Affiliations 

  • 1 From the Division of Neurology (A.H.T., S.-Y.L.), Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Médicas da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (P.S.-A.), Clínica Santa María, Santiago, Chile; Departamento de Farmacologia (A.F.S.S.), Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul; Serviço de Neurologia (A.F.S.S.), Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Brazil; Institute of Neurogenetics (H.M., M.L.D., C.K.), University of Lübeck, Germany; Department of Biomedical Science (A.A.-A.), Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research (J.S., B.F.), New York; Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics (C.E.W.), Indiana University, Indianapolis; Department of Neuroscience and Brain Health (M.L.D.), Metropolitan Medical Center, Manila, Philippines; Centre for Preventive Neurology (S.D., M.T.P., A.J.N.), Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom; Unidad de Trastornos del Movimiento (M.T.P.), Servicio de Neurología y Neurofisiología Clínica, Instituto de Biomedicina de Sevilla, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío/CSIC/Universidad de Sevilla, Spain; Laboratory of Neurogenetics (M.B.M.), National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; Department of Clinical and Movement Neurosciences (M.B.M., H.R.M.), UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, United Kingdom; Department of Neurology (R.N.A.), Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York; Movement Disorders Division (R.N.A.), Neurological Institute, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center and Tel Aviv School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel; Molecular Medicine Laboratory and Neurology Department (K.R.K.), Concord Clinical School, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, The University of Sydney; Translational Neurogenomics Group (K.R.K.), Genomic and Inherited Disease Program, Garvan Institute of Medical Research; and St Vincent's Healthcare Campus (K.R.K.), Faculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia
Neurol Genet, 2024 Dec;10(6):e200213.
PMID: 39807215 DOI: 10.1212/NXG.0000000000200213

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In the era of precision medicine, genetic test results have become increasingly relevant in the care of patients with Parkinson disease (PD). While large research consortia are performing widespread research genetic testing to accelerate discoveries, debate continues about whether, and to what extent, the results should be returned to patients. Ethically, it is imperative to keep participants informed, especially when findings are potentially actionable. However, research testing may not hold the same standards required from clinical diagnostic laboratories and hold significant psychosocial implications. The absence of universally recognized protocols complicates the establishment of appropriate guidelines.

METHODS: Aiming to develop recommendations on return of research results (RoR) practice within the Global Parkinson's Genetics Program (GP2), we conducted a global survey to gain insight on GP2 members' perceptions, practice, readiness, and needs surrounding RoR.

RESULTS: GP2 members (n = 191), representing 147 institutions and 60 countries across 6 continents, completed the survey. Access to clinical genetic testing services was significantly higher in high-income countries compared with low- and middle-income countries (96.6% vs 58.4%), where funding was predominantly covered by patients themselves. While 92.7% of the respondents agreed that genetic research results should be returned, levels of agreement were higher for clinically relevant results relating to pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in genes known to cause PD or other neurodegenerative diseases. Less than 10% offered separate clinically accredited genetic testing before returning genetic research results. A total of 48.7% reported having a specific statement on RoR policy in their ethics consent form, while 53.9% collected data on participants' preferences on RoR prospectively. 24.1% had formal genetic counselling training. Notably, the comfort level in returning incidental genetic findings or returning results to unaffected individuals remains low.

DISCUSSION: Given the differences in resources and training for RoR, as well as ethical and regulatory considerations, tailored approaches are required to ensure equitable access to RoR. Several identified strategies to enhance RoR practices include improving informed consent processes, increasing capacity for genetic counselling including providing counselling toolkits for common genetic variants, broadening access to sustainable clinically accredited testing, building logistical infrastructure for RoR processes, and continuing public and health care education efforts on the important role of genetics in PD.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.