Gail P. Jarvik

Ethical and Practical Guidelines for Reporting Genetic Research Results to Study Participants: Updated Guidelines From a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group

In January 2009, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a 28-member multidisciplinary Working Group to update the recommendations of a 2004 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group focused on Guidelines to the Return of Genetic Research Results. Changes in the genetic and societal landscape over the intervening 5 years raise multiple questions and challenges. The group noted the complex issues arising from the fact that technological and bioinformatic progress has made it possible to obtain considerable information on individuals that would not have been possible a decade ago. Although unable to reach consensus on a number of issues, the working group produced 5 recommendations. The working group offers 2 recommendations addressing the criteria necessary to determine when genetic results should and may be returned to study participants, respectively. In addition, it suggests that a time limit be established to limit the duration of obligation of investigators to return genetic research results. The group recommends the creation of a central body, or bodies, to provide guidance on when genetic research results are associated with sufficient risk and have established clinical utility to justify their return to study participants. The final recommendation urges investigators to engage the broader community when dealing with identifiable communities to advise them on the return of aggregate and individual research results. Creation of an entity charged to provide guidance to institutional review boards, investigators, research institutions, and research sponsors would provide rigorous review of available data, promote standardization of study policies regarding return of genetic research results, and enable investigators and study participants to clarify and share expectations for the handling of this increasingly valuable information with appropriate respect for the rights and needs of participants.

Reporting Genetic Results in Research Studies: Summary and Recommendations of an NHLBI Working Group

Prospective epidemiologic studies aid in identifying genetic variants associated with diseases, health risks, and physiologic traits. These genetic variants may eventually be measured clinically for purposes of diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. As evidence of the potential clinical value of such information accrues, research studies face growing pressure to report these results to study participants or their physicians, even before sufficient evidence is available to support widespread screening of asymptomatic persons. There is thus a need to begin to develop consensus on whether and when genetic findings should be reported to participants in research studies. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) convened a Working Group on Reporting Genetic Results in Research Studies to discuss if, when, and how genetic information should be reported to study participants. The Working Group concluded that genetic test results should be reported to study participants when the associated risk for the disease is significant; the disease has important health implications such as premature death or substantial morbidity or has significant reproductive implications; and proven therapeutic or preventive interventions are available. Finally, the Working Group recommended procedures for reporting genetic research results and encouraged increased efforts to create uniform guidelines for this activity. Published 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Return of Genomic Results to Research Participants: The Floor, the Ceiling, and the Choices In Between

As more research studies incorporate next-generation sequencing (including whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing), investigators and institutional review boards face difficult questions regarding which genomic results to return to research participants and how. An American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics 2013 policy paper suggesting that pathogenic mutations in 56 specified genes should be returned in the clinical setting has raised the question of whether comparable recommendations should be considered in research settings. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium and the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network are multisite research programs that aim to develop practical strategies for addressing questions concerning the return of results in genomic research. CSER and eMERGE committees have identified areas of consensus regarding the return of genomic results to research participants. In most circumstances, if results meet an actionability threshold for return and the research participant has consented to return, genomic results, along with referral for appropriate clinical follow-up, should be offered to participants. However, participants have a right to decline the receipt of genomic results, even when doing so might be viewed as a threat to the participants health. Research investigators should be prepared to return research results and incidental findings discovered in the course of their research and meeting an actionability threshold, but they have no ethical obligation to actively search for such results. These positions are consistent with the recognition that clinical research is distinct from medical care in both its aims and its guiding moral principles.

Genetic variants associated with the white blood cell count in 13,923 subjects in the eMERGE Network

White blood cell count (WBC) is unique among identified inflammatory predictors of chronic disease in that it is routinely measured in asymptomatic patients in the course of routine patient care. We led a genome-wide association analysis to identify variants associated with WBC levels in 13,923 subjects in the electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network. We identified two regions of interest that were each unique to subjects of genetically determined ancestry to the African continent (AA) or to the European continent (EA). WBC varies among different ancestry groups. Despite being ancestry specific, these regions were identifiable in the combined analysis. In AA subjects, the region surrounding the Duffy antigen/chemokine receptor gene (DARC) on 1q21 exhibited significant association (p valuexa0=xa06.71e−55). These results validate the previously reported association between WBC and of the regulatory variant rs2814778 in the promoter region, which causes the Duffy negative phenotype (Fy−/−). A second missense variant (rs12075) is responsible for the two principal antigens, Fya and Fyb of the Duffy blood group system. The two variants, consisting of four alleles, act in concert to produce five antigens and subsequent phenotypes. We were able to identify the marginal and novel interaction effects of these two variants on WBC. In the EA subjects, we identified significantly associated SNPs tagging three separate genes in the 17q21 region: (1) GSDMA, (2) MED24, and (3) PSMD3. Variants in this region have been reported to be associated with WBC, neutrophil count, and inflammatory diseases including asthma and Crohn’s disease.

Return of individual research results from genome-wide association studies: experience of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network.

Purpose:Return of individual genetic results to research participants, including participants in archives and biorepositories, is receiving increased attention. However, few groups have deliberated on specific results or weighed deliberations against relevant local contextual factors.Methods:The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network, which includes five biorepositories conducting genome-wide association studies, convened a return of results oversight committee to identify potentially returnable results. Network-wide deliberations were then brought to local constituencies for final decision making.Results:Defining results that should be considered for return required input from clinicians with relevant expertise and much deliberation. The return of results oversight committee identified two sex chromosomal anomalies, Klinefelter syndrome and Turner syndrome, as well as homozygosity for factor V Leiden, as findings that could warrant reporting. Views about returning findings of HFE gene mutations associated with hemochromatosis were mixed due to low penetrance. Review of electronic medical records suggested that most participants with detected abnormalities were unaware of these findings. Local considerations relevant to return varied and, to date, four sites have elected not to return findings (return was not possible at one site).Conclusion:The eMERGE experience reveals the complexity of return of results decision making and provides a potential deliberative model for adoption in other collaborative contexts.Genet Med 2012:14(4):424–431

Processes and preliminary outputs for identification of actionable genes as incidental findings in genomic sequence data in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium

As genomic and exomic testing expands in both the research and clinical arenas, determining whether, how, and which incidental findings to return to the ordering clinician and patient becomes increasingly important. Although opinion is varied on what should be returned to consenting patients or research participants, most experts agree that return of medically actionable results should be considered. There is insufficient evidence to fully inform evidence-based clinical practice guidelines regarding return of results from genome-scale sequencing, and thus generation of such evidence is imperative, given the rapidity with which genome-scale diagnostic tests are being incorporated into clinical care. We present an overview of the approaches to incidental findings by members of the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research network, funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute, to generate discussion of these approaches by the clinical genomics community. We also report specific lists of “medically actionable” genes that have been generated by a subset of investigators in order to explore what types of findings have been included or excluded in various contexts. A discussion of the general principles regarding reporting of novel variants, challenging cases (genes for which consensus was difficult to achieve across Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research network sites), solicitation of preferences from participants regarding return of incidental findings, and the timing and context of return of incidental findings are provided.Genet Med 2013; 15: 860–867Genetics in Medicine (2013); doi:10.1038/gim.2013.133

Follow-up of carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants of unknown significance: Variant reclassification and surgical decisions

Purpose: Approximately 5–10% of patients who undergo genetic testing of BRCA1 and BRCA2 receive a variant of unknown significance (VUS) result. The ambiguous nature of a VUS may increase difficulty in patient understanding and decision making regarding risk reduction and surveillance options, including cancer risk-reducing surgeries. VUS reclassification to benign or deleterious may occur in time; however, clinical decisions may need to be made expeditiously, and some patients may pursue irreversible treatments before VUS reclassification.Methods: We reviewed the surgical decisions of 107 women postdisclosure of a BRCA VUS result counseled at our institute between 1998 and 2009.Conclusion: Among women receiving a BRCA VUS result at our center, 11 of 107 (10.3%) pursued cancer risk-reducing mastectomy and 22 of 107 (20.6%) pursued cancer risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Reclassification of VUS occurred up to 9 years after testing, and 5 of 22 (22.7%) women followed up for 8 or more years continue to have a VUS result. We discuss considerations for providers of genetic services to discuss with patients who receive a VUS result.

Genetic variation associated with circulating monocyte count in the eMERGE Network

With white blood cell count emerging as an important risk factor for chronic inflammatory diseases, genetic associations of differential leukocyte types, specifically monocyte count, are providing novel candidate genes and pathways to further investigate. Circulating monocytes play a critical role in vascular diseases such as in the formation of atherosclerotic plaque. We performed a joint and ancestry-stratified genome-wide association analyses to identify variants specifically associated with monocyte count in 11 014 subjects in the electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network. In the joint and European ancestry samples, we identified novel associations in the chromosome 16 interferon regulatory factor 8 (IRF8) gene (P-value = 2.78×10(-16), β = -0.22). Other monocyte associations include novel missense variants in the chemokine-binding protein 2 (CCBP2) gene (P-value = 1.88×10(-7), β = 0.30) and a region of replication found in ribophorin I (RPN1) (P-value = 2.63×10(-16), β = -0.23) on chromosome 3. The CCBP2 and RPN1 region is located near GATA binding protein2 gene that has been previously shown to be associated with coronary heart disease. On chromosome 9, we found a novel association in the prostaglandin reductase 1 gene (P-value = 2.29×10(-7), β = 0.16), which is downstream from lysophosphatidic acid receptor 1. This region has previously been shown to be associated with monocyte count. We also replicated monocyte associations of genome-wide significance (P-value = 5.68×10(-17), β = -0.23) at the integrin, alpha 4 gene on chromosome 2. The novel IRF8 results and further replications provide supporting evidence of genetic regions associated with monocyte count.

Return of results: ethical and legal distinctions between research and clinical care.

The return of individual results to research participants has been vigorously debated. Consensus statements indicate that researchers and bioethicists consider the return of research results most appropriate when the findings are clinically relevant. Even when clinical utility is the motivator, however, the return of individual research results is not equivalent to clinical care. There are important differences in the domains of research and medical care, both from a legal standpoint and in terms of the ethical responsibilities of clinicians and researchers. As a corollary, researchers risk promoting a therapeutic misconception if they create quasi‐clinical settings for return of clinically relevant research results. Rather, efforts should be focused on clarity in the provision of research results, appropriate caveats and, most important, appropriate referrals when the results may be helpful to consider in medical care.

Genetic Variation in LPAL2, LPA, and PLG Predicts Plasma Lipoprotein(a) Level and Carotid Artery Disease Risk

Background and Purpose— Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] level is an established risk factor for coronary artery disease and has been implicated in carotid artery disease (CAAD). The relationship between genetic variation in the LPA gene region and CAAD risk remains unknown. Methods— We genotyped single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the LPAL2, LPA, and PLG regions in 530 individuals with severe CAAD and 770 controls and kringle IV type 2 (KIV2) repeat length in a subset of 90 individuals. Results— Nine SNPs collectively accounted for 30% of the variance in Lp(a) level. Six SNPs were associated with Lp(a) level after accounting for KIV2 copy number, and the dominant KIV2 allele combined with these markers explained 60% of the variance in Lp(a) level. Five SNPs, including rs10455872, which had an odds ratio of 2.1 per minor allele and haplotypes formed by rs10455872, rs6919346, and rs3123629, were significant predictors of CAAD. After accounting for Lp(a) level, all evidence of CAAD-genotype association in the LPA region was eliminated. Conclusions— LPA region SNPs capture some but not all of the effect of KIV2 repeat length on Lp(a) level. There are associations between LPA region SNPs and CAAD that appear to be attributable to effects on Lp(a) level.