Family History as a Predictor for Disease Risk in Healthy Individuals: A Cross-Sectional Study in Slovenia

Abstract

BackgroundFamily history can be used as a genetic risk predictor for common non-communicable diseases. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of healthy individuals at risk of developing these diseases, based on their self-reported family history.Methods and FindingsThis was a cross-sectional observational study. Data were collected in the three largest occupational practices in primary health care centres in Slovenia, a Central European country. The study population consisted of consecutive individuals who came to occupational practices for their regular preventive check-up from November 2010 to June 2012. We included 1,696 individuals. Data were collected by a self-developed questionnaire. The main outcome was the number of participants at a moderate or high risk for the development of cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and cancer.The final sample consisted of 1,340 respondents. Moderate or high risk for the development of cardiovascular diseases was present in 280 (20.9%) participants, for the development of diabetes in 154 (11.5%) participants and for cancer in 163 (12.1%) participants. ConclusionsIn this study, we found a significant proportion of healthy individuals with an increased genetic risk for common non-communicable diseases; consequently further genetic and clinical evaluation and preventive measures should be offered.

The Prognostic Value of Family History for the Estimation of Cardiovascular Mortality Risk in Men: Results from a Long-Term Cohort Study in Lithuania

“…Although the term “family history of CVD (or CHD)” is frequently used, there is no common or uniform definition at the moment. Most definitions include statements of either “family history of CVD” or “family history of CVD (or CHD, or stroke, or heart attack) among first-degree relatives” and are treated as a binary variable [ 21 , 22 ]. The current most common definition of family history of CVD also includes the age of CVD occurrence: early (premature) CVD (at age before 55 or 60 years for men and before 65 years for women) and late CVD in first-degree relatives [ 23 , 24 ].…”

“…In other countries, the results of cross-sectional and prospective studies show that from 6.5% to 50% of respondents have a first or second-degree relative with CVD [ 7 , 8 , 22 , 27 , 28 ]. The differences in the prevalence of family history of CVD found in epidemiological studies might be explained by the differences in study samples (age, gender, disease status (free from CVD or with CVD at baseline)) and different definitions of the family history of CVD.…”

“…The definition of a positive family history included both fatal and non-fatal CVD, such as MI, coronary revascularisation, peripheral vascular intervention on inguinal or lower limb arteries, stroke, carotid revascularisation, or sudden cardiac death [ 32 ]. Other studies used the definition of family history of CVD or CHD without specifying what forms of the disease were considered [ 22 , 24 ]. In our study, we asked participants about specific forms of both fatal and non-fatal CVD among their parents and siblings: MI, stroke, and sudden death.…”

Development of an Algorithm for Determining of Genetic Risk at the Primary Healthcare Level – A New Tool for Primary Prevention: A Study Protocol

“…According to Qureshi, a systematic consideration of positive family burden with CVD showed that there were 4.8% more patients at high risk of CVD (13). An FH of diabetes is associated with an increased risk of developing the condition (14,15). This risk can be assessed in the general population, and using FH in cancer patients can identify families at increased risk of malignant diseases (16).…”

Communicating about family health history: heredity, culture, iatrogenesis and the public good

“…Self-reported family history within a sample of 1340 healthy Slovenian respondents found 280 (or 20%) at moderate or high risk for developing CVD, 154 (11.5%) for diabetes, and 163 (12.1%) for cancer, leading to the recommendation to offer genetic evaluation 9. This response aligns with clinical intervention, including genetic testing, while neglecting consideration of whether available and affordable resources for evaluation and follow-up exist.…”