Key result
Pathogenic primary arrhythmia variants occur in ~0.4% of individuals, with impactful interpretation differences across databases.
Why the study?
Databases provide conflicting results for identifying pathogenic secondary finding variants in genes associated with inherited primary arrhythmia syndromes at sufficient evidence for clinical return.
What is the prevalence of pathogenic variants in IPAS-related genes as secondary findings, and how does interpretation vary across major genetic databases?
Cross-Sectional (n=6,381)
What is the prevalence of pathogenic variants in IPAS-related genes as secondary findings, and how does interpretation vary across major genetic databases?
There are significant discrepancies in variant interpretation for inherited primary arrhythmia syndromes across major databases, highlighting the need for international consensus to guide clinical management of secondary findings.
Conflicting database results for IPAS genes warrant caution in secondary finding reports; leaves open accurate penetrance estimates.
As comprehensive sequencing technologies gain widespread use, questions about so-called secondary findings (SF) require urgent consideration. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics has recommended to report SF in 59 genes (ACMG SF v2.0) including four actionable genes associated with inherited primary arrhythmia syndromes (IPAS) such as catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia, long QT syndrome, and Brugada syndrome. Databases provide conflicting results for the purpose of identifying pathogenic variants in SF associated with IPAS at a level of sufficient evidence for clinical return. As IPAS account for a significant proportion of sudden cardiac deaths (SCD) in young and apparently healthy individuals, variant interpretation has a great impact on diagnosis and prevention of disease. Of 6381 individuals, 0.4% carry pathogenic variants in one of the four actionable genes related to IPAS: RYR2, KCNQ1, KCNH2, and SCN5A. Comparison of the databases ClinVar, Leiden Open-source Variant Database, and Human Gene Mutation Database showed impactful differences (0.2% to 1.3%) in variant interpretation improvable by expert-curation depending on database and classification system used. These data further highlight the need for international consensus regarding the variant interpretation, and subsequently management of SF in particular with regard to treatable arrhythmic disorders with increased risk of SCD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Diebold et al. (2020) conducted a cross-sectional in Inherited primary arrhythmia syndromes (n=6,381). Secondary findings in IPAS-related genes was evaluated on Pathogenic variants in RYR2, KCNQ1, KCNH2, and SCN5A. Among 6,381 individuals, 0.4% carried pathogenic variants in four actionable genes related to inherited primary arrhythmia syndromes, with impactful differences (0.2% to 1.3%) between databases.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: