review we provide an overview of the Estonian Biobank, highlight its strengths for studying the effects of genetic variation and quantitative phenotypes on health-related traits, development of methods and frameworks for bringing genomics into the clinic, and its role as a driving force for implementing personalized medicine on a national level and beyond.
Cardiovascular diseases persist as a global health challenge that requires methodological innovation for effective drug development. Conventional pipelines relying on animal models suffer from high failure rates due to significant interspecies variation between humans and animal models. In response, the recently enacted Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act 2.0 encourages alternative approaches including induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). Human iPSCs provide a patient-specific, precise, and screenable platform for drug testing, paving the way for cardiovascular precision medicine. This review discusses milestones in iPSC differentiation and their applications from disease modelling to drug discovery in cardiovascular medicine. It then explores challenges and emerging opportunities for the implementation of ‘clinical trials in-a-dish’. Concluding, this review proposes a framework for future clinical trial design with strategic incorporations of iPSC technology, microphysiological systems, clinical pan-omics, and artificial intelligence to improve success rates and advance cardiovascular healthcare.
Background:
Discussion about the risks and benefits of offering secondary findings as part of genome-wide diagnostics lacks real-life data. We studied the opt-in decisions of patients/families referred to whole exome study (WES) in Blueprint Genetics (BpG), a genetic testing company with customers in over 70 countries to receive secondary findings. Based on the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) recommendations for reporting secondary findings, BpG offered testing of specific actionable genes without additional charge for specimens submitted to WES diagnostics.
Methods:
Individuals could opt-in for a secondary findings analysis by using a separate electronic consent form. Data from BpG database of electronic consent forms was used for the analysis.
Results:
During the selected study period there were 3263 WES referrals, from which 2012 were index patients. About half of the individuals (50.4%) opted in to receiving secondary findings. Of patients who opted in, a secondary finding was detected for 2.7%, similar to other studies. We detected huge differences relating to opt-in between individuals from different countries; for instance, 90% of the 41 patients and their family members in Romania opted to receive secondary findings, while none of the 98 patients in Luxembourg chose that option.
Conclusion:
Differences between sexes or between children and adults were small. This data offers one view to the interest of patients and family members to opt in to receiving secondary findings. Research is needed to understand the influence of factors like age, education etc. and possible participation in pre-test counseling to receiving/not receiving secondary findings.
Purpose
The aim of this study was to determine how attitudes toward the return of genomic research results vary internationally.
Methods
We analyzed the “Your DNA, Your Say” online survey of public perspectives on genomic data sharing including responses from 36,268 individuals across 22 low-, middle-, and high-income countries, and these were gathered in 15 languages. We analyzed how participants responded when asked whether return of results (RoR) would motivate their decision to donate DNA or health data. We examined variation across the study countries and compared the responses of participants from other countries with those from the United States, which has been the subject of the majority of research on return of genomic results to date.
Results
There was substantial variation in the extent to which respondents reported being influenced by RoR. However, only respondents from Russia were more influenced than those from the United States, and respondents from 20 countries had lower odds of being partially or wholly influenced than those from the United States.
Conclusion
There is substantial international variation in the extent to which the RoR may motivate people’s intent to donate DNA or health data. The United States may not be a clear indicator of global attitudes. Participants’ preferences for return of genomic results globally should be considered.
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.
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 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.
The Global Alliance for Genomics and Health has approved a policy for the return of clinically actionable genomic research results, the first such policy approved by an international body. The policy acknowledges the potential medical benefits to millions of individuals who are participating in genomics research. It ties the pace of implementation to each country’s clinical standards, including for the return of secondary findings, and urges funders to set aside resources to support responsible return.
If genome sequencing is performed in health care, in theory the opportunity arises to take a further look at the data: opportunistic genomic screening (OGS). The European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) in 2013 recommended that genome analysis should be restricted to the original health problem at least for the time being. Other organizations have argued that ‘actionable’ genetic variants should or could be reported (including American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, French Society of Predictive and Personalized Medicine, Genomics England). They argue that the opportunity should be used to routinely and systematically look for secondary findings—so-called opportunistic screening. From a normative perspective, the distinguishing characteristic of screening is not so much its context (whether public health or health care), but the lack of an indication for having this specific test or investigation in those to whom screening is offered. Screening entails a more precarious benefits-to-risks balance. The ESHG continues to recommend a cautious approach to opportunistic screening. Proportionality and autonomy must be guaranteed, and in collectively funded health-care systems the potential benefits must be balanced against health care expenditures. With regard to genome sequencing in pediatrics, ESHG argues that it is premature to look for later-onset conditions in children. Counseling should be offered and informed consent is and should be a central ethical norm. Depending on developing evidence on penetrance, actionability, and available resources, OGS pilots may be justified to generate data for a future, informed, comparative analysis of OGS and its main alternatives, such as cascade testing.
Genetic variants that inactivate protein-coding genes are a powerful source of information about the phenotypic consequences of gene disruption: genes that are crucial for the function of an organism will be depleted of such variants in natural populations, whereas non-essential genes will tolerate their accumulation. However, predicted loss-of-function variants are enriched for annotation errors, and tend to be found at extremely low frequencies, so their analysis requires careful variant annotation and very large sample sizes1. Here we describe the aggregation of 125,748 exomes and 15,708 genomes from human sequencing studies into the Genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD). We identify 443,769 high-confidence predicted loss-of-function variants in this cohort after filtering for artefacts caused by sequencing and annotation errors. Using an improved model of human mutation rates, we classify human protein-coding genes along a spectrum that represents tolerance to inactivation, validate this classification using data from model organisms and engineered human cells, and show that it can be used to improve the power of gene discovery for both common and rare diseases. A catalogue of predicted loss-of-function variants in 125,748 whole-exome and 15,708 whole-genome sequencing datasets from the Genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD) reveals the spectrum of mutational constraints that affect these human protein-coding genes.
Purpose:
Large-scale, population-based biobanks integrating health records and genomic profiles may provide a platform to identify individuals with disease-predisposing genetic variants. Here, we recall probands carrying familial hypercholesterolemia (FH)-associated variants, perform cascade screening of family members, and describe health outcomes affected by such a strategy.
Methods:
The Estonian Biobank of Estonian Genome Center, University of Tartu, comprises 52,274 individuals. Among 4776 participants with exome or genome sequences, we identified 27 individuals who carried FH-associated variants in the LDLR, APOB, or PCSK9 genes. Cascade screening of 64 family members identified an additional 20 carriers of FH-associated variants.
Results:
Via genetic counseling and clinical management of carriers, we were able to reclassify 51% of the study participants from having previously established nonspecific hypercholesterolemia to having FH and identify 32% who were completely unaware of harboring a high-risk disease-associated genetic variant. Imaging-based risk stratification targeted 86% of the variant carriers for statin treatment recommendations.
Conclusion:
Genotype-guided recall of probands and subsequent cascade screening for familial hypercholesterolemia is feasible within a population-based biobank and may facilitate more appropriate clinical management.
Purpose
Biomedical databases combining electronic medical records, phenotypic and genomic data constitute a powerful resource for the personalization of treatment. To leverage the wealth of information provided, algorithms are required that systematically translate the contained information into treatment recommendations based on existing genotype-phenotype associations.
Methods
We developed and tested algorithms for translation of pre-existing genotype data of over 44,000 participants of the Estonian biobank into pharmacogenetic recommendations. We compared the results obtained by whole genome sequencing, whole exome sequencing and genotyping using microarrays, and evaluated the impact of pharmacogenetic reporting based on drug prescription statistics in the Nordic countries and Estonia.
Results
Our most striking result was that the performance of genotyping arrays is similar to that of whole genome sequencing, whereas exome sequencing is not suitable for pharmacogenetic predictions. Interestingly, 99.8% of all assessed individuals had a genotype associated with increased risks to at least one medication, and thereby the implementation of pharmacogenetic recommendations based on genotyping affects at least 50 daily drug doses per 1000 inhabitants.
Conclusion
We find that microarrays are a cost-effective solution for creating pre-emptive pharmacogenetic reports, and with slight modifications, existing databases can be applied for automated pharmacogenetic decision support for clinicians.
As precision medicine becomes increasingly relevant in healthcare, the field of pharmacogenomics (PGx) also continues to gain prominence in the clinical setting. Leading institutions have begun to implement PGx testing and the amount of published PGx literature increases yearly. The Pharmacogenomics Knowledgebase (PharmGKB; http://www.pharmgkb.org) is one of the foremost worldwide resources for PGx knowledge, and the organization has been adapting and refocusing its mission along with the current revolution in genomic medicine. The PharmGKB website provides a diverse array of PGx information, from annotations of the primary literature to guidelines for adjusting drug treatment based on genetic information. It is freely available and accessible to everyone from researchers to clinicians to everyday citizens. PharmGKB was found over 17 years ago, but continues to be a vital resource for the entire PGx community and the general public.
This article is categorized under: Translational, Genomic, and Systems Medicine > Translational Medicine
Aims
Genetics plays an important role in coronary heart disease (CHD) but the clinical utility of genomic risk scores (GRSs) relative to clinical risk scores, such as the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), is unclear. Our aim was to construct and externally validate a CHD GRS, in terms of lifetime CHD risk and relative to traditional clinical risk scores.
Methods and results
We generated a GRS of 49 310 SNPs based on a CARDIoGRAMplusC4D Consortium meta-analysis of CHD, then independently tested it using five prospective population cohorts (three FINRISK cohorts, combined n = 12 676, 757 incident CHD events; two Framingham Heart Study cohorts (FHS), combined n = 3406, 587 incident CHD events). The GRS was associated with incident CHD (FINRISK HR = 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.61–1.86 per S.D. of GRS; Framingham HR = 1.28, 95% CI 1.18–1.38), and was largely unchanged by adjustment for known risk factors, including family history. Integration of the GRS with the FRS or ACC/AHA13 scores improved the 10 years risk prediction (meta-analysis C-index: +1.5–1.6%, P < 0.001), particularly for individuals ≥60 years old (meta-analysis C-index: +4.6–5.1%, P < 0.001). Importantly, the GRS captured substantially different trajectories of absolute risk, with men in the top 20% of attaining 10% cumulative CHD risk 12–18 y earlier than those in the bottom 20%. High genomic risk was partially compensated for by low systolic blood pressure, low cholesterol level, and non-smoking.
Conclusions
A GRS based on a large number of SNPs improves CHD risk prediction and encodes different trajectories of lifetime risk not captured by traditional clinical risk scores.
Purpose:
Using effect estimates from genome-wide association studies (GWAS), we identified a genetic risk score (GRS) that has the strongest association with type 2 diabetes (T2D) status in a population-based cohort and investigated its potential for prospective T2D risk assessment.
Methods:
By varying the number of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and their respective weights, alternative versions of GRS can be computed. They were tested in 1,181 T2D cases and 9,092 controls of the Estonian Biobank cohort. The best-fitting GRS was chosen for the subsequent analysis of incident T2D (386 cases).
Results:
The best fit was provided by a novel doubly weighted GRS that captures the effect of 1,000 SNPs. The hazard for incident T2D was 3.45 times (95% CI: 2.31-5.17) higher in the highest GRS quintile compared with the lowest quintile, after adjusting for body mass index and other known predictors. Adding GRS to the prediction model for 5-year T2D risk resulted in continuous net reclassification improvement of 0.324 (95% CI: 0.211-0.444). In addition, a significant effect of the GRS on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality was observed.
Conclusion:
The proposed GRS would improve the accuracy of T2D risk prediction when added to the currently used set of predictors.Genet Med advance online publication 11 August 2016Genetics in Medicine (2016); doi:10.1038/gim.2016.103.
Background:
There is growing consensus that individual genetic research results that are scientifically robust, analytically valid, and clinically actionable should be offered to research participants. However, the general practice in European research projects is that results are usually not provided to research participants for many reasons. This article reports on the views of European experts and scholars who are members of the European COST Action CHIP ME IS1303 (Citizen's Health through public-private Initiatives: Public health, Market and Ethical perspectives) regarding challenges to the feedback of individual genetic results to research participants in Europe and potential strategies to address these challenges.
Materials and methods:
A consultation of the COST Action members was conducted through an email survey and a workshop. The results from the consultation were analyzed following a conventional content analysis approach.
Results:
Legal frameworks, professional guidelines, and financial, organizational, and human resources to support the feedback of results are largely missing in Europe. Necessary steps to facilitate the feedback process include clarifying legal requirements to the feedback of results, developing harmonized European best practices, promoting interdisciplinary and cross-institutional collaboration, designing educational programs and cost-efficient IT-based platforms, involving research ethics committees, and documenting the health benefits and risks of the feedback process.
Conclusions:
Coordinated efforts at pan-European level are needed to enable equitable, scientifically sound, and socially robust feedback of results to research participants.
Menopause timing has a substantial impact on infertility and risk of disease, including breast cancer, but the underlying mechanisms are poorly understood. We report a dual strategy in ∼70,000 women to identify common and low-frequency protein-coding variation associated with age at natural menopause (ANM). We identified 44 regions with common variants, including two regions harboring additional rare missense alleles of large effect. We found enrichment of signals in or near genes involved in delayed puberty, highlighting the first molecular links between the onset and end of reproductive lifespan. Pathway analyses identified major association with DNA damage response (DDR) genes, including the first common coding variant in BRCA1 associated with any complex trait. Mendelian randomization analyses supported a causal effect of later ANM on breast cancer risk (∼6% increase in risk per year; P = 3 × 10(-14)), likely mediated by prolonged sex hormone exposure rather than DDR mechanisms.
The Estonian population-based biobank, with 52,000 participants' genetic and health data, is the largest epidemiological cohort in the Baltic region. Participants were recruited through a network of medical professionals throughout Estonia (population 1.34 million). Unique legislation as well as a broad consent form give the Estonian Genome Center, a research institute of the University of Tartu, permission to re-contact participants and to retrieve participants' data from national registries and databases. In addition to two re-contacting projects to update the health data of participants, extensive clinical characterizations have been retrieved from national registries and hospital databases regularly since 2010. Acquiring data from electronic health records and registries has provided a means to update and enhance the database of the Genome Center in a timely manner and at low cost. The resulting database allows a wide spectrum of genomic and epidemiological research to be conducted with the aim of benefitting public health. Future plans include linking the genome center database with the national health information system through X-road and exchanging data in real time, as well as using the genetic data and the technical infrastructure available for piloting personalized medicine in Estonia.
Genome-wide sequencing in a research setting has the potential to reveal health-related information of personal or clinical utility for the study participant. There is increasing pressure to return research findings to participants that may not be related to the project aims, particularly when these could be used to prevent disease. Such secondary, unsolicited or 'incidental findings' (IFs) may be discovered unintentionally when interpreting sequence data, or as the result of a deliberate opportunistic screen. This cross-sectional, web-based survey investigated attitudes of 6944 individuals from 75 countries towards returning IFs from genome research. Participants included four relevant stakeholder groups: 4961 members of the public, 533 genetic health professionals, 843 non-genetic health professionals and 607 genomic researchers who were invited via traditional media, social media and professional e-mail list-serve. Treatability and perceived utility of incidental results were deemed important with 98% of stakeholders personally interested in learning about preventable life-threatening conditions. Although there was a generic interest in receiving genomic information, stakeholders did not expect researchers to opportunistically screen for IFs in a research setting. On many items, genetic health professionals had significantly more conservative views compared with other stakeholders. This finding demonstrates a disconnect between the views of those handling the findings of research and those participating in research. Exploring, evaluating and ultimately addressing this disconnect should form a priority for researchers and clinicians alike. This social sciences study offers the largest dataset, published to date, of attitudes towards issues surrounding the return of IFs from sequencing research.
The routine use of genomic sequencing in clinical medicine has the potential to dramatically alter patient care and medical outcomes. To fully understand the psychosocial and behavioral impact of sequencing integration into clinical practice, it is imperative that we identify the factors that influence sequencing-related decision making and patient outcomes. In an effort to develop a collaborative and conceptually grounded approach to studying sequencing adoption, members of the National Human Genome Research Institute's Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium formed the Outcomes and Measures Working Group. Here we highlight the priority areas of investigation and psychosocial and behavioral outcomes identified by the Working Group. We also review some of the anticipated challenges to measurement in social and behavioral research related to genomic sequencing; opportunities for instrument development; and the importance of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method approaches. This work represents the early, shared efforts of multiple research teams as we strive to understand individuals' experiences with genomic sequencing. The resulting body of knowledge will guide recommendations for the optimal use of sequencing in clinical practice.Genet Med advance online publication 13 March 2014Genetics in Medicine (2014); doi:10.1038/gim.2014.26.
The Estonian Biobank cohort is a volunteer-based sample of the Estonian resident adult population (aged ≥18 years). The current number of participants-close to 52000--represents a large proportion, 5%, of the Estonian adult population, making it ideally suited to population-based studies. General practitioners (GPs) and medical personnel in the special recruitment offices have recruited participants throughout the country. At baseline, the GPs performed a standardized health examination of the participants, who also donated blood samples for DNA, white blood cells and plasma tests and filled out a 16-module questionnaire on health-related topics such as lifestyle, diet and clinical diagnoses described in WHO ICD-10. A significant part of the cohort has whole genome sequencing (100), genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array data (20 000) and/or NMR metabolome data (11 000) available (http://www.geenivaramu.ee/for-scientists/data-release/). The data are continuously updated through periodical linking to national electronic databases and registries. A part of the cohort has been re-contacted for follow-up purposes and resampling, and targeted invitations are possible for specific purposes, for example people with a specific diagnosis. The Estonian Genome Center of the University of Tartu is actively collaborating with many universities, research institutes and consortia and encourages fellow scientists worldwide to co-initiate new academic or industrial joint projects with us.
To extend understanding of the genetic architecture and molecular basis of type 2 diabetes (T2D), we conducted a meta-analysis of genetic variants on the Metabochip, including 34,840 cases and 114,981 controls, overwhelmingly of European descent. We identified ten previously unreported T2D susceptibility loci, including two showing sex-differentiated association. Genome-wide analyses of these data are consistent with a long tail of additional common variant loci explaining much of the variation in susceptibility to T2D. Exploration of the enlarged set of susceptibility loci implicates several processes, including CREBBP-related transcription, adipocytokine signaling and cell cycle regulation, in diabetes pathogenesis.
The promise of personalized medicine depends on the ability to integrate genetic sequencing information into disease risk assessment for individuals. As genomic sequencing technology enters the realm of clinical care, its scale necessitates answers to key social and behavioral research questions about the complexities of understanding, communicating, and ultimately using sequence information to improve health. Our study captured the motivations and expectations of research participants who consented to participate in a research protocol, ClinSeq, which offers to return a subset of the data generated through high-throughput sequencing. We present findings from an exploratory study of 322 participants, most of whom identified themselves as white, non-Hispanic, and coming from higher socio-economic groups. Participants aged 45-65 years answered open-ended questions about the reasons they consented to ClinSeq and about what they anticipated would come of genomic sequencing. Two main reasons for participating were as follows: a conviction to altruism in promoting research, and a desire to learn more about genetic factors that contribute to one's own health risk. Overall, participants expected genomic research to help improve understanding of disease causes and treatments. Our findings offer a first glimpse into the motivations and expectations of individuals seeking their own genomic information, and provide initial insights into the value these early adopters of technology place on information generated by high-throughput sequencing studies.
As patients become more involved in health care decisions, there may be greater opportunity for decision regret. The authors could not find a validated, reliable tool for measuring regret after health care decisions.
A 5-item scale was administered to 4 patient groups making different health care decisions. Convergent validity was determined by examining the scale's correlation with satisfaction measures, decisional conflict, and health outcome measures.
The scale showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.81 to 0.92). It correlated strongly with decision satisfaction (r = -0.40 to -0.60), decisional conflict (r = 0.31 to 0.52), and overall rated quality of life (r = -0.25 to -0.27). Groups differing on feelings about a decision also differed on rated regret: F(2, 190) = 31.1, P < 0.001. Regret was greater among those who changed their decisions than those who did not, t(175) = 16.11, P < 0.001.
The scale is a useful indicator of health care decision regret at a given point in time.
No consensus yet exists on how to handle incidental findings (IFs) in human subjects research. Yet empirical studies document IFs in a wide range of research studies, where IFs are findings beyond the aims of the study that are of potential health or reproductive importance to the individual research participant. This paper reports recommendations of a two-year project group funded by NIH to study how to manage IFs in genetic and genomic research, as well as imaging research. We conclude that researchers have an obligation to address the possibility of discovering IFs in their protocol and communications with the IRB, and in their consent forms and communications with research participants. Researchers should establish a pathway for handling IFs and communicate that to the IRB and research participants. We recommend a pathway and categorize IFs into those that must be disclosed to research participants, those that may be disclosed, and those that should not be disclosed.
Background:
Prediction tools that combine polygenic risk scores with clinical factors provide a new opportunity for improved prediction and prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, but the clinical utility of polygenic risk score has remained unclear.
Methods:
We collected a prospective cohort of 7342 individuals (64% women, mean age 56 years) and estimated their 10-year risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease both by a traditional risk score and a composite score combining the effect of a polygenic risk score and clinical risk factors. We then tested how returning the personal risk information with an interactive web-tool impacted on the participants' health behavior.
Results:
When reassessed after 1.5 years by a clinical visit and questionnaires, 20.8% of individuals at high (>10%) 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk had seen a doctor, 12.4% reported weight loss, 14.2% of smokers had quit smoking, and 15.4% had signed up for health coaching online. Altogether, 42.6% of persons at high risk had made one or more health behavioral changes versus 33.5% of persons at low/average risk such that higher baseline risk predicted a favorable change (OR [CI], 1.53 [1.37-1.72] for persons at high risk versus the rest, P<0.001), with both high clinical (P<0.001) and genomic risk (OR [CI], 1.10 [1.03-1.17], P=0.003) contributing independently.
Conclusions:
Web-based communication of personal atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk-data including polygenic risk to middle-aged persons motivates positive changes in health behavior and the propensity to seek care. It supports integration of genomic information into clinical risk calculators as a feasible approach to enhance disease prevention.
Genotype-first approach allows to systematically identify carriers of pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 genes conferring a high risk of familial breast and ovarian cancer. Participants of the Estonian biobank have expressed support for the disclosure of clinically significant findings. With an Estonian biobank cohort, we applied a genotype-first approach, contacted carriers, and offered return of results with genetic counseling. We evaluated participants' responses to and the clinical utility of the reporting of actionable genetic findings. Twenty-two of 40 contacted carriers of 17 pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants responded and chose to receive results. Eight of these 22 participants qualified for high-risk assessment based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria. Twenty of 21 counseled participants appreciated being contacted. Relatives of 10 participants underwent cascade screening. Five of 16 eligible female BRCA1/2 variant carriers chose to undergo risk-reducing surgery, and 10 adhered to surveillance recommendations over the 30-month follow-up period. We recommend the return of results to population-based biobank participants; this approach could be viewed as a model for population-wide genetic testing. The genotype-first approach permits the identification of individuals at high risk who would not be identified by application of an approach based on personal and family histories only.
Now more than ever, digital applications are essential to accessing genetics services and optimizing their delivery. At this watershed moment, digital solutions must be balanced with the merits of human interaction, without compromising quality or exacerbating existing genomic and technological disparities. As highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic, digital solutions are becoming essential for the provision of clinical genetics services. However, as this Comment emphasizes, the use of digital tools alone can exacerbate genomic and technological disparities and must be balanced with the merits of face-to-face interactions.
Whether individual results of genetic research studies ought to be disclosed to study participants has been debated in recent decades. Previously, the prevailing expert view discouraged the return of individual research results to participants because of the potential lack of analytic validity, questionable clinical validity and medical actionability, and questions about whether it is the role of research to provide participants with their data. With additional knowledge of participant perspectives and shifting views about the benefits of research and respect for participants, current expert consensus is moving toward support of returning such results. Significant ethical controversies remain, and there are many practical questions left to address, including appropriate procedures for returning results and the potential burden to clinicians when patients seek guidance about the clinical implications of research results. In this review, we describe current views regarding the return of genetic research results, including controversies and practical challenges, and consider the application of these issues to research on apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1), a gene recently associated with health disparities in kidney disease. Although this case is unique, it illustrates the complexities involved in returning results and highlights remaining questions.
Drawing on a landscape analysis of existing data-sharing initiatives, in-depth interviews with expert stakeholders, and public deliberations with community advisory panels across the U.S., we describe features of the evolving medical information commons (MIC). We identify participant-centricity and trustworthiness as the most important features of an MIC and discuss the implications for those seeking to create a sustainable, useful, and widely available collection of linked resources for research and other purposes.
There is growing public demand that research participants receive all of their results, regardless of whether clinical action is indicated. Instead of the standard practice of returning only actionable results, we propose a reconceptualization called "return of value" to encompass the varied ways in which research participants value specific results and more general information they receive beyond actionable results. Our proposal is supported by a national survey of a diverse sample, which found that receiving research results would be valuable to most (78.5 percent) and would make them more likely to trust researchers (70.3 percent). Respondents highly valued results revealing genetic effects on medication response and predicting disease risk, as well as information about nearby clinical trials and updates on how their data were used. The information most valued varied by education, race/ethnicity, and age. Policies are needed to enable return of information in ways that recognize participants' differing informational needs and values.
Purpose:
In response to genetic testing being widely ordered by nongenetics clinicians, the Consent and Disclosure Recommendations (CADRe) Workgroup of the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen; clinicalgenome.org ) developed guidance to facilitate communication about genetic testing and efficiently improve the patient experience. Considering ethical, legal, and social implications, and medical factors, CADRe developed and pilot tested two rubrics addressing consent for genetic testing and results disclosure. The CADRe rubrics allow for adjusting the communication approach based on circumstances specific to patients and ordering clinicians.
Methods:
We present results of a formative survey of 66 genetics clinicians to assess the consent rubric for nine genes (MLH1, CDH1, TP53, GJB2, OTC; DMD, HTT, and CYP2C9/VKORC1). We also conducted interviews and focus groups with family and patient stakeholders (N = 18), nongenetics specialists (N = 27), and genetics clinicians (N = 32) on both rubrics.
Results:
Formative evaluation of the CADRe rubrics suggests key factors on which to make decisions about consent and disclosure discussions for a "typical" patient.
Conclusion:
We propose that the CADRe rubrics include the primary issues necessary to guide communication recommendations, and are ready for pilot testing by nongenetics clinicians. Consultation with genetics clinicians can be targeted toward more complex or intensive consent and disclosure counseling.
ClinVar (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/clinvar/) is a freely available, public archive of human genetic variants and interpretations of their significance to disease, maintained at the National Institutes of Health. Interpretations of the clinical significance of variants are submitted by clinical testing laboratories, research laboratories, expert panels and other groups. ClinVar aggregates data by variant-disease pairs, and by variant (or set of variants). Data aggregated by variant are accessible on the website, in an improved set of variant call format files and as a new comprehensive XML report. ClinVar recently started accepting submissions that are focused primarily on providing phenotypic information for individuals who have had genetic testing. Submissions may come from clinical providers providing their own interpretation of the variant ('provider interpretation') or from groups such as patient registries that primarily provide phenotypic information from patients ('phenotyping only'). ClinVar continues to make improvements to its search and retrieval functions. Several new fields are now indexed for more precise searching, and filters allow the user to narrow down a large set of search results.
Disclaimer: These recommendations are designed primarily as an educational resource for medical geneticists and other healthcare providers to help them provide quality medical services. Adherence to these recommendations is completely voluntary and does not necessarily assure a successful medical outcome. These recommendations should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of other procedures and tests that are reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, the clinician should apply his or her own professional judgment to the specific clinical circumstances presented by the individual patient or specimen. Clinicians are encouraged to document the reasons for the use of a particular procedure or test, whether or not it is in conformance with this statement. Clinicians also are advised to take notice of the date this statement was adopted and to consider other medical and scientific information that becomes available after that date. It also would be prudent to consider whether intellectual property interests may restrict the performance of certain tests and other procedures.
To promote standardized reporting of actionable information from clinical genomic sequencing, in 2013, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) published a minimum list of genes to be reported as incidental or secondary findings. The goal was to identify and manage risks for selected highly penetrant genetic disorders through established interventions aimed at preventing or significantly reducing morbidity and mortality. The ACMG subsequently established the Secondary Findings Maintenance Working Group to develop a process for curating and updating the list over time. We describe here the new process for accepting and evaluating nominations for updates to the secondary findings list. We also report outcomes from six nominations received in the initial 15 months after the process was implemented. Applying the new process while upholding the core principles of the original policy statement resulted in the addition of four genes and removal of one gene; one gene did not meet criteria for inclusion. The updated secondary findings minimum list includes 59 medically actionable genes recommended for return in clinical genomic sequencing. We discuss future areas of focus, encourage continued input from the medical community, and call for research on the impact of returning genomic secondary findings.
Genet Med 19 2, 249–255.
Background:
Procedural guidelines for disclosure of incidental genomic information are lacking.
Methods:
We introduce a method and evaluated the impact of returning results to population biobank participants with 16p11.2 copy number variants, which are commonly associated with neurodevelopmental disorders and BMI imbalance. Of the 7877 participants, 11 carriers were detected. Eight participants were informed of their carrier status and surveyed 11-17 months later.
Results:
All participants demonstrated preference for disclosure. Although two participants experienced worry, all five survey respondents rated receiving this information favorably. One participant reported modifications in treatment and three felt that their treatment/condition had since improved.
Conclusion:
This approach can be adapted and applied for the return of incidental findings to biobank participants.
Background:
In this study, we examined how biobank study participants, who were found to have long QT syndrome (LQTS), a potentially life-threatening but treatable cardiac arrhythmia condition, experienced the process of disclosure of unexpected results and referral to health care.
Methods:
All 27 subjects with a LQTS mutation finding were asked to complete a questionnaire. Four participants did not uptake the re-testing and 5 others did not respond to the questionnaire. We received 17 questionnaires from 6 males and 11 females, aged 46-82; 5 of them were also willing to participate in qualitative interviews.
Results:
Of the respondents, 16/17 had experienced the process of receiving the results as positive and useful, especially if they had had symptoms. One respondent experienced the process negatively due to concerns related to informing her children. All respondents felt that genetic results should be reported back to the participants, while 2 indicated that this should occur only in the case of treatable conditions. Respondents had informed all of their children about the genetic condition, except 2 minors.
Conclusions:
The respondents from a population biobank study who were informed about an unexpected genetic finding evaluated this process as mainly positive. They considered that delivering genetic information about a life-threatening but actionable condition has more beneficial than adverse consequences. The feedback policy for biobanks should include how and who is informed, advise treatment or care pathways for actionable findings, and it should also include suitable options for those who do not want to know about such findings.
The slow rate at which pharmacogenetic tests are being adopted in clinical practice is partly due to the lack of specific guidelines on how to adjust medications on the basis of the genetic test results. One of the goals of the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) of the National Institutes of Health's Pharmacogenomics Research Network (http://www.pgrn.org) and the Pharmacogenomics Knowledge Base (PharmGKB, http://www.pharmgkb.org) is to provide peer-reviewed, updated, evidence-based, freely accessible guidelines for gene/drug pairs. These guidelines will facilitate the translation of pharmacogenomic knowledge from bench to bedside.Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (2011) 89 3, 464-467. doi:10.1038/clpt.2010.279
Two studies are reported describing the development of a short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) for use in circumstances where the full-form is inappropriate. Using item-remainder correlations, the most highly correlated anxiety-present and anxiety-absent items were combined, and correlated with scores obtained using the full-form of the STAI. Correlation coefficients greater than .90 were obtained using four and six items from the STAI. Acceptable reliability and validity were obtained using six items. The use of this six-item short-form produced scores similar to those obtained using the full-form. This was so for several groups of subjects manifesting a range of anxiety levels. This short-form of the STAI is therefore sensitive to fluctuations in state anxiety. When compared with the full-form of the STAI, the six-item version offers a briefer and just as acceptable scale for subjects while maintaining results that are comparable to those obtained using the full-form of the STAI.
Returning individual research results to participants: guidance for a new research paradigm
- J R Botkin
- M Mancher
- E R Busta
- A S Downey
Human Genes Research Act
- Riigikogu
ClinVar: improving access to variant interpretations and supporting evidence
- M J Landrum
- J M Lee
- M Benson
- G R Brown
- C Chao
- S Chitipiralla
- MJ Landrum
Eesti elanike teadmised, hoiakud, kartused ja ootused personaalmeditsiini osas Uuringuaruanne Kevad
- Sotsiaalministeerium
Developing a conceptual, reproducible, Rubric-based approach to consent and result disclosure for genetic testing by clinicians with minimal genetics background
- K E Ormond
- Mlg Hallquist
- A H Buchanan
- D Dondanville
- M K Cho
- M Smith
- KE Ormond