Jessica L. Waxler

Personalized Genetic Risk Counseling to Motivate Diabetes Prevention A randomized trial

OBJECTIVE To examine whether diabetes genetic risk testing and counseling can improve diabetes prevention behaviors. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We conducted a randomized trial of diabetes genetic risk counseling among overweight patients at increased phenotypic risk for type 2 diabetes. Participants were randomly allocated to genetic testing versus no testing. Genetic risk was calculated by summing 36 single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with type 2 diabetes. Participants in the top and bottom score quartiles received individual genetic counseling before being enrolled with untested control participants in a 12-week, validated, diabetes prevention program. Middle-risk quartile participants were not studied further. We examined the effect of this genetic counseling intervention on patient self-reported attitudes, program attendance, and weight loss, separately comparing higher-risk and lower-risk result recipients with control participants. RESULTS The 108 participants enrolled in the diabetes prevention program included 42 participants at higher diabetes genetic risk, 32 at lower diabetes genetic risk, and 34 untested control subjects. Mean age was 57.9 ± 10.6 years, 61% were men, and average BMI was 34.8 kg/m2, with no differences among randomization groups. Participants attended 6.8 ± 4.3 group sessions and lost 8.5 ± 10.1 pounds, with 33 of 108 (30.6%) losing ≥5% body weight. There were few statistically significant differences in self-reported motivation, program attendance, or mean weight loss when higher-risk recipients and lower-risk recipients were compared with control subjects (P > 0.05 for all but one comparison). CONCLUSIONS Diabetes genetic risk counseling with currently available variants does not significantly alter self-reported motivation or prevention program adherence for overweight individuals at risk for diabetes.

Impact of Literacy and Numeracy on Motivation for Behavior Change After Diabetes Genetic Risk Testing

Background Type 2 diabetes genetic risk testing might motivate at-risk patients to adopt diabetes prevention behaviors. However, the influence of literacy and numeracy on patient response to diabetes genetic risk is unknown. Objective The authors investigated the association of health literacy, genetic literacy, and health numeracy with patient responses to diabetes genetic risk. Design and Measurements Overweight patients at high phenotypic risk for type 2 diabetes were recruited for a clinical trial of diabetes genetic risk testing. At baseline, participants predicted how their motivation for lifestyle modification to prevent diabetes might change in response to hypothetical scenarios of receiving “high” and “low” genetic risk results. Responses were analyzed according to participants’ health literacy, genetic literacy, and health numeracy. Results Two-thirds (67%) of participants (n = 175) reported very high motivation to prevent diabetes. Despite high health literacy (92% at high school level), many participants had limited health numeracy (30%) and genetic literacy (38%). Almost all (98%) reported that high-risk genetic results would increase their motivation for lifestyle modification. In contrast, response to low-risk genetic results varied. Higher levels of health literacy (P = 0.04), genetic literacy (P = 0.02), and health numeracy (P = 0.02) were associated with an anticipated decrease in motivation for lifestyle modification in response to low-risk results. Conclusions While patients reported that high-risk genetic results would motivate them to adopt healthy lifestyle changes, response to low-risk results varied by patient numeracy and literacy. However, anticipated responses may not correlate with true behavior change. If future research justifies the clinical use of genetic testing to motivate behavior change, it may be important to assess how patient characteristics modify that motivational effect.

Williams Syndrome Predisposes to Vascular Stiffness Modified by Antihypertensive Use and Copy Number Changes in NCF1

Williams syndrome is caused by the deletion of 26 to 28 genes, including elastin, on human chromosome 7. Elastin insufficiency leads to the cardiovascular hallmarks of this condition, namely focal stenosis and hypertension. Extrapolation from the Eln+/− mouse suggests that affected people may also have stiff vasculature, a risk factor for stroke, myocardial infarction, and cardiac death. NCF1, one of the variably deleted Williams genes, is a component of the nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) oxidase complex and is involved in the generation of oxidative stress, making it an interesting candidate modifier for vascular stiffness. Using a case–control design, vascular stiffness was evaluated by pulse wave velocity in 77 Williams cases and matched controls. Cases had stiffer conducting vessels than controls (P<0.001), with increased stiffness observed in even the youngest children with Williams syndrome. Pulse wave velocity increased with age at comparable rates in cases and controls, and although the degree of vascular stiffness varied, it was seen in both hypertensive and normotensive Williams participants. Use of antihypertensive medication and extension of the Williams deletion to include NCF1 were associated with protection from vascular stiffness. These findings demonstrate that vascular stiffness is a primary vascular phenotype in Williams syndrome and that treatment with antihypertensives or agents inhibiting oxidative stress may be important in managing patients with this condition, potentially even those who are not overtly hypertensive.

Genetic Counseling as a Tool for Type 2 Diabetes Prevention: A Genetic Counseling Framework for Common Polygenetic Disorders

Advances in genetic epidemiology have increased understanding of common, polygenic preventable diseases such as type 2 diabetes. As genetic risk testing based on this knowledge moves into clinical practice, we propose that genetic counselors will need to expand their roles and adapt traditional counseling techniques for this new patient set. In this paper, we present a genetic counseling intervention developed for a clinical trial [Genetic Counseling/Lifestyle Change for Diabetes Prevention, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01034319] designed to motivate behavioral changes for diabetes prevention. Seventy-two phenotypically high-risk participants received counseling that included their diabetes genetic risk score, general education about diabetes risk factors, and encouragement to participate in a diabetes prevention program. Using two validated genetic counseling scales, participants reported favorable perceived control and satisfaction with the counseling session. Our intervention represents one model for applying traditional genetic counseling principles to risk testing for polygenetic, preventable diseases, such as type 2 diabetes.

Design of a randomized trial of diabetes genetic risk testing to motivate behavior change: The Genetic Counseling/Lifestyle Change (GC/LC) Study for Diabetes Prevention

Background The efficacy of diabetes genetic risk testing to motivate behavior change for diabetes prevention is currently unknown. Purpose This paper presents key issues in the design and implementation of one of the first randomized trials (The Genetic Counseling/Lifestyle Change (GC/LC) Study for Diabetes Prevention) to test whether knowledge of diabetes genetic risk can motivate patients to adopt healthier behaviors. Methods Because individuals may react differently to receiving ‘higher’ vs ‘lower’ genetic risk results, we designed a 3-arm parallel group study to separately test the hypotheses that: (1) patients receiving ‘higher’ diabetes genetic risk results will increase healthy behaviors compared to untested controls, and (2) patients receiving ‘lower’ diabetes genetic risk results will decrease healthy behaviors compared to untested controls. In this paper we describe several challenges to implementing this study, including: (1) the application of a novel diabetes risk score derived from genetic epidemiology studies to a clinical population, (2) the use of the principle of Mendelian randomization to efficiently exclude ‘average’ diabetes genetic risk patients from the intervention, and (3) the development of a diabetes genetic risk counseling intervention that maintained the ethical need to motivate behavior change in both ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ diabetes genetic risk result recipients. Results Diabetes genetic risk scores were developed by aggregating the results of 36 diabetes-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms. Relative risk for type 2 diabetes was calculated using Framingham Offspring Study outcomes, grouped by quartiles into ‘higher’, ‘average’ (middle two quartiles) and ‘lower’ genetic risk. From these relative risks, revised absolute risks were estimated using the overall absolute risk for the study group. For study efficiency, we excluded all patients receiving ’average’ diabetes risk results from the subsequent intervention. This post-randomization allocation strategy was justified because genotype represents a random allocation of parental alleles (‘Mendelian randomization’). Finally, because it would be unethical to discourage participants to participate in diabetes prevention behaviors, we designed our two diabetes genetic risk counseling interventions (for ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ result recipients) so that both groups would be motivated despite receiving opposing results. Limitations For this initial assessment of the clinical implementation of genetic risk testing we assessed intermediate outcomes of attendance at a 12-week diabetes prevention course and changes in self-reported motivation. If effective, longer term studies with larger sample sizes will be needed to assess whether knowledge of diabetes genetic risk can help patients prevent diabetes. Conclusions We designed a randomized clinical trial designed to explore the motivational impact of disclosing both higher than average and lower than average genetic risk for type 2 diabetes. This design allowed exploration of both increased risk and false reassurance, and has implications for future studies in translational genomics.

De novo missense variants in HECW2 are associated with neurodevelopmental delay and hypotonia

Background The causes of intellectual disability (ID) are diverse and de novo mutations are increasingly recognised to account for a significant proportion of ID. Methods and results In this study, we performed whole exome sequencing on a large cohort of patients with ID or neurodevelopmental delay and identified four novel de novo predicted deleterious missense variants in HECW2 in six probands with ID/developmental delay and hypotonia. Other common features include seizures, strabismus, nystagmus, cortical visual impairment and dysmorphic facial features. HECW2 is an ubiquitin ligase that stabilises p73, a crucial mediator of neurodevelopment and neurogenesis. Conclusion This study implicates pathogenic genetic variants in HECW2 as potential causes of neurodevelopmental disorders in humans.

Williams Syndrome: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Care

Williams syndrome (WS) is a highly distinct genetic syndrome with a unique constellation of medical and developmental problems and an associated characteristic personality profi le. It is a disorder that should be well-known to most pediatricians, in generalities if not in specifi cs. Although the management of certain problems may be best provided by a single specialist, other common challenges are best approached through a multidisciplinary lens for both diagnostic evaluation and treatment. The etiology of these latter problems can be viewed on a continuum; at one end are symptoms manifesting in one system caused by pathology in another (eg, abdominal pain caused by anxiety), while at the other end are symptoms whose causes are truly multifactorial (eg, abdominal pain due to celiac disease which is also exacerbated by anxiety).

Hypercalcemia in Patients with Williams-Beuren Syndrome

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the timing, trajectory, and implications of hypercalcemia in Williams-Beuren syndrome (WBS) through a multicenter retrospective study. STUDY DESIGN Data on plasma calcium levels from 232 subjects with WBS aged 0-67.1 years were compared with that in controls and also with available normative data. Association testing was used to identify relevant comorbidities. RESULTS On average, individuals with WBS had higher plasma calcium levels than controls, but 86.7% of values were normal. Nonpediatric laboratories overreport hypercalcemia in small children. When pediatric reference intervals were applied, the occurrence of hypercalcemia dropped by 51% in infants and by 38% in toddlers. Across all ages, 6.1% of the subjects had actionable hypercalcemia. In children, actionable hypercalcemia was seen in those aged 5-25 months. In older individuals, actionable hypercalcemia was often secondary to another disease process. Evidence of dehydration, hypercalciuria, and nephrocalcinosis were common in both groups. Future hypercalcemia could not be reliably predicted by screening calcium levels. A subgroup analysis of 91 subjects found no associations between hypercalcemia and cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal complaints, or renal anomalies. Analyses of electrogradiography data showed an inverse correlation of calcium concentration with corrected QT interval, but no acute life-threatening events were reported. CONCLUSIONS Actionable hypercalcemia in patients with WBS occurs infrequently. Although irritability and lethargy were commonly reported, no mortality or acute life-threatening events were associated with hypercalcemia and the only statistically associated morbidities were dehydration, hypercalciuria, and nephrocalcinosis.

Skin findings in Williams syndrome.

Previous examination in a small number of individuals with Williams syndrome (also referred to as Williams–Beuren syndrome) has shown subtly softer skin and reduced deposition of elastin, an elastic matrix protein important in tissue recoil. No quantitative information about skin elasticity in individuals with Williams syndrome is available; nor has there been a complete report of dermatologic findings in this population. To fill this knowledge gap, 94 patients with Williams syndrome aged 7–50 years were recruited as part of the skin and vascular elasticity (WS‐SAVE) study. They underwent either a clinical dermatologic assessment by trained dermatologists (2010 WSA family meeting) or measurement of biomechanical properties of the skin with the DermaLab™ suction cup (2012 WSA family meeting). Clinical assessment confirmed that soft skin is common in this population (83%), as is premature graying of the hair (80% of those 20 years or older), while wrinkles (92%), and abnormal scarring (33%) were detected in larger than expected proportions. Biomechanical studies detected statistically significant differences in dP (the pressure required to lift the skin), dT (the time required to raise the skin through a prescribed gradient), VE (viscoelasticity), and E (Youngs modulus) relative to matched controls. The RT (retraction time) also trended longer but was not significant. The biomechanical differences noted in these patients did not correlate with the presence of vascular defects also attributable to elastin insufficiency (vascular stiffness, hypertension, and arterial stenosis) suggesting the presence of tissue specific modifiers that modulate the impact of elastin insufficiency in each tissue.

Hearing from parents: The impact of receiving the diagnosis of Williams syndrome in their child†

Healthcare providers often share difficult or life‐altering news with their patients yet this challenging and delicate process is frequently met with dissatisfaction by those receiving this news. Articles and guidelines exist to aid providers in sharing diagnoses such as Down syndrome, but relatively few have focused on rare genetic conditions often diagnosed years after birth. For this reason, we sought to learn about the experience of receiving a diagnosis from parents of children with Williams syndrome. We asked members of the Williams Syndrome Association to complete an anonymous online survey about recollections related to the diagnostic process. Responses, both close‐ended and open‐ended, were received from 600 families across the United States. Analysis revealed a high proportion of families (59.91%) with at least some negative recollections about the experience (and nearly half of those with negative recollections denied recalling anything positive). Factors influencing a more positive overall perception of the experience included receiving written information about Williams syndrome and seeing a genetic counselor. Analysis of open‐ended responses identified additional positive and negative themes; for example, nearly one quarter of respondents expressed a desire to be given hope when receiving the diagnosis. Based on these analyses, we offer several specific recommendations for improving the diagnostic process in the future.