Effects of polygenic risk score communication on health outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to summarize evidence from all RCTs to-date on the efficacy of polygenic risk score (PRS) communication in changing health outcomes.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Pubmed, from inception to March 2025.

Study selection

Randomized controlled trials comparing disclosure versus non-disclosure of PRS results. Intervention included comunication of risk information from ≥ 2 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNPs).

Methods

Pairs of reviewers conducted screening, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted using inverse variance-weighting with fixed and random effects models. Otto-SR was used to verify screening and data extraction. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB-2) tool. All measurable health-related outcomes were considered eligible.

Results

Of 7,830 articles retrieved, 27 RCTs were eligible. PRSs mainly predicted risks for cancer (n=9 RCTs), cardiovascular diseases (n=8), and diabetes (n=6). 21 RCTs targeted primarily healthy populations, 3 at-risk populations and 3 individuals who had already developed a disease and PRS predicted complications. 15/26 RCTs concluded in their abstracts with favorable claims about the PRS, with only 5/15 justifying it with any statistically significant results. 9/26 RCTs had high risk of bias. Meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant effects on any measured outcome, among 22 outcomes tested in 2 or more trials. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) (95% CI) for dietary outcomes were −0.11 (−0.23; 0.01) for daily energy intake, 0.08 (−0.15; 0.31) for daily fat intake and −0.11 (−0.28; 0.06) for alcohol consumption. For physical activity, SMD was −0.01 (−0.13; 0.11). Relative risks were 1.12 (0.77; 1.61) for screening attendance, 1.50 (0.98; 2.29) for statin use, and 0.95 (0.32; 2.79) for disease incidence. For psychological outcomes, SMDs were −0.02 (−0.13; 0.08) for anxiety, −0.06 (−0.23; 0.10) for worry, −0.10 (−0.40-0.19) for perceived risk, and −0.05 (−0.23; 0.13) for depression. For clinical outcomes, mean differences were −2.01 (−8.27; 4.26) for total cholesterol, −3.64 (−7.88; 0.60) for LDL cholesterol, −0.21 (−2.65; 2.23) for HDL cholesterol, −1.88 (−4.17;0.42) for diastolic blood pressure, −1.26 (−4.44; 1.92) for systolic blood pressure, −0.12 (−0.64; 0.39) for BMI and −0.33 (−0.87; 0.20) for weight. 69 outcomes had been reported in only a single trial (18/69 primary ones), and of those 2 had statistically significant results at p<0.05 as primary outcomes and 3 as secondary outcomes.

Conclusions

Overall, despite frequent promising claims, the disclosure of PRS typically did not lead to meaningful changes in behavioral, psychological or clinical outcomes.

Systematic review registration

OpenScience Framework: doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/28V6J

Summary box