PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Tan, Ai Huey AU - Saffie-Awad, Paula AU - Schumacher Schuh, Artur F AU - Lim, Shen-Yang AU - Madoev, Harutyun AU - Ahmad-Annuar, Azlina AU - Solle, Justin AU - Wegel, Claire Ellen AU - Doquenia, Maria Leila AU - Dey, Sumit AU - Periñan, Maria Teresa AU - Makarious, Mary B AU - Fiske, Brian AU - Morris, Huw R AU - Noyce, Alastair J AU - Alcalay, Roy N. AU - Kumar, Kishore R. AU - Klein, Christine AU - , TI - Global Perspectives on Returning Genetic Research Results in Parkinson’s Disease AID - 10.1101/2024.07.06.24309029 DP - 2024 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2024.07.06.24309029 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/07/2024.07.06.24309029.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/07/2024.07.06.24309029.full AB - In the era of precision medicine, genetic test results have become increasingly relevant in the care of patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD) and their families. While large PD research consortia are performing widespread 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. The absence of universally recognized protocols complicates the establishment of appropriate guidelines. 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. GP2 members (n=191), representing 147 institutions and 60 countries across six continents, completed the survey. Access to clinical genetic testing services was significantly higher in high-income countries compared to 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. 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. 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 healthcare education efforts on the important role of genetics in PD.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis project was supported by the Global Parkinson’s Genetics Program (GP2). GP2 is funded by the Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s (ASAP) initiative and implemented by The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research (https://gp2.org). For a complete list of GP2 members see https://gp2.org.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study received ethics approval from the University of Malaya Medical Centre Medical Research Ethics Committee (MREC ID NO: 2024625-13862).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesData supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.