How could disclosing incidental information from whole-genome sequencing affect patient behavior?

Behavioral and psychological impact of genome sequencing: a pilot randomized trial of primary care and cardiology patients

Many expect genome sequencing (GS) to become routine in patient care and preventive medicine, but uncertainties remain about its ability to motivate participants to improve health behaviors and the psychological impact of disclosing results. In a pilot trial with exploratory analyses, we randomized 100 apparently healthy, primary-care participants and 100 cardiology participants to receive a review of their family histories of disease, either alone or in addition to GS analyses. GS results included polygenic risk information for eight cardiometabolic conditions. Overall, no differences were observed between the percentage of participants in the GS and control arms, who reported changes to health behaviors such as diet and exercise at 6 months post disclosure (48% vs. 36%, respectively, p = 0.104). In the GS arm, however, the odds of reporting a behavior change increased by 52% per high-risk polygenic prediction (p = 0.032). Mean anxiety and depression scores for GS and control arms had confidence intervals within equivalence margins of ±1.5. Mediation analyses suggested an indirect impact of GS on health behaviors by causing positive psychological responses (p ≤ 0.001). Findings suggest that GS did not distress participants. Future research on GS in more diverse populations is needed to confirm that it does not raise risks for psychological harms and to confirm the ability of polygenic risk predictions to motivate preventive behaviors.

A qualitative study among patients with an inherited retinal disease on the meaning of genomic unsolicited findings

Exome-based testing for genetic diseases can reveal unsolicited findings (UFs), i.e. predispositions for diseases that exceed the diagnostic question. Knowledge of patients’ interpretation of possible UFs and of motives for (not) wanting to know UFs is still limited. This lacking knowledge may impede effective counselling that meets patients’ needs. Therefore, this article examines the meaning of UFs from a patient perspective. A qualitative study was conducted and an interpretative phenomenological analysis was made of 14 interviews with patients with an inherited retinal disease. Patients assign a complex meaning to UFs, including three main components. The first component focuses on result-specific qualities, i.e. the characteristics of an UF (inclusive of actionability, penetrance, severity and age of onset) and the consequences of disclosure; the second component applies to a patient’s lived illness experiences and to the way these contrast with reflections on presymptomatic UFs; the third component addresses a patient’s family embedding and its effect on concerns about disease prognosis and genetic information’s family relevance. The complex meaning structure of UFs suggests the need for counselling procedures that transcend a strictly clinical approach. Counselling should be personalised and consider patients’ lived illness experiences and family context.

Psychological outcomes related to exome and genome sequencing result disclosure: a meta-analysis of seven Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium studies

PURPOSE

As exome and genome sequencing (ES/GS) enters the clinic, there is an urgent need to understand the psychological effects of test result disclosure. Through a Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER), phase 1 (CSER1) Consortium collaboration, we evaluated participants' psychological outcomes across multiple clinical settings.

METHODS

We conducted a random effects meta-analysis of state anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]/Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item), depressive symptoms (HADS/Personal Health Questionnaire 9-item), and multidimensional impact (i.e., test-related distress, uncertainty and positive impact: modified Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment/Feelings About Genomic Testing Results scale).

RESULTS

Anxiety and depression did not increase significantly following test result disclosure. Meta-analyses examining mean differences from pre- to postdisclosure revealed an overall trend for a decrease in participants' anxiety. We observed low levels of test-related distress and perceptions of uncertainty in some populations (e.g., pediatric patients) and a wide range of positive responses.

CONCLUSION

Our findings across multiple clinical settings suggest no clinically significant psychological harms from the return of ES/GS results. Some populations may experience low levels of test-related distress or greater positive psychological effects. Future research should further investigate the reasons for test-related psychological response variation.

Delivering genomic medicine in the United Kingdom National Health Service: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

PURPOSE

We sought to assess the readiness of the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service to implement a Genomic Medicine Service. We conducted a systematic literature review to identify what is known about factors related to the implementation of genomic medicine in routine health care and to draw out the implications for the UK and other settings.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified in Web of Science and PubMed from their date of inception to April 2018. The review included primary research studies using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods, and systematic reviews. A narrative synthesis was conducted.

RESULTS

Fifty-five studies met our inclusion criteria. The majority of studies reviewed were conducted in the United States. We identified four domains: (1) systems, (2) training and workforce needs, (3) professional attitudes and values, and (4) the role of patients and the public.

CONCLUSION

Mainstreaming genomic medicine into routine clinical practice requires actions at each level of the health-care system. Our synthesis emphasized the organizational, social, and cultural implications of reforming practice, highlighting that demonstration of clinical utility and cost-effectiveness, attending to the compatibility of genomic medicine with clinical principles, and involving and engaging patients are key to successful implementation.

Genomic information and a person's right not to know: A closer look at variations in hypothetical informational preferences in a German sample

In clinical practice and in research, there is an ongoing debate on how to return incidental and secondary findings of genetic tests to patients and research participants. Previous investigations have found that most of the people most of the time are in favor of full disclosure of results. Yet, the option to reject disclosure, based on the so-called right not to know, can be valuable especially for some vulnerable subgroups of recipients. In the present study we investigated variations in informational preferences in the context of genetic testing in a large and diverse German sample. This survey examined health care professionals, patients, participants of genetic counseling sessions and members of the general population (N = 518). Survey participants were assessed regarding their openness to learning about findings under various hypothetical scenarios, as well as their attitudes about the doctor-patient-relationship in a disclosure situation and about informational transfer to third parties. While the majority of participants wanted to learn about their findings, the extent of support of disclosure varied with features of the hypothetical diagnostic scenarios (e.g., controllability of disease; abstract vs. concrete scenario description) and demographic characteristics of the subjects. For example, subjects with higher levels of education were more selective with regards to the kind of information they want to receive than those with lower levels of education. We discuss implications of these findings for the debate about the right not to know and for the clinical practice of informed consent procedures.

Views of rare disease participants in a UK whole-genome sequencing study towards secondary findings: a qualitative study

With large-scale genome sequencing initiatives underway, vast amounts of genomic data are being generated. Results-including secondary findings (SF)-are being returned, although policies around generation and management remain inconsistent. In order to inform relevant policy, it is essential that the views of stakeholders be considered-including participants who have made decisions about SF since the wider debate began. We conducted semi-structured interviews with sixteen rare disease patients and parents enroled in genome sequencing to explore views towards SF. Informed by extensive contact with the healthcare system, interviewees demonstrated high levels of understanding of genetic testing and held pragmatic views: many are content not knowing SF. Interviewees expressed trust in the system and healthcare providers, as well as an appreciation of limited resources; acknowledging existing disease burden, many preferred to focus on their primary condition. Many demonstrated an expectation for recontact and assumed the possibility of later access to initially declined SF. In the absence of such an infrastructure, it is important that responsibilities for recontact are delineated, expectations are addressed, and the long-term impact of decisions is made clear during consent. In addition, some interviewees demonstrated fluid views towards SF, and suggestions were made that perceptions may be influenced by family history. Further research into the changing desirability of SF and behavioural impact of disclosure are needed, and the development and introduction of mechanisms to respond to changes in patient views should be considered.

Eliciting preferences on secondary findings: the Preferences Instrument for Genomic Secondary Results

PURPOSE

Eliciting and understanding patient and research participant preferences regarding return of secondary test results are key aspects of genomic medicine. A valid instrument should be easily understood without extensive pretest counseling while still faithfully eliciting patients' preferences.

METHODS

We conducted focus groups with 110 adults to understand patient perspectives on secondary genomic findings and the role that preferences should play. We then developed and refined a draft instrument and used it to elicit preferences from parents participating in a genomic sequencing study in children with intellectual disabilities.

RESULTS

Patients preferred filtering of secondary genomic results to avoid information overload and to avoid learning what the future holds, among other reasons. Patients preferred to make autonomous choices about which categories of results to receive and to have their choices applied automatically before results are returned to them and their clinicians. The Preferences Instrument for Genomic Secondary Results (PIGSR) is designed to be completed by patients or research participants without assistance and to guide bioinformatic analysis of genomic raw data. Most participants wanted to receive all secondary results, but a significant minority indicated other preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

Our novel instrument-PIGSR-should be useful in a wide variety of clinical and research settings.Genet Med 19 3, 337-344.

Ethical signposts for clinical geneticists in secondary variant and incidental finding disclosure discussions

While ethical and empirical interest in so-called secondary variants and incidental findings in clinical genetics contexts is growing, critical reflection on the ethical foundations of the various recommendations proposed is thus far largely lacking. We examine and critique the ethical justifications of the three most prominent disclosure positions: briefly, the clinical geneticist decides, a joint decision, and the patient decides. Subsequently, instead of immediately developing a new disclosure option, we explore relevant foundational ethical values and norms, drawing on the normative and empirical ethical literature. Four ethical signposts are thereby developed to help guide disclosure discussions. These are: respectful sharing of the clinician's expertise; transparent communication; epistemic modesty; and respect for the embedded nature of the patient. We conclude by considering the most common current disclosure positions in the light of the four ethical signposts.

Ethical, legal and social implications of incorporating personalized medicine into healthcare

As research focused on personalized medicine has developed over the past decade, bioethics scholars have contemplated the ethical, legal and social implications of this type of research. In the next decade, there will be a need to broaden the focus of this work as personalized medicine moves into clinical settings. We consider two broad issues that will grow in importance and urgency. First, we analyze the consequences of the significant increase in health information that will be brought about by personalized medicine. Second, we raise concerns about the potential of personalized medicine to exacerbate existing disparities in healthcare.

Disclosure of genetic information and change in dietary intake: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Proponents of consumer genetic tests claim that the information can positively impact health behaviors and aid in chronic disease prevention. However, the effects of disclosing genetic information on dietary intake behavior are not clear.

METHODS

A double-blinded, parallel group, 2:1 online randomized controlled trial was conducted to determine the short- and long-term effects of disclosing nutrition-related genetic information for personalized nutrition on dietary intakes of caffeine, vitamin C, added sugars, and sodium. Participants were healthy men and women aged 20-35 years (n = 138). The intervention group (n = 92) received personalized DNA-based dietary advice for 12-months and the control group (n = 46) received general dietary recommendations with no genetic information for 12-months. Food frequency questionnaires were collected at baseline and 3- and 12-months after the intervention to assess dietary intakes. General linear models were used to compare changes in intakes between those receiving general dietary advice and those receiving DNA-based dietary advice.

RESULTS

Compared to the control group, no significant changes to dietary intakes of the nutrients were observed at 3-months. At 12-months, participants in the intervention group who possessed a risk version of the ACE gene, and were advised to limit their sodium intake, significantly reduced their sodium intake (mg/day) compared to the control group (-287.3 ± 114.1 vs. 129.8 ± 118.2, p = 0.008). Those who had the non-risk version of ACE did not significantly change their sodium intake compared to the control group (12-months: -244.2 ± 150.2, p = 0.11). Among those with the risk version of the ACE gene, the proportion who met the targeted recommendation of 1500 mg/day increased from 19% at baseline to 34% after 12 months (p = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings demonstrate that disclosing genetic information for personalized nutrition results in greater changes in intake for some dietary components compared to general population-based dietary advice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01353014.

Do participants in genome sequencing studies of psychiatric disorders wish to be informed of their results? A survey study

Objective

As large-scale genome sequencing technology advances, concerns surrounding the reporting of individual findings to study volunteers have grown and fueled controversy. This is especially true in mental health research, where the clinical importance of sequencing results is particularly unclear. The ethical, legal, and social issues are being widely debated, but less is known about the attitudes of actual study volunteers toward sequencing studies or what they wish to learn about their DNA sequence and its health implications. This study provides information on psychiatric research volunteers’ attitudes, beliefs, and concerns with respect to participation in DNA sequencing studies and reporting of individual results.

Method

We conducted a pilot study using a questionnaire that we developed to assess what information volunteers in an ongoing family study of bipolar disorder would like to receive if they underwent genome sequencing, what they would do with that information, and what concerns they may have.

Results

Almost all of the respondents were willing to participate in genome sequencing. Most respondents wished to be informed about all their health-related genetic risks, including risks for diseases without known prevention or treatment. However, few respondents felt well informed about the nature of genome sequencing or its implications for their health, insurability, or offspring.

Conclusions

Despite generally positive attitudes toward genome sequencing among study volunteers, most are not fully aware of the special issues raised by genome sequencing. The attitudes of study volunteers should be considered in the debate about the reporting of individual findings from genome sequencing.

Motivation in the age of genomics: why genetic findings of disease susceptibility might not motivate behavior change

There is a growing consensus that results generated through multiplex genetic tests, even those produced as a part of research, should be reported to providers and patients when they are considered “actionable,” that is, when they could be used to inform some potentially beneficial clinical action. However, there remains controversy over the precise criterion that should be used in identifying when a result meets this standard. In this paper, we seek to refine the concept of “actionability” by exploring one proposed use for genetic test results. We argue that genetic test results indicating that a patient is at risk for developing a chronic health condition should not be considered actionable if the only potential value of that result is to motivate patients to make changes in their health behaviors. Since the empirical research currently available on this question is equivocal, we explore relevant psychological theories of human motivation to demonstrate that current theory does not support the assumption that information about genetic risk will be motivating to most patients in their attempts to make changes in health behaviors.