Attitudes and beliefs regarding race-targeted genetic testing of Black people: A systematic review

Engaging communities: A scoping literature review of community-based participatory research in genetics service delivery settings

Genetic counseling (GC) services have the potential to improve health outcomes, yet there are documented disparities in the use of GC services among minoritized racial/ethnic populations. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is an approach to integrate diverse patient perspectives to improve GC services. The objective of this review was to assess the current state of international CBPR within GC and genetics services from 2006 to 2023. Five databases were searched for inclusion criteria: 1) published in 2006 or later; 2) peer-reviewed publication; 3) primary research studies; 4) community-based AND participatory research; 5) focused on GC, clinical genetics, testing, and/or genetic service delivery. Criteria for evaluating CBPR involvement used a synthesis of best processes framework. Screening of 3,824 studies identified 16 papers (n = 12 qualitative; n = 1 quantitative; n = 3 mixed methods). The majority of studies were conducted within the U.S. (n = 12), focused on cancer (n = 5), involved the Asian/Pacific Islander community (n = 8), and centered around genetic education (n = 12). Community partners most frequently were involved in recruitment (n = 12) and results analysis (n = 12) and least involved in research question development (n = 7) and product creation (n = 6). Studies varied substantially in the integration of 9 CBPR gold standard principles with only three studies addressing all nine principles. Few CBPR projects in GC services exist and a lack of guidelines to assess the quality of CBPR methodologies hindered the appraisal of studies. CBPR represents a promising approach to improve GC services and should be explored by genetics service delivery researchers.

Biospecimens in the HEALthy Brain and Child Development (HBCD) Study: Rationale and protocol

The HEALthy Brain and Child Development (HBCD) Study, a multi-site prospective longitudinal cohort study, will examine human brain, cognitive, behavioral, social, and emotional development beginning prenatally and planned through early childhood. The longitudinal collection of biological samples from over 7000 birthing parents and their children within the HBCD study enables research on pre- and postnatal exposures (e.g., substance use, toxicants, nutrition), and biological processes (e.g., genetics, epigenetic signatures, proteins, metabolites) on neurobehavioral developmental outcomes. The following biosamples are collected from the birthing parent: 1) blood (i.e., whole blood, serum, plasma, buffy coat, and dried blood spots) during pregnancy, 2) nail clippings during pregnancy and one month postpartum, 3) urine during pregnancy, and 4) saliva during pregnancy and at in-person postnatal assessments. The following samples are collected from the child at in-person study assessments: 1) saliva, 2) stool, and 3) urine. Additionally, placenta tissue, cord blood, and cord tissue are collected by a subset of HBCD sites. Here, we describe the rationale for the collection of these biospecimens, their current and potential future uses, the collection protocol, and collection success rates during piloting. This information will assist research teams in the planning of future studies utilizing this collection of biological samples.

Contextualizing Race and Ethnicity in the Practice of Laboratory Medicine

Race and ethnicity are population descriptors that clinicians and researchers often use to classify humans. The utility of these groupings in research and clinical contexts warrants scrutiny, since these groupings fail to adequately capture genetic diversity and instead, are proxies for the complex interplay of genetic, social, and structural determinants of health. Here, the authors review the concepts of race, ethnicity, and genetics. They also describe laboratory medicine examples where race and ethnicity are used that warrant scrutiny and revision, and areas where greater emphasis on including racialized minorities is necessary to improve health disparities.

A proposal for an inclusive working definition of genetic discrimination to promote a more coherent debate

Genetic discrimination is an evolving phenomenon that impacts fundamental human rights such as dignity, justice and equity. Although, in the past, various definitions to better conceptualize genetic discrimination have been proposed, these have been unable to capture several key facets of the phenomenon. In this Perspective, we explore definitions of genetic discrimination across disciplines, consider criticisms of such definitions and show how other forms of discrimination and stigmatization can compound genetic discrimination in a way that affects individuals, groups and systems. We propose a nuanced and inclusive definition of genetic discrimination, which reflects its multifaceted impact that should remain relevant in the face of an evolving social context and advancing science. We argue that our definition should be adopted as a guiding academic framework to facilitate scientific and policy discussions about genetic discrimination and support the development of laws and industry policies seeking to address the phenomenon.

Evaluating ApoL1 Genetic Testing Policy Options for Transplant Centers: A Delphi Consensus Panel Project with Stakeholders

BACKGROUND

Apolipoprotein L1 (ApoL1) variants G1 and G2 are associated with a higher risk of kidney disease. ApoL1 risk variants are predominantly seen in individuals with sub-Saharan African ancestry. In most transplant centers, potential organ donors are being selectively genetically tested for ApoL1 risk variants. Transplant programs have highly variable ApoL1 testing practices and need guidance on essential ApoL1 clinical policy questions.

METHODS

We conducted a Delphi consensus panel focused on ApoL1 clinical policy questions, including who gets tested, who decides whether testing occurs, how test results are shared, who receives test results, and how test results are used. A total of 27 panelists across seven stakeholder groups participated: living kidney donors ( n =4), deceased donor family members ( n =3), recipients of a deceased donor kidney ( n =4), recipients of a living donor kidney ( n =4), nephrologists ( n =4), transplant surgeons ( n =4), and genetic counselors ( n =4). Nineteen panelists (70%) identified as Black. The Delphi panel process involved two rounds of educational webinars and three rounds of surveys administered to panelists, who were asked to indicate whether they support, could live with, or oppose each policy option.

RESULTS

The panel reached consensus on one or more acceptable policy options for each clinical policy question; panelists supported 18 policy options and opposed 15. Key elements of consensus include the following: ask potential donors about African ancestry rather than race; make testing decisions only after discussion with donors; encourage disclosure of test results to blood relatives and organ recipients but do not require it; use test results to inform decision making, but never for unilateral decisions by transplant programs.

CONCLUSIONS

The panel generally supported policy options involving discussion and shared decision making among patients, donors, and family stakeholders. There was general opposition to unilateral decision making and prohibiting donation altogether.

African American/Black race, apolipoprotein L1 , and serum creatinine among persons with HIV

OBJECTIVE

Accurate estimation of kidney function is critical among persons with HIV (PWH) to avoid under-dosing of antiretroviral therapies and ensure timely referral for kidney transplantation. Existing estimation equations for kidney function include race, the appropriateness of which has been debated. Given advancements in understanding of race and the necessity of accuracy in kidney function estimation, this study aimed to examine whether race, or genetic factors, improved prediction of serum creatinine among PWH.

DESIGN

This cross-sectional study utilized data from the Center for AIDS Research Network of Integrated Clinical Systems cohort (2008-2018). The outcome was baseline serum creatinine.

METHODS

Ordinary least squares regression was used to examine whether inclusion of race or genetic factors [ apolipoprotein-L1 ( APOL1 ) variants and genetic African ancestry] improved serum creatinine prediction. A reduction in root mean squared error (RMSE) greater than 2% was a clinically relevant improvement in predictive ability.

RESULTS

There were 4183 PWH included. Among PWH whose serum creatinine was less than 1.7 mg/dl, race was significantly associated with serum creatinine ( β  = 0.06, SE = 0.01, P  < 0.001) but did not improve predictive ability. African ancestry and APOL1 variants similarly failed to improve predictive ability. Whereas, when serum creatinine was at least 1.7 mg/dl, inclusion of race reduced the RMSE by 2.1%, indicating improvement in predictive ability. APOL1 variants further improved predictive ability by reducing the RMSE by 2.9%.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that, among PWH, inclusion of race or genetic factors may only be warranted at higher serum creatinine levels. Work eliminating existing healthcare disparities while preserving the utility of estimating equations is needed.