Ethical issues in the use of genetic testing of patients with schizophrenia and their families

How do experts in psychiatric genetics view the clinical utility of polygenic risk scores for schizophrenia?

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are promising for identifying common variant-related inheritance for psychiatric conditions but their integration into clinical practice depends on their clinical utility and psychiatrists' understanding of PRS. Our online survey explored these issues with 276 professionals working in psychiatric genetics (RR: 19%). Overall, participants demonstrated knowledge of how to interpret PRS results. Their performance on knowledge-based questions was positively correlated with participants' self-reported familiarity with PRS (r = 0.21, p = 0.0006) although differences were not statistically significant (Wald Chi-square = 3.29, df = 1, p = 0.07). However, only 48.9% of all participants answered all knowledge questions correctly. Many participants (56.5%), especially researchers (42%), indicated having at least occasional conversations about the role of genetics in psychiatric conditions with patients and/or family members. Most participants (62.7%) indicated that PRS are not yet sufficiently robust for assessment of susceptibility to schizophrenia; most significant obstacles were low predictive power and lack of population diversity in available PRS (selected, respectively, by 53.6% and 29.3% of participants). Nevertheless, 89.8% of participants were optimistic about the use of PRS in the next 10 years, suggesting a belief that current shortcomings could be addressed. Our findings inform about the perceptions of psychiatric professionals regarding PRS and the application of PRS in psychiatry.

Genome-wide association studies of bipolar disorder: A systematic review of recent findings and their clinical implications

Recent advances in molecular genetics have enabled assessments of the associations among genetic variants (e.g., single-nucleotide polymorphisms) and susceptibility for complex diseases, including psychiatric disorders. Specifically, genome-wide association studies (GWAS), meta-analyses of the GWAS summary statistics, and mega-analyses (which use raw data, not summary statistics) of GWAS have provided revolutionary results and have identified numerous susceptibility genes or single-nucleotide polymorphisms. By using several tens of thousands of subjects, >40 genes have been identified as being associated with susceptibility for bipolar disorder so far. The purpose of this systematic review was to summarize the recent findings of bipolar disorder GWAS and discuss their clinical implications.

What can we learn from offspring studies in bipolar disorder?

We offer a contemporary review of studies of the offspring of parents with bipolar disorder and explore the clinical characteristics of these populations. We discuss how different methodological approaches may influence study findings and may explain some of the heterogeneity in the results reported. We also highlight some of the environmental risk factors that may increase the likelihood of transition from an ‘at-risk’ or high-risk state to bipolar disorder. Last, we briefly discuss the implications of study findings for early intervention strategies and comment on such issues as genetic counselling and primary and early secondary prevention programmes.

Genetic and family counselling for schizophrenia: Where do we stand now?

<p><strong>Background:</strong> Recent genetic findings have led to profound changes in genetic and family counselling for schizophrenia patients and their families.</p><p><strong>Objectives:</strong> The article gives an overview of the present knowledge regarding the genetic and family counselling for schizophrenia.</p><p><strong>Method:</strong> Literature searches were performed on the MEDLINE database (2011–2015) and African Healthline. A current alert service which provides the most recent literature on the topic on a monthly basis was also used in the study. A clinical case example is presented as is experienced in daily psychiatric practice.</p><p><strong>Results:</strong> Genetic risk communication has become the responsibility of the multiprofessional treatment team, moving away from specialists in the field. The treatment team provides information on a daily basis regarding risk predictors in the management of schizophrenia, including risk of relapse, suicide and comorbid substance use. Although genetic information is unique and has implications for blood relatives, genetic risk factors only rarely provide information that is inherently different from that provided by other risk predictors commonly used in healthcare. The common variant common disease and rare variant common disease models as contrasting hypothesis of the genetics of schizophrenia are discussed and debated. An example of a family counselled is given and the place of commercial companies that offer directly to the consumer affordable personal DNA testing for psychiatric illness is discussed. Ethical issues without resolution regarding genetic counselling of schizophrenia are debated.</p><p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> Recent genetic findings must lead to profound changes in genetic and family counselling in schizophrenia. Exposed attributable risk has immediate effects on genetic counselling of schizophrenia. Psychiatric risk counselling has thus changed from risk estimates based on family history to estimates based on test results in specific individuals.</p><p><strong><br /></strong></p>

Concerns about Genetic Testing for Schizophrenia among Young Adults at Clinical High Risk for Psychosis

BACKGROUND

Genetic tests for schizophrenia may introduce risks and benefits. Among young adults at clinical high-risk for psychosis, little is known about their concerns and how they assess potential risks.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 young adults at clinical high-risk for psychosis to ask about their concerns.

RESULTS

Participants expressed concerns about test reliability, data interpretation, stigma, psychological harm, family planning, and privacy. Participants' responses showed some departure from the ethics literature insofar as participants were primarily interested in reporting their results to people to whom they felt emotionally close, and expressed little consideration of biological closeness. Additionally, if tests showed an increased genetic risk for schizophrenia, four clinical high-risk persons felt obligated to tell an employer and another three would "maybe" tell an employer, even in the absence of clinical symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest opportunities for clinicians and genetic counselors to intervene with education and support.