Mutational analysis in UK patients with a clinical diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolaemia: relationship with plasma lipid traits, heart disease risk and utility in relative tracing.

As part of a randomised trial [Genetic Risk Assessment for Familial Hypercholesterolaemia (FH) Trial] of the psychological consequences of DNA-based and non-DNA-based diagnosis of FH, 338 probands with a clinical diagnosis of FH (46% with tendon xanthomas) were recruited. In the DNA-based testing arm (245 probands), using single-strand conformation polymorphism of all exons of the low-density lipoprotein receptor (LDLR) gene, 48 different pathogenic mutations were found in 62 probands (25%), while 7 (2.9%) of the patients had the R3500Q mutation in the apolipoprotein B (APOB) gene. Compared to those with no detected mutation, mean untreated cholesterol levels in those with the APOB mutation were similar, while in those with an LDLR mutation levels were significantly higher (None=9.15+/-1.62 vs LDLR=9.13+/-1.16 vs APOB=10.26+/-2.07 mmol/l p<0.001, respectively). Thirty seven percent of the detected mutations were in exon 3/4 of LDLR, and this group had significantly higher untreated cholesterol than those with other LDLR mutations (11.71+/-2.39 mmol/l vs 9.88+/-2.44 mmol/l, p=0.03), and more evidence of coronary disease compared to those with other LDLR or APOB mutations (36 vs 13% p=0.04). Of the probands with a detected mutation, 54 first-degree relatives were identified, of whom 27 (50%) had a mutation. Of these, 18 had untreated cholesterol above the 95th percentile for their age and gender, but there was overlap with levels in the non-carrier relatives such that 12% of subjects would have been incorrectly diagnosed on lipid levels alone. In the non-DNA-based testing arm (82 probands) only 19 of the 74 relatives identified had untreated cholesterol above the 95th percentile for their age and gender, which was significantly lower (p<0.0005) than the 50% expected for monogenic inheritance. These data confirm the genetic heterogeneity of LDLR mutations in the UK and the deleterious effect of mutations in exon 3 or 4 of LDLR on receptor function, lipids and severity of coronary heart disease. In patients with a clinical diagnosis of FH but no detectable mutation, there is weaker evidence for a monogenic cause compared with relatives of probands with LDLR mutations. This supports the usefulness of DNA testing to confirm diagnosis of FH for the treatment of hyperlipidaemia and for further cascade screening.

FG syndrome: linkage analysis in two families supporting a new gene localization at Xp22.3 [FGS3].

FG syndrome (OMIM 305450) is an X-linked condition comprising mental retardation, congenital hypotonia, constipation or anal malformations, and a distinctive appearance with disproportionately large head, tall and broad forehead, cowlicks and telecanthus. In a first linkage analysis carried out on 10 families, we demonstrated heterogeneity and assigned one gene [FGS1] to region Xq12-q21.31 [Briault et al., 1997: Am J Med Genet 73:87-90] corroborated by Graham et al. [1998: Am J Med Genet 80:145-156]. Heterogeneity was supported by the study of one family with apparent FG syndrome co-segregating with an inversion of X chromosome [inv(X)(q11q28)] ([FGS2], OMIM 300321) [Briault et al., 1999: Am J Med Genet 86:112-114 and Briault et al., 2000: Am J Med Genet 95:178-181]. We present the results of a new linkage analysis carried out on two families with FG syndrome. The two earlier known loci for FG syndrome, FGS1 and FGS2 (Xq11 or Xq28) were excluded by multipoint analysis of both families. Linkage was found, however, with locus DXS1060 suggesting that a third FG locus might be located at Xp22.3. In this region, two potential candidate genes, VCX-A and PRKX, were excluded by sequence analysis of the coding region in patients of the two reported FG families. The search for new candidate genes is in progress.

Nowgen, A Center for Genetics in Healthcare.

It is now widely agreed that genetics is set to play a major role in healthcare; 'personalized' medicine, new approaches for treating cancer, and stem cell therapies are typical of the exciting areas of development, whilst large-scale epidemiological studies are uncovering genetic factors in pathways involved in complex disease. Nowgen, A Center for Genetics in Healthcare is a publicly funded organization examining the wider impact of genetics and genomics on the delivery of 21st century medicine. We recognize that the adoption of new technologies and treatments will be shaped by many factors, including public and patient beliefs and attitudes, the knowledge of professionals, and wider business approaches to these innovations. Our role is also to consider these developments within the UK National Health Service. We place ourselves at the center of the current discourse between these groups, setting out to perform applied research, inform and canvass opinion, disseminate knowledge, monitor developments and inform policy relating to the future of genetic medicine.

Is the UK public ready for genetic medicine?

While discussion about the potential for personalized medicine persists, in the UK embedding pharmacogenetics in mainstream clinical practice will also depend on high levels of confidence and trust of citizens in the motives of stakeholders. The role of Government, regulators and the guidance offered by health practitioners will contribute to its acceptance or otherwise. Nowgen, a center for genetics in healthcare, is dedicated to exploring how health service research, practice and innovation, in relation to genetic medicine, are informed and perceived by the public. In 2006, Nowgen commissioned a national polling organization, ICM, to carry out a representative survey of UK public attitudes to key questions related to genetic medicine, in order to help inform its future activity. The survey indicated that the UK public is relatively well informed about the contribution made by genes to common and complex disease and that it is fairly optimistic about the role of genetics in the treatment of a range of medical conditions. A significant proportion of the population seem reticent to subscribe to genetic testing in order to personalize drug prescription, although the rationale for resistance is, as yet, unclear.

Psychological impact of genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolemia within a previously aware population: a randomized controlled trial.

This trial tests the hypothesis that confirming a clinical diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) by finding a genetic mutation reduces patients' perceptions of control over the disease and adherence to risk-reducing behaviors. Three hundred forty-one families, comprising 341 hypercholesterolemia probands and 128 adult relatives, were randomized to one of two groups: (a) routine clinical diagnosis; (b) routine clinical diagnosis plus genetic testing (mutation searching in probands and direct gene testing in relatives). The main outcome measures were perceptions of control over hypercholesterolemia, adherence to cholesterol-lowering medication, diet, physical activity, and smoking. There was no support for the main hypothesis: finding a mutation had no impact on perceived control or adherence to risk-reducing behavior (all P-values > 0.10). While all groups believed that lowering cholesterol was an effective way of reducing the risk of a heart attack, participants in whom a mutation was found believed less strongly in the efficacy of diet in reducing their cholesterol level (P = 0.02 at 6 months) and showed a trend in believing more strongly in the efficacy of cholesterol-lowering medication (P = 0.06 at 6 months). In conclusion, finding a mutation to confirm a clinical diagnosis of FH in a previously aware population does not reduce perceptions of control or adherence to risk-reducing behaviors. The pattern of findings leads to the new hypothesis that genetic testing does not affect the extent to which people feel they have control over a condition, but does affect their perceptions of how control is most effectively achieved. Further work is needed to determine whether similar results will be obtained in populations with little previous awareness of their risks.