Knowledge, Attitudes and Demand Toward Cardiovascular Polygenic Risk Testing in Clinical Practice: Cross-Sectional Survey of Patients

Shanjot Brar; Jared Townsend; Joban Phulka; Laura Halperin; Janet Liew; Jeremy Parker; Liam R. Brunham; Zachary Laksman

doi:10.1101/2023.08.24.23294594

ABSTRACT

Background The goal of this study was to assess patients’ prior exposure and current level of knowledge of polygenic risk scores (PRSs). We also explored reactions to receiving a high-risk or low-risk score, and gauged the overall attitudes and demand patients have with regards to PRSs.

Methods We developed an online investigator-designed survey based on existing validated tools and previously designed surveys on genetic testing. There were two versions of the survey, one including a hypothetical high-risk PRS and one with a low-risk PRS. We administered the survey among patients attending a specialized cardiovascular prevention clinic.

Results A total of 226 participants responded to the survey. The study population was predominantly high-income earning, educated, and of European descent. 177 patients (79%) had never read or heard about polygenic testing. 209 patients (93%) had never discussed polygenic testing with their health care professional (HCP). 208 patients (93%) had never received polygenic testing.

The average score on the knowledge quiz was 2.47/10 [95% C.I. (2.17, 2.78)]. Participants that received a high-risk survey scored 20.52/35 [95% C.I. (16.14, 24.9)] with regards to negative emotions while low-risk survey participants scored 17.96/35 [95% C.I. (13.98, 21.94)] (p<0.001). Participants that received a high-risk survey scored 5.78/10 [95% C.I. (3.77, 7.79)] with regards to uncertainty and low-risk survey participants scored 4.34/10 [95% C.I. (2.50, 6.18)] (p<0.001). Participants that received a high-risk survey scored 12.42/15 [95% C.I. (10.43, 14.41)] for demand and low-risk survey participants scored 12.22/15 [95% C.I. (9.66, 14.78)] (p=0.549).

Conclusions Patients have limited prior exposure and knowledge of PRSs. Compared to receiving a low-risk score, participants receiving a high-risk score have more negative emotions and feelings of uncertainty. Despite the lack of knowledge, and the high rate of negative emotions and uncertainty, demand for PRSs in cardiology practice is high and expected to increase.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

This project was approved by the UBC Research Ethics Board, REB# H22-02087.

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.

Yes

I 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).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes