European Heart Rhythm Association (ehra)/heart Rhythm Society (hrs)/asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (aphrs)/latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS) Expert Consensus Statement on the State of Genetic Testing for Cardiac Diseases
Arthur A.M. Wilde,Christopher Semsarian,Manlio F. Márquez,Alireza Sepehri Shamloo,Michael J. Ackerman,Euan A. Ashley,Back Sternick Eduardo,Héctor Barajas-Martínez,Elijah Behr,Connie R. Bezzina,Jeroen Breckpot,Philippe Charron,Priya Chockalingam,Lia Crotti,Michael H. Gollob,Steven A. Lubitz,Naomasa Makita,Seiko Ohno,Martín Ortiz‐Genga,Luciana Sacilotto,Eric Schulze‐Bahr,Wataru Shimizu,Nona Sotoodehnia,Rafik Tadros,James S. Ware,David S. Winlaw,Elizabeth S. Kaufman,Takeshi Aiba,A Bollmann,Jong‐Il Choi,Aarti Dalal,Francisco Carlos da Costa Darrieux,John R. Giudicessi,Mariana Guerchicoff,Kui Hong,Andrew D. Krahn,Ciorsti Mac Intyre,Judith A. Mackall,Lluís Mont,Carlo Napolitano,P Juan,Petr Peichl,Alexandre C. Pereira,Peter J. Schwartz,Jon Skinner,Christoph Stellbrink,Jacob Tfelt‐Hansen,Thomas Deneke
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/joa3.12717
2022-01-01
Journal of Arrhythmia
Abstract:Genetic testing has advanced significantly since the publication of the 2011 HRS/EHRA Expert Consensus Statement on the State of Genetic Testing for the Channelopathies and Cardiomyopathies.1 In addition to single-gene testing, there is now the ability to perform whole-exome sequencing (WES) and whole-genome sequencing (WGS). There is growing appreciation of oligogenic disorders,2, 3 the role of modifier genes,2 and the use of genetic testing for risk stratification, even in common cardiac diseases such as coronary artery disease or atrial fibrillation (AFib), including a proposal for a score awaiting validation.4 This document reviews the state of genetic testing at the present time, and addresses the questions of what tests to perform and when to perform them. It should be noted that, as articulated in a 1999 Task Force Document by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) on the legal value of medical guidelines,5 ‘The guidelines from an international organization, such as the ESC, have no specific legal territory and have no legally enforcing character. Nonetheless, in so far as they represent the state-of-the-art, they may be used as indicating deviation from evidence-based medicine in cases of questioned liability’. In the case of potentially lethal and treatable conditions such as catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT) or long QT syndrome (LQTS), it is the responsibility of the physician, preferably in conjunction with an expert genetics team, to communicate to the patient/family the critical importance of family screening, whether this be facilitated by cascade genetic testing or by broader clinical family screening. The writing committee included chairs and representatives nominated and approved by European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). Chairs and authors had no relevant relationship with industry (RWI). Details are available in Supplementary material online. Writing committee members were assigned topics, compiled tables of recommendations supported by appropriate text and references, and attended periodic virtual meetings. Writing committee members without relevant RWI drafted recommendations. In the arena of genetic testing, there are few if any randomized trials to provide the strongest level of scientific evidence. Recommendations were associated with a green heart symbol (‘should do this’) if supported by at least strong observational evidence and author consensus. A yellow heart (‘may do this’) was used if there was some evidence and general agreement. A red heart (‘do not do this’) indicated evidence or general agreement not to perform this testing (Table 1). Writing committee consensus of 80% was required. The recommendations were approved by an average of 93% of the writing committee members. After review by the writing committee, the recommendations were opened for public comment. The document was then reviewed by the scientific documents committees of EHRA, HRS, APHRS, and LAHRS. After revision, the document was sent to external reviewers nominated by the participating societies. After further revision, the document was endorsed by the collaborating societies and presented for publication. This document addresses essential principles of genetic testing including modes of inheritance, different testing methodologies, and interpretation of variants. Additionally, the document presents the state of genetic testing for inherited arrhythmia syndromes, cardiomyopathies, sudden cardiac death (SCD), congenital heart disease (CHD), coronary artery disease, and heart failure. A discussion of aortopathies and hyperlipidaemia is beyond the scope of this document. The authors discuss diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications of genetic testing in each of these syndromes, as far as these are known. The writing committee recognizes that the feasibility of genomic testing by gene panel testing or by WES or WGS depends on the availability of genomic technology and on regional reimbursement policy. Therefore, the recommendation ‘should do this’ can be read as ‘should do this when available’. Table 2 lists previous guidelines and consensus statements that are considered pertinent for this document as they all include relevant information for the diagnosis of patients with inherited cardiovascular conditions (ICCs) and the need for genetic testing. The terms and abbreviations used in consensus statement are summarized in Table 3. Research conducted, over the last three decades, has provided considerable insights into the modes of inheritance of cardiovascular disorders and into the underlying genes and pathways. These insights were fuelled by developments in technologies for DNA sequencing and genotyping, statistical genetic approaches, and our increased understanding of the wide spectrum of genetic variation in the general population. Two broad categories of cardiovascular disorders are recognized: Mendelian disorders that are caused by the inheritance of one or two genetic variants and that typically cluster in families, and disorders with complex inheritance, wherein multiple genetic variants contribute and for which familial clustering is less pronounced. In both categories non-genetic factors also contribute to the ultimate phenotypic expression. Inheritance patterns for monogenic disorders include autosomal dominant (AD), autosomal recessive (AR), and sex-linked. In AD disorders, the inheritance of a single defective copy of a gene, either the maternal or the paternal copy, is sufficient to cause the disorder. In some cases, an AD condition may result from a de novo variant in the gene and occurs in individuals with no history of the disorder in their family. In AR disorders, both the maternal and paternal copies need to be defective to produce the disorder. X-linked disorders are caused by pathogenic variants in genes on the X chromosome. Two types of X-linked disorders are recognized, X-linked dominant and X-linked recessive. In females with an X-linked dominant condition, a pathogenic variant in one of the two copies of the gene is sufficient to cause the condition. In males, who have only one X chromosome, a pathogenic variant in the only copy of the gene causes the disorder. In X-linked recessive inheritance, in males, one defective copy of the gene is sufficient to cause the condition, whereas females are mildy affected or unaffected if only one copy of the gene is aberrant. A characteristic of both types of X-linked inheritance is that males cannot pass on the disorder to their sons. Besides Mendelian inheritance, single-gene disorders may exhibit mitochondrial inheritance. Because mitochondrial DNA is inherited from the mother, only females can pass on genetic defects residing on mitochondrial DNA. In rare cases, disease-causing variants may arise post-zygotically (during development), leading to mosaicism (the occurrence of genetically distinct cell populations). Mosaicism may be limited to somatic cells, where there would be no risk of passing the disease-variant to the offspring, or it may also affect the germ line cell population and in this way the disease variant may be passed to the offspring. Disease-associated genetic variants likely lie on a spectrum of population frequency and phenotype effect size. Mendelian variants, when dominant, are usually characterized by an ultra-low minor allele frequency (MAF, typically <0.01%) in the population and have large effect sizes (Figure 1). Classically, genes underlying Mendelian disorders were identified by linkage studies that tracked chromosomal regions that are co-inherited with the condition in multiple affected individuals in families, followed by Sanger sequencing of the linked chromosomal interval. More recently, next-generation sequencing (NGS) and WES have been successful in identifying novel genes underlying Mendelian disorders. It is estimated that there are about 7000 single-gene inherited disorders of which causative genes have been discovered for over 4000.23 Accordingly, many genes for hereditary cardiomyopathies, including dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), and arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (ACM); hereditary arrhythmias, such as LQTSs, Brugada syndrome (BrS), short QT syndromes (SQTSs), and CPVT; and cardiac conduction defects have been identified.24 In Mendelian cardiovascular disorders with potentially devastating initial manifestations, such as SCD or aortic dissection, appropriate and prompt identification of individuals at risk is imperative.25 Genetic testing has been recommended for a number of inherited cardiac conditions for several years and has become a standard aspect of clinical management in affected families. The primary benefit of genetic testing is to identify at-risk carriers of the familial pathogenic variant (and non-carriers who are unlikely to develop disease) through cascade screening, assuming a genetic variant is identified that can be predicted with confidence to cause the disease. Such clinical genetic testing for these single-gene disorders has been shown to be cost-effective26 and can be considered as a success story in the application of genetics into clinical practice. Although pathogenic Mendelian genetic variants are characterized by a large effect size, they may not in isolation be sufficient to yield a disease phenotype. This is evidenced by incomplete disease penetrance where only a proportion of individuals in the same family carrying a particular genetic variant shows the disease. Another feature that characterizes Mendelian disorders is the phenomenon of variable expressivity, where different disease severity is observed among individuals carrying the same underlying genetic predisposition. What this means is that, even within pedigrees sharing the same pathogenic variant, the clinical presentation can vary from a patient having no clinical manifestation of the disease to another having severe disease. A clearly pathogenic variant can, therefore, have high diagnostic value, but low prognostic utility.27 Besides non-genetic (such as environmental) factors, penetrance and expressivity of Mendelian genetic defects are influenced by the co-inheritance of other genetic factors alongside the Mendelian genetic defect, that act to exacerbate or attenuate the effect of the latter on the phenotype (often referred to as ‘genetic modifiers’, Figure 1). Contrary to Mendelian disorders, where a single large-effect variant primarily determines susceptibility to the disorder, susceptibility to disorders with complex inheritance rests on the co-inheritance of multiple variants. Such variants are identified by means of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) that compare the prevalence of millions of genetic variants genome-wide between affected individuals and controls. Non-Mendelian genetic risk variants that contribute to cardiovascular disease risk and that are detectable with current approaches and study sample sizes can be broadly grouped into two categories. These comprise common variants, typically defined as having a MAF of >1–5%, which have individually small effect sizes, and intermediate effect variants (MAF <1–2%) with effect sizes and frequencies between common and Mendelian variants (Figure 1). It is likely that a continuum of genetic complexity exists where at one end of the spectrum are Mendelian disorders determined primarily by the inheritance of an ultra-rare large-effect genetic defect, and at the other end are highly polygenic disorders determined by many genetic variants with additive effect (Figure 1). While some disorders present primarily with one form of inheritance, different inheritance patterns may exist for the same disorder.28 Emerging data suggest that common variants of small effect and intermediate effect variants may, to varying extents, influence penetrance in individuals with Mendelian genetic defects by pushing the genetic burden towards the threshold of disease, as well as influence severity of disease.29, 30 While their incorporation into genetic testing approaches is expected to increase the sensitivity of genetic testing, the identification of such modulatory variants is still a matter of intense research and therefore currently not clinically applicable. Genomic technology has enabled efficient and comprehensive assessment of genetic variation within individuals. We each carry millions of variants in our genome, ranging in size from substitutions of a single-nucleotide (single-nucleotide variant; SNV, sometimes termed SNP) to deletions or duplications of an entire chromosome. Smaller variants, such as SNVs, are more prevalent in our genomes. We each carry about 100 SNVs that have arisen de novo during our development and are private to us,31 and thousands of other rare SNVs.32 The largest structural variants are much less prevalent, for example aneuploidy (the presence of an abnormal number of chromosomes in a cell), affects about 1 in 300 live births.33 Though individually smaller variants are less likely to cause disease than larger changes that are more likely to disrupt genome function, collectively they probably account for the majority of phenotypic variability and inherited disease.34, 35 The largest genetic variants were the first to be detectable and associated with disease, with an extra copy of chromosome 21 detectable by microscopy, and recognized as causing Down’s syndrome in 1959.36 In 1977, Sanger sequencing was developed as a method for directly reading the sequence of DNA,37 with the resolution to discover SNVs. It was the most widely used DNA sequencing technology for more than 30 years, underpinning the human genome project (1990–2003),38 and remains an important tool today as it is fast, flexible, and remains the gold-standard for accuracy. However, it is prohibitively costly and laborious for large scale genomics, or diagnostics of ICCs at scale. The human genome, for example, is made up of ∼3 billion base pairs, with about 20 000 distinct protein-coding genes. One sequencing reaction reads out up to ∼1000 base pairs of sequence (equivalent to 1000 base pairs), so that typically one reaction is required per exon of a gene. Large genes require many reactions (e.g. RYR2 has 105 exons, TTN has 364 exons). Furthermore, ICCs are genetically heterogeneous, so that it is often necessary to sequence many genes in an individual patient. A ‘next generation’ of sequencing technologies became available in the early 2000s that used diverse strategies to make the sequencing process massively parallel, and therefore vastly more scalable.39, 40 Several high-throughput sequencing technologies are now available, each with different strengths and weaknesses (e.g. emphasizing cost, speed, accuracy or read-length), and high-throughput sequencing now is the mainstay for first-line sequencing in most diagnostic contexts. High-throughput sequencing allows WGS, or with additional sample preparation, restriction to specific genomic regions of interest: targeted sequencing. The choice of target represents a trade-off of cost vs. completeness of genetic characterization. The region of interest may be restricted by gene, and/or by functional annotation (e.g. coding sequence, promotor region, cis-regulatory element, intron, etc.). Since protein-coding regions represent about 1% of the genome, but harbour ∼85% of disease-causing variants,41 targeted sequencing often prioritises these regions. Typical approaches are to sequence the protein-coding regions of all ∼20 000 annotated genes (WES),42 or a pre-specified set of genes of interest, such as genes related to a particular clinical condition (a ‘gene panel’; usually exons only). Data can also be generated for a large panel of genes, or indeed all genes, but with downstream in silico analysis restricted to a more focused subset—sometimes described as a ‘virtual panel’. In practice there is usually also a trade-off between depth and breadth of sequencing, with broader targets (e.g. WES) leading to reduced sequencing depth and reduced sensitivity in some areas. That is for a given amount of sequencing, as the number of genes sequenced increases, the amount of data from each gene decreases. We can focus sequencing on a narrow region for maximum accuracy, or can spread across a larger region, accepting that sensitivity will decrease if sequencing is spread too thinly. Currently, more targeted sequencing often provides more complete data for the selected region. Table 4 summarizes the strengths and limitations of the various genetic testing methods. While exon sequencing typically also targets sufficient immediately adjacent sequence to detect non-coding variants disrupting known splice sites, it will not detect variants that create new splice sites at a distance from the usual coding sequence, and usually omits 5′- and 3′-untranslated regions and other regulatory elements which can harbour important disease-associated variants.43, 44 Sequencing methods also differ in their sensitivity for different variant types. All methods are able to detect the small variants that account for the majority of the burden of ICCs (SNVs, small insertions and deletions). Larger and more complex variants, such as deletion of a whole exon, or a complex genomic rearrangement, are often harder to detect, especially if sequencing does not cover the boundary of the variant (the breakpoint). They may nonetheless be detectable in high-throughput sequence data through a change in the number of DNA reads coming from a particular region, or through a change in allele balance (loss of heterozygosity). Whole-genome sequencing offers the most comprehensive sensitivity across all variant classes, but development in computational tools continues to improve detection of structural and copy number variants (CNVs) from WES and panel sequencing.45, 46 However, alternative non-sequencing quantification approaches such as multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) or array comparative genomic hybridization may be more sensitive as discussed below. All sequencing approaches directly read out the DNA sequence(s) present in a sample, allowing analysis of any variation present, and can be used for both discovery and detection of variants. There are some notable additional technologies that can determine the presence or absence of a pre-specified variant, i.e. detection only, that have important clinical applications. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods can be used for variant detection. Allele-specific PCR is cheap and scalable for the detection of a specific variant and quantification of alleles in a sample, but must first be optimized for each variant to be studied. Digital PCR (including droplet digital PCR) allows precise quantification of the number of copies of a target DNA sequence relative to a single-copy reference locus.47 It is cheap and sensitive to small differences in dose and is an important approach to confirm the presence of potential new CNVs identified by sequencing. Other important methods are based on competitive hybridization of DNA to oligonucleotide probes with a known sequence. DNA single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays can detect millions of variants in parallel, but each variant must be pre-specified and the hybridization optimized, and not all variants can be assayed accurately. These have minimal utility for identification of rare variants for Mendelian diagnosis but are widely used where common variants are important, for example in GWAS, calculating polygenic risk scores as detailed below, and in pharmacogenetics.48 Array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) is another genome-wide hybridization-based approach used to detect copy-number changes, of particular importance in congenital structural heart disease and individuals with syndromic ICCs. MLPA combines PCR and hybridization methods to quantify specific nucleic acid sequences quickly and efficiently, and may be used to detect many variant types, but particularly copy number changes.46 These diverse and complementary methods can then be deployed for different types of clinical genetic testing. Confirmatory testing refers to genetic analysis of an individual with a diagnostic clinical phenotype to identify the underlying genetic cause. In a proband (the first presenting person in a family), there is no pre-specified variant to search for, so a direct sequencing approach is used to discover any genetic variation in the genes associated with that condition. For many ICCs, the first line test will be a high-throughput sequencing gene panel relevant to a specific disease, or a virtual panel using WES with targeted analysis. If this analysis does not identify an underlying cause, then more comprehensive genetic characterization, such as WES or WGS, may be used to interrogate additional genes, look for variant types not examined by the first line test, or assess for non-coding variants. This kind of comprehensive testing is appropriate only in experienced centres and with cautious interpretation of any variants identified. Having established the causative variant in one family member, it is appropriate to look only for this specific variant in cascade testing of subsequent family members, using Sanger sequencing or a non-sequencing approach, unless there is reason to suspect additional genetic contributors. Predictive (or cascade) testing refers to testing of individuals with or without a phenotype, often unaffected relatives of an affected proband, with the aim of targeting clinical surveillance to individuals with the genetic predisposition. Sanger sequencing to detect the known familial variant is often used here. WES and WGS also enable opportunistic screening. The American College of Medical Genetics & Genomics (ACMG) recommend that a pre-specified panel of well-characterized disease-associated genes be interrogated whenever clinical exome or genome sequencing is undertaken, irrespective of the primary indication for genomic analysis.49 This panel currently includes 73 genes (‘ACMG SF v3.0’), many of which are ICC genes (Supplementary material online, Table S1).50 The costs and benefits of actively seeking secondary findings remain under evaluation, and these recommendations have not been widely adopted outside the USA. Several companies also offer direct-to-consumer sequencing that includes analysis of ICC genes for individuals without symptoms or signs of disease. The costs and benefits of actively seeking secondary findings remain under evaluation, and a consensus has not been reached about these recommendations. Genome-wide association study is used to test associations between genetic variants and human traits or disease phenotypes (Figure 2A).51 Typically, in a GWAS, each study individual is genotyped by means of a DNA SNP (SNV) array for 200 000 to 1 000 000 known SNVs, although, increasingly, whole-genome sequence data may be used. Array-based genotyping is almost invariably followed by imputation, a process of using the known linkage disequilibrium (correlation) between SNVs in order to predict (impute) unobserved genotypes that are not directly assayed on the array. This permits examination of a greater number of variants (up to 10s of millions). Each variant is then tested for association with the trait or phenotype of interest. Since the positions of the SNVs are known in the genome, the results of a GWAS in one study may be combined with others in a meta-analysis to improve statistical power. Variants with an association P-value <5 × 10−8 are generally considered statistically significant, based on multiple testing correction for the roughly 1 000 000 independent common variant tests (haplotype blocks) in the human genome.52 Similar analytic methods can be used to examine WGS and WES data. Since 2006, the GWAS approach has been successfully implemented across a broad range of phenotypes in cardiovascular genetics. It has been widely applied to identify common variants that modulate interindividual variability of quantitative cardiophysiologic traits, such as electrocardiogram (ECG) parameters,53 cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) parameters54 and blood pressure,55 with the premise that the genetic variants that impinge on such traits also contribute to disease. Genome-wide association study has also been widely applied for identification of susceptibility variants for common multifactorial disorders such as coronary artery disease,56 heart failure,57 and AFib.58 An analytic technique referred to as Mendelian randomization uses genetic information as an instrumental variable to assess for the causal relations between risk factors and diseases. For example, using this approach, GWAS studies of SCD have suggested a genetic correlation between SCD and coronary disease, traditional coronary artery disease risk factors, and electrical instability traits (QT and AFib).59 Genome-wide association studies are increasingly being used to identify common variants that contribute to susceptibility to rare/less common cardiovascular disorders such as BrS,60 LQTS,28 DCM,61 and HCM.29, 30 Notably, GWAS enable the identification of many genetic variants associated with a given trait or disease, which can be used to ‘score’ a specific individual for their aggregate genetic predisposition to that specific trait or disease. Such scores are referred to as polygenic risk scores (PRS) or genomic risk scores. Polygenic risk scores result in numeric estimates that represent the cumulative burden of genetic predisposition to a specific phenotype. The phenotype can be a disease such as DCM, or a trait such as left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction. The scores are typically calculated by combining the effects of many genetic variants in a mathematical framework to derive a single numeric value for an individual. The number of variants included in a PRS may range from a few to several million. The genetic variants chosen for inclusion in a PRS, and the importance or weight given to each variant, are typically derived from large-scale genetic association studies (i.e. GWAS) with the disease or trait of interest. Since genotypes vary at each genomic position across individuals, PRS follow a distribution in the population (Figure 2B). Typically, individuals in the lower tails of a polygenic risk score have a lower risk of developing the disease or trait of interest, whereas those in the upper tails have a higher risk. Polygenic risk scores have been calculated for many conditions including cardiovascular diseases.62 Both the number of conditions for which they have been calculated and the mathematical methods for selecting and weighing variants are rapidly evolving. Polygenic risk scores have been largely utilized for research purposes to date, but scores are increasingly being applied to clinical trial settings63-65 indicating the potential clinical utility of using these risk markers in the management and prevention of common diseases. The potential utility of PRS in less common conditions such as inherited arrhythmias and cardiomyopathies is also being explored.28-30, 66, 8 In the coming years, we anticipate that PRS are likely to enter the clinical practice landscape and become more widely utilized. At present, it seems too early, however. Eventually, PRS may hopefully be able to provide information not only on disease risk but also disease mechanism and therapeutic efficacy. A basic tenet of clinical genetic testing is that the genes evaluated should have strong scientific evidence supporting their disease association.69 Given the challenge of variant interpretation,79 there is risk of inaccurate information being provided to patients and families when genes with limited evidence for disease causality are tested. In the context of life-changing diagnoses which may provoke significant anxiety or aggressive treatment interventions, optimizing methods for best practice of genetic variant interpretation is essential. Recent collaborative projects involving clinical disease experts, genetic counsellors, and clinical/molecular geneticists have provided detailed evidence-based gene classifications for Mendelian arrhythmia and cardiomyopathy disorders, highlighting genes with moderate, strong or definitive evidence for disease causation, and others with limited or disputed evidence12-15, 17, 22 (for definitions of these classifications see page 7 in: https://clinicalgenome.org/site/assets/files/5391/gene_curation_sop_pdf-1.pdf). In 2015, the ACMG provided a standard, criteria-based approach for the interpretation of genetic variants in clinical testing.69 Criteria include the frequency of the allele in people with and without disease, the degree of familial segregation with other affected family members, topological location within relevant functional domains of the protein, and functional analysis of the variant. Importantly, no single criterion alone, including abnormal functional assay, is sufficient to conclude the pathogenicity of a genetic variant. A summation of the evidence leads to a provisional classification of the variant along a probabilistic range of categories: Pathogenic (P), Likely Pathogenic (LP), Variant of Uncertain Clinical Significance (VUS), Likely Benign (LB), Benign (B). Although challenging to quantify, according to ACMG guidelines the terms LP and LB suggest a >90% certainty of a variant being disease-causing or benign, highlighting the significant range of probability for variants classified as VUS. The VUS classification represents the ‘Achilles Heel’ of genetic variant interpretation in the clinical arena. At times, high-volume, multi-disciplinary clinics may have sufficient clinical expertise or evidence that may allow for an upgrading or downgrading of the vari