Long-Term Follow-Up Study on the Uptake of Genetic Counseling and Predictive DNA Testing in Inherited Cardiac Conditions

Cascade genetic counseling and testing in hereditary syndromes: inherited cardiovascular disease as a model: a narrative review

Inherited cardiovascular diseases cover the inherited cardiovascular disease familial hypercholesterolemia and inherited cardiac diseases, like inherited cardiomyopathies and inherited arrhythmia syndromes. Cascade genetic counseling and testing in inherited cardiovascular diseases have had three decades of academic attention. Inherited cardiovascular diseases affect around 1-2% of the population worldwide and cascade genetic counseling and testing are considered valuable since preventive measures and/or treatments are available. Cascade genetic counseling via a family-mediated approach leads to an uptake of genetic counseling and testing among at-risk relatives of around 40% one year after identification of the causal variant in the proband, with uptake remaining far from complete on the long-term. These findings align with uptake rates among relatives at-risk for other late onset medically actionable hereditary diseases, like hereditary cancer syndromes. Previous interventions to increase uptake have focused on optimizing the process of informing relatives through the proband and on contacting relatives directly. However, despite successful information dissemination to at-risk relatives, these approaches had little or no effect on uptake. The limited research into the barriers that impede at-risk relatives from seeking counseling has revealed knowledge, attitudinal, social and practical barriers but it remains unknown how these factors contribute to the decision-making process for seeking counseling in at-risk relatives. A significant effect on uptake of genetic testing has only been reached in the setting of familial hypercholesterolemia, where active information provision was accompanied by a reduction of health-system-related barriers. We propose that more research is needed on barriers -including health-system-related barriers- and how they hinder counseling and testing in at-risk relatives, so that uptake can be optimized by (adjusted) interventions.

Effectiveness of the Family Heart Talk Communication Tool in Improving Family Member Screening for Dilated Cardiomyopathy: Results of a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Managing disease risk among first-degree relatives of probands diagnosed with a heritable disease is central to precision medicine. A critical component is often clinical screening, which is particularly important for conditions like dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) that remain asymptomatic until severe disease develops. Nonetheless, probands are frequently ill-equipped to disseminate genetic risk information that motivates at-risk relatives to complete recommended clinical screening. An easily implemented remedy for this key issue has been elusive.

METHODS

The DCM Precision Medicine Study developed Family Heart Talk, a booklet designed to help probands with DCM communicate genetic risk and the need for cardiovascular screening to their relatives. The effectiveness of the Family Heart Talk booklet in increasing cardiovascular clinical screening uptake among first-degree relatives was assessed in a multicenter, open-label, cluster-randomized, controlled trial. The primary outcome measured in eligible first-degree relatives was completion of screening initiated within 12 months after proband enrollment. Because probands randomized to the intervention received the booklet at the enrollment visit, eligible first-degree relatives were limited to those who were alive the day after proband enrollment and not enrolled on the same day as the proband.

RESULTS

Between June 2016 and March 2020, 1241 probands were randomized (1:1) to receive Family Heart Talk (n=621) or not (n=620) within strata defined by site and self-identified race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, or Hispanic). Final analyses included 550 families (n=2230 eligible first-degree relatives) in the Family Heart Talk arm and 561 (n=2416) in the control arm. A higher percentage of eligible first-degree relatives completed screening in the Family Heart Talk arm (19.5% versus 16.0%), and the odds of screening completion among these first-degree relatives were higher in the Family Heart Talk arm after adjustment for proband randomization stratum, sex, and age quartile (odds ratio, 1.30 [1-sided 95% CI, 1.08-∞]). A prespecified subgroup analysis did not find evidence of heterogeneity in the adjusted intervention odds ratio across race/ethnicity strata (P=0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

Family Heart Talk, a booklet that can be provided to patients with DCM by clinicians with minimal additional time investment, was effective in increasing cardiovascular clinical screening among first-degree relatives of these patients.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT03037632.

The uptake and utility of genetic testing and genetic counseling for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy-A systematic review and meta-analysis

Genetic testing and genetic counseling are routinely indicated for patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM); however, the uptake and utility of these services is not entirely understood. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes the uptake and utility of genetic counseling and genetic testing for patients with HCM and their at-risk family members, as well as the impact of genetic counseling/testing on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). A systematic search was performed through March 12, 2021. Meta-analyses were performed whenever possible; other findings were qualitatively summarized. Forty-eight studies met inclusion criteria (47 observational, 1 randomized). Uptake of genetic testing in probands was 57% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 40, 73). Uptake of cascade screening for at-risk relatives were as follows: 61% for cascade genetic testing (95% CI: 45, 75), 58% for cardiac screening (e.g. echocardiography) (95% CI: 40, 73), and 69% for either/both approaches (95% CI: 43, 87). In addition, relatives of probands with a positive genetic test result were significantly more likely to undergo cascade screening compared to relatives of probands with a negative result (odds ratio = 3.17, 95% CI: 2.12, 4.76). Overall, uptake of genetic counseling in both probands and relatives ranged from 37% to 84%. Multiple studies found little difference in PROs between individuals receiving positive versus negative genetic test results; however, other studies found that individuals with positive genetic test results experienced worse psychological outcomes. Genetic testing may also inform life choices, particularly decisions related to reproduction and insurance. Genetic counseling was associated with high satisfaction, increased perceived personal control and empowerment, and decreased anxiety. Approximately half to three-quarters of patients with HCM and their relatives undergo genetic testing or cascade screening. PROs after genetic testing varied and genetic counseling was associated with high satisfaction and improved PROs.

The Impact of Proband Indication for Genetic Testing on the Uptake of Cascade Testing Among Relatives

Although multiple factors can influence the uptake of cascade genetic testing, the impact of proband indication has not been studied. We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional study comparing cascade genetic testing rates among relatives of probands who received either diagnostic germline testing or non-indication-based proactive screening via next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based multigene panels for hereditary cancer syndromes (HCS) and/or familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). The proportion of probands with a medically actionable (positive) finding were calculated based on genes associated with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Tier 1 conditions, HCS genes, and FH genes. Among probands with a positive finding, cascade testing rates and influencing factors were assessed. A total of 270,715 probands were eligible for inclusion in the study (diagnostic n = 254,281,93.9%; proactive n = 16,434, 6.1%). A positive result in a gene associated with a CDC Tier 1 condition was identified in 10,520 diagnostic probands (4.1%) and 337 proactive probands (2.1%), leading to cascade testing among families of 3,305 diagnostic probands (31.4%) and 36 proactive probands (10.7%) (p < 0.0001). A positive result in an HCS gene was returned to 23,272 diagnostic probands (9.4%) and 970 proactive probands (6.1%), leading to cascade testing among families of 6,611 diagnostic probands (28.4%) and 89 proactive probands (9.2%) (p < 0.0001). Cascade testing due to a positive result in an HCS gene was more commonly pursued when the diagnostic proband was White, had a finding in a gene associated with a CDC Tier 1 condition, or had a personal history of cancer, or when the proactive proband was female. A positive result in an FH gene was returned to 1,647 diagnostic probands (25.3%) and 67 proactive probands (0.62%), leading to cascade testing among families of 360 diagnostic probands (21.9%) and 4 proactive probands (6.0%) (p < 0.01). Consistently higher rates of cascade testing among families of diagnostic probands may be due to a perceived urgency because of personal or family history of disease. Due to the proven clinical benefit of cascade testing, further research on obstacles to systematic implementation and uptake of testing for relatives of any proband with a medically actionable variant is warranted.

Establishment of a Dedicated Inherited Cardiomyopathy Clinic: From Challenges to Improved Patients' Outcome

Background

Inherited cardiomyopathies (ICs) are relatively rare. General cardiologists have little experience in diagnosing and managing these conditions. International societies have recognized the need for dedicated IC clinics. However, only few reports on such clinics are available.

Methods and Results

Clinical data of patients referred to our clinic during its first 2 years for a personal or family history of (possible) IC were analyzed. A total of 207 patients from 196 families were seen; 13% of probands had their diagnosis changed. Diagnosis was most commonly altered in patients referred for possible arrhythmogenic dominant right ventricular cardiomyopathy (62.5%). A total of 90% of probands had genetic testing, of whom 27.3% harbored a likely pathogenic or pathogenic variant. Of patients with confirmed hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, 31 (28.7%) were treated for left ventricular outflow tract obstruction, including septal reduction in 13. Patients with either hypertrophic cardiomyopathy or left ventricular noncompaction and a history of atrial fibrillation were started on oral anticoagulation. Oral anticoagulation was also discussed with all patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and apical aneurysm. Patients with a definite diagnosis of arrhythmogenic dominant right ventricular cardiomyopathy were started on β‐blockers and given restrictive exercise prescriptions. A total of 17 patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and 5 patients with likely pathogenic or likely variants in arrhythmogenic genes received primary prevention implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators. No implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators were warranted for arrhythmogenic dominant right ventricular cardiomyopathy. A total of 76 family members from 24 families had cascade screening, 32 of whom carried the familial variant. A total of 21 members from 13 gene‐elusive families were evaluated by clinical screening, 3 of whom had positive screening.

Conclusions

Specialized IC clinics may improve diagnosis, management, and outcomes of patients with (possible) IC and their family members.

A tailored approach to informing relatives at risk of inherited cardiac conditions: results of a randomised controlled trial

If undetected, inherited cardiac conditions can lead to sudden cardiac death, while treatment options are available. Predictive DNA testing is therefore advised for at-risk relatives, and probands are currently asked to inform relatives about this. However, fewer than half of relatives attend genetic counselling. In this trial, we compared a tailored approach to informing relatives, in which probands were asked whether they preferred relatives to be informed by themselves or by the genetic counsellor, with current practice. Our primary outcome was uptake of genetic counselling in relatives in the first year after test result disclosure. Secondary outcomes were evaluation of the approach and impact on psychological/family functioning measured 3 (T1) and 9 (T2) months post-disclosure via telephone interviews and questionnaires. We included 96 probands; 482 relatives were eligible for counselling and genetic testing. We observed no significant difference in uptake of genetic counselling between the control (38%) and the intervention (37%) group (p = 0.973). Nor were there significant differences between groups in impact on family/psychological functioning. Significantly more probands in the tailored group were satisfied (p = 0.001) and felt supported (p = 0.003) by the approach, although they also felt somewhat coerced to inform relatives (p < 0.001) and perceived room for improvement (p < 0.001). To conclude, we observed no differences in uptake and impact on family/psychological functioning between the current and tailored approach, but probands in the tailored group more often felt satisfied. Further research on barriers to relatives attending genetic counselling and on how to optimize the provision of a tailored approach is needed.

Cascade testing for inherited arrhythmia conditions: Experiences and attitudes of family communication approaches for a Canadian cohort

Inherited arrhythmia conditions (IAC) can lead to sudden cardiac death at any age, and relatives of an affected person have up to a 50% chance of inheriting the condition and are at risk for developing features. Cascade testing is a stepwise approach for identifying relatives at risk for IACs through clinical screening and genetic testing. Early detection can reduce morbidity and mortality for affected individuals and determine potential risk mitigation strategies for relatives. However, cardiovascular genetic studies have reported an incomplete uptake of cascade testing in at-risk relatives. We explored patient perspectives on cascade testing for IACs and alternative approaches to family communication. Twelve semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with probands of the British Columbia Inherited Arrhythmia Program confirmed to carry a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a gene associated with an IAC. Thematic analysis of transcripts through an iterative coding process revealed five main themes: (a) a stepwise approach is followed in disclosing risk to relatives, (b) relatives' autonomy in cascade testing is supported, (c) lived experience with the condition influences disclosure and uptake of cascade testing, (d) collaborative approach to informing relatives reduces negative impact of disclosure, and (e) direct contact from a healthcare provider is viewed as acceptable. The findings highlight this patient cohort's experiences and opinions with approaches to disclosure and demonstrate their understanding and acceptance of their relatives' approaches to cascade testing. In addition, while the notion of direct contact was generally accepted, a collaborative approach to contacting relatives between the proband and provider may be most effective.

A genetic researcher's devil's dilemma: Warn relatives about their genetic risk or respect confidentiality agreements with research participants?

BACKGROUND

With advances in sequencing technologies, increasing numbers of people are being informed about a genetic disease identified in their family. In current practice, probands (the first person in a family in whom a genetic predisposition is identified) are asked to inform at-risk relatives about the diagnosis. However, previous research has shown that relatives are sometimes not informed due to barriers such as family conflicts. Research on family communication in genetic diseases aims to explore the difficulties encountered in informing relatives and to identify ways to support probands in this.

MAIN BODY

Research on family communication may also reveal that participants did not inform their relatives about the risk of a serious genetic condition, even when preventive and treatment options are available. Researchers may then face a dilemma: Do they need to warn at-risk relatives about the finding? Or do they keep silent due to prior confidentiality agreements with study participants?

CONCLUSIONS

We believe that the absolute confidence promised to research participants outweighs the interests of their relatives, even though it can be claimed that relatives at risk of a genetic disease do, in principle, have a right to know information collected about their health. Not respecting confidentiality agreements could cause distrust between researchers and research participants and possibly harm the relationship between probands and relatives. Relatives' health interests can still be taken into account without jeopardizing participant trust, by considering alternative scenarios, including sharing general study findings on the barriers participants experience with their healthcare professionals and by offering participants psychosocial support for family communication.

Family screening in patients with isolated bicuspid aortic valve : Restriction to those with aortic dilatation is not justified

Aim

To determine the prevalence of undiagnosed bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and isolated aortic dilatation in first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with isolated BAV and to explore the recurrence risk of BAV in different subgroups of probands with BAV. Recent American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) Guidelines recommend family screening in patients with associated aortopathy only.

Methods

During follow-up visits, patients with isolated BAV received a printed invitation for their FDRs advising cardiac screening.

Results

From 2012–2019, 257 FDRs of 118 adult BAV patients were screened, among whom 63 (53%) index patients had undergone aortic valve surgery (AVS), including concomitant aortic replacement in 25 (21%). Of the non-operated index patients, 31 (26%) had aortic dilatation (> 40 mm). Mean age of the FDRs was 48 years (range 4–83) and 42% were male. The FDR group comprised 20 parents, 103 siblings and 134 offspring. Among these FDRs, 12 (4.7%) had a previously undiagnosed BAV and 23 (8.9%) had an isolated aortic dilatation. FDRs of the probands with previous AVS (n = 147) had a risk ratio for BAV of 2.25 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62–8.10). FDRs of the probands with BAV and repaired or unrepaired aortic dilatation (n = 127) had a risk ratio for BAV of 0.51 (95% CI 0.16–1.66).

Conclusion

Screening FDRs of patients with isolated BAV resulted in a reasonable yield of 14% new cases of BAV or isolated aortic dilatation. A trend towards an increased risk of BAV in FDRs was observed in the probands with previous AVS, whereas this risk seemed to be diminished in the probands with associated aortic dilatation. This latter finding does not support the restrictive ACC/AHA recommendation.