How Primary Care Providers Talk to Patients about Genome Sequencing Results: Risk, Rationale, and Recommendation

Improving the communication of multifactorial cancer risk assessment results for different audiences: a co-design process

BACKGROUND

Multifactorial cancer risk prediction tools, such as CanRisk, are increasingly being incorporated into routine healthcare. Understanding risk information and communicating risk is challenging and healthcare professionals rely substantially on the outputs of risk prediction tools to communicate results. This work aimed to produce a new CanRisk report so users can directly access key information and communicate risk estimates effectively.

METHODS

Over a 13-month period, we led an 8-step co-design process with patients, the public, and healthcare professionals. Steps comprised 1) think aloud testing of the original CanRisk report; 2) structured feedback on the original report; 3) literature review; 4) development of a new report prototype; 5) first round of structured feedback; 6) updating the new report prototype; 7) second round of structured feedback; and 8) finalising and publishing the new CanRisk report.

RESULTS

We received 56 sets of feedback from 34 stakeholders. Overall, the original CanRisk report was not suitable for patients and the public. Building on the feedback, the new report has an overview of the information presented: section one summarises key information for individuals; sections two and three present information for healthcare professionals in different settings. New features also include explanatory text, definitions, graphs, keys and tables to support the interpretation of the information.

DISCUSSION

This co-design experience shows the value of collaboration for the successful communication of complex health information. As a result, the new CanRisk report has the potential to better support shared decision-making processes about cancer risk management across clinical settings.

Ethical, legal, and social implications of genetic risk prediction for multifactorial disease: a narrative review identifying concerns about interpretation and use of polygenic scores

Advances in genomics have enabled the development of polygenic scores (PGS), sometimes called polygenic risk scores, in the context of multifactorial diseases and disorders such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, and schizophrenia. PGS estimate an individual's genetic predisposition, as compared to other members of a population, for conditions which are influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. There is significant interest in using genetic risk prediction afforded through PGS in public health, clinical care, and research settings, yet many acknowledge the need to thoughtfully consider and address ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI). To contribute to this effort, this paper reports on a narrative review of the literature, with the aim of identifying and categorizing ELSI relating to genetic risk prediction in the context of multifactorial disease, which have been raised by scholars in the field. Ninety-two articles, spanning from 1977 to 2021, met the inclusion criteria for this study. Identified ELSI included potential benefits, challenges and risks that focused on concerns about interpretation and use, and ethical obligations to maximize benefits, minimize risks, promote justice, and support autonomy. This research will support geneticists, clinicians, genetic counselors, patients, patient advocates, and policymakers in recognizing and addressing ethical concerns associated with PGS; it will also guide future empirical and normative research.

Re-envisioning community genetics: community empowerment in preventive genomics

As genomic technologies rapidly develop, polygenic scores (PGS) are entering into a growing conversation on how to improve precision in public health and prevent chronic disease. While the integration of PGS into public health and clinical services raises potential benefits, it also introduces potential harms. In particular, there is a high level of uncertainty about how to incorporate PGS into clinical settings in a manner that is equitable, just, and aligned with the long-term goals of many healthcare systems to support person-centered and value-based care. This paper argues that any conversation about whether and how to design and implement PGS clinical services requires dynamic engagement with local communities, patients, and families. These parties often face the consequences, both positive and negative, of such uncertainties and should therefore drive clinical translation. As a collaborative effort between hospital stakeholders, community partners, and researchers, this paper describes a community-empowered co-design process for addressing uncertainty and making programmatic decisions about the implementation of PGS into clinical services. We provide a framework for others interested in designing clinical programs that are responsive to, and inclusive and respectful of, local communities.

A comprehensive genomic reporting structure for communicating all clinically significant primary and secondary findings

Genomic sequencing (GS) can reveal secondary findings (SFs), findings unrelated to the reason for testing, that can be overwhelming to both patients and providers. An effective approach for communicating all clinically significant primary and secondary GS results is needed to effectively manage this large volume of results. The aim of this study was to develop a comprehensive approach to communicate all clinically significant primary and SF results. A genomic test report with accompanying patient and provider letters were developed in three phases: review of current clinical reporting practices, consulting with genetic and non-genetics experts, and iterative refinement through circulation to key stakeholders. The genomic test report and consultation letters present a myriad of clinically relevant GS results in distinct, tabulated sections, including primary (cancer) and secondary findings, with in-depth details of each finding generated from exome sequencing. They provide detailed variant and disease information, personal and familial risk assessments, clinical management details, and additional resources to help support providers and patients with implementing healthcare recommendations related to their GS results. The report and consultation letters represent a comprehensive approach to communicate all clinically significant SFs to patients and providers, facilitating clinical management of GS results.

Challenges and Opportunities in Engaging Primary Care Providers in BRCA Testing: Results from the BFOR Study

PURPOSE

Engaging primary care providers (PCPs) in BRCA1/2 testing and results disclosure would increase testing access. The BRCA Founder OutReach (BFOR) study is a prospective study of BRCA1/2 founder mutation screening among individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent that sought to involve participants' PCPs in results disclosure. We used quantitative and qualitative methods to evaluate PCPs' perspectives, knowledge, and experience disclosing results in BFOR.

METHODS

Among PCPs nominated by BFOR participants to disclose BRCA1/2 results, we assessed the proportion agreeing to disclose. To examine PCP's perspectives, knowledge, and willingness to disclose results, we surveyed 501 nominated PCPs. To examine PCPs' experiences disclosing results in BFOR, we surveyed 101 PCPs and conducted 10 semi-structured interviews.

RESULTS

In the BFOR study overall, PCPs agreed to disclose their patient's results 40.5% of the time. Two hundred thirty-four PCPs (46.7%) responded to the initial survey. Responding PCPs were more likely to agree to disclose patients' results than non-responders (57.3% vs. 28.6%, p<0.001). Among all respondents, most felt very (19.7%) or somewhat (39.1%) qualified to share results. Among PCPs declining to disclose, insufficient knowledge was the most common reason. In multivariable logistic regression, feeling qualified was the only variable significantly associated with agreeing to disclose results (OR 6.53, 95% CI 3.31, 12.88). In post-disclosure surveys (response rate=55%), PCPs reported largely positive experiences. Interview findings suggested that although PCPs valued the study-provided educational materials, they desired better integration of results and decision support into workflows.

CONCLUSION

Barriers exist to incorporating BRCA1/2 testing into primary care. Most PCPs declined to disclose their patients' BFOR results, although survey respondents were motivated and had positive disclosure experiences. PCP training and integrated decision support could be beneficial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03351803), November 24, 2017.

Evaluating Primary Care Providers' Readiness for Delivering Genetic and Genomic Services to Underserved Populations

INTRODUCTION

Increased genomics knowledge and access are advancing precision medicine and care delivery. With the translation of precision medicine across health care, genetics and genomics will play a greater role in primary care services. Health disparities and inadequate representation of racial and ethnically diverse groups threaten equitable access for those historically underserved. Health provider awareness, knowledge, and perceived importance are important determinants of the utilization of genomic applications.

METHODS

We evaluated the readiness of primary care providers at a Federally Qualified Health Center, the Community Health Center, Inc. (CHCI) for delivering genetic and genomic testing to underserved populations. Online survey questions focused on providers' education and training in basic and clinical genetics, familiarity with current genetic tests, and needs for incorporating genetics and genomics into their current practice.

RESULTS

Fifty of 77 (65%) primary care providers responded to the survey. Less than half received any training in basic or clinical genetics (40%), were familiar with specific genetic tests (36%), or felt confident with collecting family health history (44%), and 70% believed patients would benefit from genetic testing.

CONCLUSION

Despite knowledge gaps, respondents recognized the value and need to bring these services to their patients, though would like more education on applying genetics and genomics into their practice, and more training about discussing risk factors associated with race or ethnicity. We provide further evidence of the need for educational resources and standardized guidelines for providers caring for underserved populations to optimize appropriate use and referral of genetic and genomic services and to reduce disparities in care.

Behavioral and psychological impact of genome sequencing: a pilot randomized trial of primary care and cardiology patients

Many expect genome sequencing (GS) to become routine in patient care and preventive medicine, but uncertainties remain about its ability to motivate participants to improve health behaviors and the psychological impact of disclosing results. In a pilot trial with exploratory analyses, we randomized 100 apparently healthy, primary-care participants and 100 cardiology participants to receive a review of their family histories of disease, either alone or in addition to GS analyses. GS results included polygenic risk information for eight cardiometabolic conditions. Overall, no differences were observed between the percentage of participants in the GS and control arms, who reported changes to health behaviors such as diet and exercise at 6 months post disclosure (48% vs. 36%, respectively, p = 0.104). In the GS arm, however, the odds of reporting a behavior change increased by 52% per high-risk polygenic prediction (p = 0.032). Mean anxiety and depression scores for GS and control arms had confidence intervals within equivalence margins of ±1.5. Mediation analyses suggested an indirect impact of GS on health behaviors by causing positive psychological responses (p ≤ 0.001). Findings suggest that GS did not distress participants. Future research on GS in more diverse populations is needed to confirm that it does not raise risks for psychological harms and to confirm the ability of polygenic risk predictions to motivate preventive behaviors.

Multi-gene Pharmacogenomic Testing That Includes Decision-Support Tools to Guide Medication Selection for Major Depression: A Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

Major depression is a substantial public health concern that can affect personal relationships, reduce people's ability to go to school or work, and lead to social isolation. Multi-gene pharmacogenomic testing that includes decision-support tools can help predict which depression medications and dosages are most likely to result in a strong response to treatment or to have the lowest risk of adverse events on the basis of people's genes.We conducted a health technology assessment of multi-gene pharmacogenomic testing that includes decision-support tools for people with major depression. Our assessment evaluated effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding multi-gene pharmacogenomic testing, and patient preferences and values.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized studies (RoBANS) and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria.We performed a systematic literature search of the economic evidence to review published cost-effectiveness studies on multi-gene pharmacogenomic testing that includes a decision-support tool in people with major depression. We developed a state-transition model and conducted a probabilistic analysis to determine the incremental cost of multi-gene pharmacogenomic testing versus treatment as usual per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for people with major depression who had inadequate response to one or more antidepressant medications. In the reference case (with GeneSight-guided care), we considered a 1-year time horizon with an Ontario Ministry of Health perspective. We also estimated the 5-year budget impact of publicly funding multi-gene pharmacogenomic testing for people with major depression in Ontario.To contextualize the potential value of multi-gene pharmacogenomic testing that includes decision-support tools, we spoke with people who have major depression and their families.

RESULTS

We included 14 studies in the clinical evidence review that evaluated six multi-gene pharmacogenomic tests. Although all tests included decision-support tools, they otherwise differed greatly, as did study design, populations included in studies, and outcomes reported. Little or no improvement was observed on change in HAM-D17 depression score compared with treatment as usual for any test evaluated (GRADE: Low-Very Low). GeneSight- and NeuroIDgenetix-guided medication selection led to statistically significant improvements in response (GRADE: Low-Very Low) and remission (GRADE: Low-Very Low), while treatment guided by CNSdose led to significant improvement in remission rates (GRADE: Low), but the study did not report on response. Results were inconsistent and uncertain for the impact of Neuropharmagen, and no significant improvement was observed for Genecept or another unspecified test for either response or remission (GRADE: Low-Very Low). Neuropharmagen may reduce adverse events and CNSDose may reduce intolerability to medication, while no difference was observed in adverse events with GeneSight, Genecept, or another unspecified test (GRADE: Moderate-Very Low). No studies reported data on suicide, treatment adherence, relapse, recovery, or recurrence of depression symptoms.Our review included four model-based economic studies and found that multi-gene pharmacogenomic testing was associated with greater effectiveness and cost savings than treatment as usual, over long-term (i.e., 3-,5-year and lifetime) time horizons. Since none of the included studies was fully applicable to the Ontario health care system, we conducted a primary economic evaluation.Our reference case analysis over the 1-year time horizon found that multi-gene pharmacogenomic testing (with GeneSight) was associated with additional QALYs (0.03, 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.005; 0.072) and additional costs ($1,906, 95% Crl: $688; $3,360). An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $60,564 per QALY gained. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective (vs. treatment as usual) was 36.8% at a willingness-to-pay amount of $50,000 per QALY (i.e., moderately likely not to be cost-effective), rising to 70.7% at a willingness-to-pay amount of $100,000 per QALY (i.e., moderately likely to be cost-effective). Evidence informing economic modeling of the reference case with GeneSight and other multi-gene pharmacogenomic tests was of low to very low quality, implying considerable uncertainty or low confidence in the effectiveness estimates. The price of the test, efficacy of the intervention on remission, time horizon, and analytic perspective were major determinants of the cost-effectiveness results. If the test price were assumed to be $2,162 (compared with $2,500 in the reference case), the intervention would be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay amount of $50,000 per QALY; moreover, if the price decreased to $595, the intervention would be cost saving (or dominant) compared with treatment as usual.At an increasing uptake of 1% per year and a test price of $2,500, the annual budget impact of publicly funding multi-gene pharmacogenomic testing in Ontario over the next 5 years ranged from an additional $3.5 million in year 1 (at uptake of 1%) to $16.8 million in year 5. The 5-year budget impact was estimated at about $52 million.People with major depression and caregivers generally supported multi-gene pharmacogenomic testing because they believed it could provide guidance that fit their values. They hoped such guidance would speed symptom relief, would reduce side effects and help inform their medication choices. Some patients expressed concerns over maintaining confidentiality of test results and the possibility that physicians would sacrifice patient-centred care to follow pharmacogenomic guidance.

CONCLUSIONS

Multi-gene pharmacogenomic testing that includes decision-support tools to guide medication selection for depression varies widely. Differences between individual tests must be considered, as clinical utility observed with one test might not apply to other tests. Overall, effectiveness was inconsistent among the six multi-gene pharmacogenomic tests we identified. Multi-gene pharmacogenomic tests may result in little or no difference in improvement in depression scores compared with treatment as usual, but some tests may improve response to treatment or remission from depression. The impact on adverse events is uncertain. The evidence, however, is uncertain, and therefore our confidence that these observed effects reflect the true effects is low to very low.For the management of major depression in people who had inadequate response to at least one medication, some multi-gene pharmacogenomic tests that include decision support tools are associated with additional costs and QALYs over the 1-year time horizon, and maybe be cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay amount of $100,000 per QALY. Publicly funding multi-gene pharmacogenomic testing in Ontario would result in additional annual costs of between $3.5 million and $16.8 million, with a total budget impact of about $52 million over the next 5 years.People with major depression and caregivers generally supported multi-gene pharmacogenomic testing because they believed it could provide guidance that fit their values. They hoped such guidance would speed symptom relief, would reduce side and help inform their medication choices. Some patients expressed concerns over maintaining confidentiality of test results and the possibility that physicians would sacrifice patient-centred care to follow pharmacogenomic guidance.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Experiences with Population Genetic Testing Offered Through a Primary Care Network

Aims: To explore patient experiences in a large-scale primary care-based, preemptive genetic testing program.

Methods: Patients who received genetic results from the initiative were invited to participate in an online survey 3 weeks postresult disclosure. A 6-month follow-up survey was sent to assess changes over time.

Results: The initial survey was completed by 1646 patients, with 544 completing the 6-month follow-up survey. The following outcomes were high overall: patient-reported understanding of results (cancer: 87%; cardiac: 86%); perceived utility (75%); positive emotions (relieved: 66.8%; happy: 62.0%); family result sharing (67.6%); and satisfaction (87%), although analysis by demographic factors identified groups who may benefit from additional education and emotional support. Results-related health behaviors and discussions with providers increased over time (screening procedures 6.1% to 14.2% p < 0.001; provider discussion 10.3% to 25.3%, p < 0.001), and were more likely to take place for patients with positive cancer and/or cardiac results (39.8% vs. 7.6%, p < 0.001). Forty-seven percent of patients reported insurance discrimination concerns, and most (79.4%) were not familiar with privacy and nondiscrimination laws. Concerns regarding discrimination and negative emotions decreased between the two survey time points (privacy issues 44.6% to 35.1% p < 0.001; life insurance discrimination concerns 35.5% to 29.6%, p = 0.001; anxiety 8.1% to 3.3%, p < 0.001; and uncertainty 19.8% to 12.8%, p < 0.001). These findings led to the development and integration of additional patient resources to improve program implementation.

Conclusion: Our findings highlight patient experiences with and areas of need in a community-based genomic screening pilot initiative using a mixed primary care/genetics provider model to deliver precision medicine.

Interpretation and management of genetic test results by Canadian family physicians: a multiple choice survey of performance

Family physicians (FPs) will encounter genetic concerns within community practice. To determine how FPs compare to genetic counselors (GCs), a cross-sectional survey was distributed to Canadian FPs and GCs in 2019. The survey assessed risk analysis, counseling, and management of genetic information. FPs performed less well than GCs on each survey question and scenario (p < 0.05). Average overall survey scores for FPs were lower than GCs (62% vs. 93%, p < 0.001). Additional genetic training for FPs may help avoid potential harm.

Consent and Privacy in the Era of Precision Medicine and Biobanking Genomic Data

"Big Data represents a challenge that points to the need for collective and political approaches to self-protection rather than solely individual, atomistic approaches."- Anita Allen, "Protecting One's Own Privacy in a Big Data Economy".

Returning Results in the Genomic Era: Initial Experiences of the eMERGE Network

A goal of the 3rd phase of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE3) Network was to examine the return of results (RoR) of actionable variants in more than 100 genes to consenting participants and their healthcare providers. Each of the 10 eMERGE sites developed plans for three essential elements of the RoR process: Disclosure to the participant, notification of the health care provider, and integration of results into the electronic health record (EHR). Procedures and protocols around these three elements were adapted as appropriate to individual site requirements and limitations. Detailed information about the RoR procedures at each site was obtained through structured telephone interviews and follow-up surveys with the clinical investigator leading or participating in the RoR process at each eMERGE3 institution. Because RoR processes at each of the 10 sites allowed for taking into account differences in population, disease focus and institutional requirements, significant heterogeneity of process was identified, including variability in the order in which patients and clinicians were notified and results were placed in the EHR. This heterogeneity in the process flow for eMERGE3 RoR reflects the “real world” of genomic medicine in which RoR procedures must be shaped by the needs of the patients and institutional environments.

Are providers prepared for genomic medicine: interpretation of Direct-to-Consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) results and genetic self-efficacy by medical professionals

Background

Precision medicine is set to deliver a rich new data set of genomic information. However, the number of certified specialists in the United States is small, with only 4244 genetic counselors and 1302 clinical geneticists. We conducted a national survey of 264 medical professionals to evaluate how they interpret genetic test results, determine their confidence and self-efficacy of interpreting genetic test results with patients, and capture their opinions and experiences with direct-to-consumer genetic tests (DTC-GT).

Methods

Participants were grouped into two categories, genetic specialists (genetic counselors and clinical geneticists) and medical providers (primary care, internists, physicians assistants, advanced nurse practitioners, etc.). The survey (full instrument can be found in the Additional file 1) presented three genetic test report scenarios for interpretation: a genetic risk for diabetes, genomic sequencing for symptoms report implicating a potential HMN7B: distal hereditary motor neuropathy VIIB diagnosis, and a statin-induced myopathy risk. Participants were also asked about their opinions on DTC-GT results and rank their own perceived level of preparedness to review genetic test results with patients.

Results

The rates of correctly interpreting results were relatively high (74.4% for the providers compared to the specialist’s 83.4%) and age, prior genetic test consultation experience, and level of trust assigned to the reports were associated with higher correct interpretation rates. The self-selected efficacy and the level of preparedness to consult on a patient’s genetic results were higher for the specialists than the provider group.

Conclusion

Specialists remain the best group to assist patients with DTC-GT, however, primary care providers may still provide accurate interpretation of test results when specialists are unavailable.

Precision medicine: a call for increased pharmacogenomic education

Precision medicine is an emerging model of care where providers consider patients' genetic profiles, lifestyles and environments to offer more precise therapy. The potential of precision medicine is boundless as interdisciplinary teams utilize genetic technologies to improve patient outcomes. The integration of precision medicine into healthcare faces many barriers, including a lack of standardization and reimbursement concerns. This article argues that increased pharmacogenetics education and system-wide implementation is necessary to overcome some of these challenges. Extensive expansion of pharmacogenomics education is a step toward producing knowledgeable clinicians who are poised to apply its methodology and champion for patient-centered care.