The ethics of returning nonactionable genetic research results to individuals are unclear. Apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) genetic variants are nonactionable, predominantly found in people of West African ancestry, and contribute to kidney disease disparities. To inform ethical research practice, we interviewed researchers, clinicians, and African American community members (n = 76) about the potential risks and benefits of returning APOL1 research results. Stakeholders strongly supported returning APOL1 results. Benefits include reciprocity for participants, community education and rebuilding trust in research, and expectation of future actionability. Risks include analytic validity, misunderstanding, psychological burdens, stigma and discrimination, and questionable resource tradeoffs.
Conclusions:APOL1 results should be offered to participants. Responsibly fulfilling this offer requires careful identification of best communication practices, broader education about the topic, and ongoing community engagement.
AuerbachC. F.SilversteinL. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis. New York University Press.
2.
BerriganM.AustrieJ.FleishmanA.TercyakK. P.PollakM. R.PavlakisM.RohanV.BaligaP. K.KaylerL. K.FeeleyT. H.RodrigueJ. R. (2021). Opinions of African American adults about the use of apolipoprotein L1 (ApoL1) genetic testing in living kidney donation and transplantation. American Journal of Transplantation, 21(3), 1197–1205. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.16206
3.
BradburyA. R.Patrick-MillerL.EglestonB. L.MaxwellK. N.DiGiovanniL.BrowerJ.FetzerD.GaieskiJ. B.BrandtA.McKennaD.LongJ.PowersJ.StopferJ. E.NathansonK. L.DomchekS. M. (2018). Returning individual genetic research results to research participants: Uptake and outcomes among patients with breast cancer. JCO Precision Oncology, 2, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.17.00250
4.
BradleyE. H.CurryL. A.DeversK. J. (2007). Qualitative data analysis for health services research: Developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Services Research, 42(4), 1758–1772. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00684.x
5.
BunnikE. M.JanssensA. C. J. W.SchermerM. H. N. (2015). Personal utility in genomic testing: Is there such a thing?Journal of Medical Ethics, 41(4), 322–326. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2013-101887
6.
ClaytonE. W.RossL. F. (2006). Implications of disclosing individual results of clinical research. JAMA, 295(1), 37. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.1.37-a.author reply 37–38.
Corbie-SmithG.ThomasS. B.WilliamsM. V.Moody-AyersS. (1999). Attitudes and beliefs of African Americans toward participation in medical research. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 14(9), 537–546. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.07048.x
9.
CrawfordD. C.LinJ.Cooke BaileyJ. N.KinzyT.SedorJ. R.O’TooleJ. F.BushW. S. (2020). Frequency of ClinVar pathogenic variants in chronic kidney disease patients surveyed for return of research results at a Cleveland public hospital. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, 25, 575–586. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789811215636_0051
10.
DavisR. E.CaldwellC. H.CouperM. P.JanzN. K.AlexanderG. L.GreeneS. M.ZhangN.ResnicowK. (2013). Ethnic identity, questionnaire content, and the dilemma of race matching in surveys of African Americans by African American interviewers. Field Methods, 25(2), 142–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X12449709
11.
EdwardsK. L.GoodmanD.JohnsonC. O.WenzelL.ConditC.BowenD. (2018). Controversies among cancer registry participants, genomic researchers, and institutional review boards about returning Participants’ genomic results. Public Health Genomics, 21(1–2), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1159/000490235
12.
FabsitzR. R.McGuireA.SharpR. R.PuggalM.BeskowL. M.BieseckerL. G.BookmanE.BurkeW.BurchardE. G.ChurchG.ClaytonE. W.EckfeldtJ. H.FernandezC. V.FisherR.FullertonS. M.GabrielS.GachupinF.JamesC.JarvikG. P., … & National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group (2010). Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants: Updated guidelines from a national heart, lung, and blood institute working group. Circulation. Cardiovascular Genetics, 3(6), 574–580. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCGENETICS.110.958827
13.
FlessnerM. F.WyattS. B.AkylbekovaE. L.CoadyS.FulopT.LeeF.TaylorH. A.CrookE. (2009). Prevalence and awareness of CKD among African Americans: The Jackson heart study. American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 53(2), 238–247. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2008.08.035
14.
FreedmanB. I. (2015). APOL1 And kidney disease: New insights leading to novel therapies. American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 66(1), 9–11. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2015.05.005
15.
FreedmanB. I.LockeJ. E.Reeves-DanielA. M.JulianB. A. (2017). Apolipoprotein L1 gene effects on kidney transplantation. Seminars in Nephrology, 37(6), 530–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semnephrol.2017.07.006
16.
GenoveseG.FriedmanD. J.RossM. D.LecordierL.UzureauP.FreedmanB. I.BowdenD. W.LangefeldC. D.OleksykT. K.Uscinski KnobA. L.BernhardyA. J.HicksP. J.NelsonG. W.VanhollebekeB.WinklerC. A.KoppJ. B.PaysE.PollakM. R. (2010). Association of trypanolytic ApoL1 variants with kidney disease in African Americans. Science, 329(5993), 841–845. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193032
17.
GenoveseG.TonnaS. J.KnobA. U.AppelG. B.KatzA.BernhardyA. J.NeedhamA. W.LazarusR.PollakM. R. (2010). A risk allele for focal segmental glomerulosclerosis in African Americans is located within a region containing APOL1 and MYH9. Kidney International, 78(7), 698–704. https://doi.org/10.1038/ki.2010.251
18.
GeorgeS.DuranN.NorrisK. (2014). A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to minority research participation among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders. American Journal of Public Health, 104(2), e16–e31. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301706
19.
GordonE. J.AmόrteguiD.BlancasI.WicklundC.FriedewaldJ.SharpR. R. (2018). African American living donors’ attitudes about APOL1 genetic testing: A mixed methods study. American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 72(6), 819–833. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2018.07.017
20.
HallY. N. (2018). Social determinants of health: Addressing unmet needs in nephrology. American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 72(4), 582–591. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2017.12.016
21.
HalversonC. M.RossL. F. (2012). Engaging African-Americans about biobanks and the return of research results. Journal of Community Genetics, 3(4), 275–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-012-0091-3
22.
HendersonG. E.ChurchillL. R.DavisA. M.EasterM. M.GradyC.JoffeS.KassN.KingN. M. P.LidzC. W.MillerF. G.NelsonD. K.PeppercornJ.RothschildB. B.SankarP.WilfondB. S.ZimmerC. R. (2007). Clinical trials and medical care: Defining the therapeutic misconception. PLoS Medicine, 4(11), e324. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040324
23.
HollandsG. J.FrenchD. P.GriffinS. J.PrevostA. T.SuttonS.KingS.MarteauT. M. (2016). The impact of communicating genetic risks of disease on risk-reducing health behaviour: Systematic review with meta-analysis. BMJ, 352, i1102. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i1102
24.
HorowitzC. R.FerrymanK.NegronR.SabinT.RodriguezM.ZinbergR. F.BöttingerE.RobinsonM. (2017). Race, genomics and chronic disease: What patients with African ancestry have to say. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 28(1), 248–260. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2017.0020
25.
JamalL.RobinsonJ. O.ChristensenK. D.Blumenthal-BarbyJ.SlashinskiM. J.PerryD. L.VassyJ. L.WycliffJ.GreenR. C.McGuireA. L. (2017). When bins blur: Patient perspectives on categories of results from clinical whole genome sequencing. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 8(2), 82–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2017.1287786
26.
JarvikG. P.AmendolaL. M.BergJ. S.BrothersK.ClaytonE. W.ChungW.EvansB. J.EvansJ. P.FullertonS. M.GallegoC. J.GarrisonN. A.GrayS. W.HolmI. A.KulloI. J.LehmannL. S.McCartyC.ProwsC. A.RehmH. L.SharpR. R., … & BurkeW. (2014). Return of genomic results to research participants: The floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between. American Journal of Human Genetics, 94(6), 818–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.04.009
27.
JoffeS.SellersD. E.EkunweL.Antoine-LavigneD.McGrawS.LevyD.SplanskyG. L. (2019). Preferences for return of genetic results among participants in the Jackson heart study and Framingham heart study. Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine, 12(12), e002632. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCGEN.119.002632
28.
KaplanB.Caddle-SteeleC.ChisholmG.EsmondW. A.FerrymanK.GertnerM.GoytiaC.HauserD.RichardsonL. D.RobinsonM.HorowitzC. R. (2017). A culture of understanding: Reflections and suggestions from a genomics research community board. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 11(2), 161–165. https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2017.0020
29.
KohlerJ. N.TurbittE.LewisK. L.WilfondB. S.JamalL.PeayH. L.BieseckerL. G.BieseckerB. B. (2017). Defining personal utility in genomics: A Delphi study. Clinical Genetics, 92(3), 290–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.12998
30.
KoppJ. B.NelsonG. W.SampathK.JohnsonR. C.GenoveseG.AnP.FriedmanD.BriggsW.DartR.KorbetS.MokrzyckiM. H.KimmelP. L.LimouS.AhujaT. S.BernsJ. S.FrycJ.SimonE. E.SmithM. C.TrachtmanH., … & WinklerC. A. (2011). APOL1 genetic variants in focal segmental glomerulosclerosis and HIV-associated nephropathy. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 22(11), 2129–2137. https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2011040388
31.
LidzC. W.AlbertK.AppelbaumP.DunnL. B.OvertonE.PivovarovaE. (2015). Why is therapeutic misconception so prevalent?Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics: CQ: The International Journal of Healthcare Ethics Committees, 24(2), 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1017/S096318011400053X
32.
LimouS.NelsonG. W.KoppJ. B.WinklerC. A. (2014). APOL1 Kidney risk alleles: Population genetics and disease associations. Advances in Chronic Kidney Disease, 21(5), 426–433. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ackd.2014.06.005
33.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
34.
MurphyJ.ScottJ.KaufmanD.GellerG.LeRoyL.HudsonK. (2008). Public expectations for return of results from large-cohort genetic research. The American Journal of Bioethics, 8(11), 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/152651608025
13093
35.
National Academies of Sciences, E. (2018). Returning Individual Research Results to Participants: Guidance for a New Research Paradigm. https://doi.org/10.17226/25094.
36.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html.
37.
NobileH.VermeulenE.ThysK.BergmannM. M.BorryP. (2013). Why do participants enroll in population biobank studies? A systematic literature review. Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics, 13(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1586/erm.12.116
38.
PalmerN. D.FreedmanB. I. (2013). APOL1 And progression of nondiabetic nephropathy. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 24(9), 1344–1346. https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2013060589
39.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage Publications.
40.
PeraltaC. A.Bibbins-DomingoK.VittinghoffE.LinF.FornageM.KoppJ. B.WinklerC. A. (2016). APOL1 Genotype and race differences in incident albuminuria and renal function decline. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 27(3), 887–893. https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2015020124
41.
RichardsJ. E.BaneE.FullertonS. M.LudmanE. J.JarvikG. (2016). Allocation of resources to communication of research result summaries. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 11(4), 364–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264616667126
ScharffD. P.MathewsK. J.JacksonP.HoffsuemmerJ.MartinE.EdwardsD. (2010). More than Tuskegee: Understanding mistrust about research participation. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 21(3), 879–897. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.0.0323
44.
SmirnoffM.WiletsI.RaginD. F.AdamsR.HolohanJ.RhodesR.WinkelG.RicciE. M.ClescaC.RichardsonL. D. (2018). A paradigm for understanding trust and mistrust in medical research: The community VOICES study. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 9(1), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2018.1432718
45.
UmeukejeE. M.YoungB. A.FullertonS. M.CavanaughK.OwensD.WilsonJ. G.BurkeW.BlacksherE. (2019). You are just now telling us about this? African American perspectives of testing for genetic susceptibility to kidney disease. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 30(4), 526–530. https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2018111091
46.
USRDS (2020). USRDS Annual data report: Epidemiology of kidney disease in the United States. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. https://www.usrds.org/annual-data-report/.
47.
Viberg JohanssonJ.LangenskiöldS.SegerdahlP.HanssonM. G.HöstereyU. U.GummessonA.VeldwijkJ. (2019). Research participants’ preferences for receiving genetic risk information: A discrete choice experiment. Genetics in Medicine, 21(10), 2381–2389. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-019-0511-4
48.
WestK. M.BlacksherE.CavanaughK. L.FullertonS. M.UmeukejeE. M.YoungB. A.BurkeW. (2020). At the research-clinical interface: Returning individual genetic results to research participants. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 15(8), 1181–1189. https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.09670819
49.
What are the risks and limitations of genetic testing?: MedlinePlus Genetics (n.d.). Retrieved April 21, 2021, from https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/testing/riskslimitations/
WrightM. F.LewisK. L.FisherT. C.HookerG. W.EmanuelT. E.BieseckerL. G.BieseckerB. B. (2014). Preferences for results delivery from exome sequencing/genome sequencing. Genetics in Medicine, 16(6), 442–447. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.170
52.
YoungB. A.BlacksherE.CavanaughK. L.FreedmanB. I.FullertonS. M.KoppJ. B.UmeukejeE. M.WestK. M.WilsonJ. G.BurkeW., & APOL1 Stakeholders Project (2019). Apolipoprotein L1 testing in African Americans: Involving the community in policy discussions. American Journal of Nephrology, 50(4), 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1159/000502675
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
