The Return of Actionable Variants Empirical (RAVE) Study, a Mayo Clinic Genomic Medicine Implementation Study: Design and Initial Results

Return of Participants' Incidental Genetic Research Findings: Experience from a Case-Control Study of Asthma in an American Indian Community

The proper communication of clinically actionable findings to participants of genetic research entails important ethical considerations, but has been challenging for a variety of reasons. We document an instance of the return of individual genetic results in the context of a very rural American Indian community, in hopes of providing insight to other investigators about potentially superior or inferior courses of action. This was a case/control study of asthma among 324 pediatric participants. Subsequently, microarray genotype data became available, providing over 2 million variants, incidentally including some conferring risk for conditions for which the American College of Medical Genetics recommends return of results. The study investigators engaged in extensive consultation with the IRB, the tribal government, and local clinicians to better inform our approach. We were able to notify the two participants heterozygous for the one clinically actionable variant identified. One participant welcomed this information and proceeded to obtain further clinical work-up; the other participant declined further follow-up. While demanding considerable time and effort, the return of clinically actionable genetic results is important from both an ethical perspective and to provide an improved trust relationship with the community of research participants.

Studying the impact of translational genomic research: Lessons from eMERGE

Two major goals of the Electronic Medical Record and Genomics (eMERGE) Network are to learn how best to return research results to patient/participants and the clinicians who care for them and also to assess the impact of placing these results in clinical care. Yet since its inception, the Network has confronted a host of challenges in achieving these goals, many of which had ethical, legal, or social implications (ELSIs) that required consideration. Here, we share impediments we encountered in recruiting participants, returning results, and assessing their impact, all of which affected our ability to achieve the goals of eMERGE, as well as the steps we took to attempt to address these obstacles. We divide the domains in which we experienced challenges into four broad categories: (1) study design, including recruitment of more diverse groups; (2) consent; (3) returning results to participants and their health care providers (HCPs); and (4) assessment of follow-up care of participants and measuring the impact of research on participants and their families. Since most phases of eMERGE have included children as well as adults, we also address the particular ELSI posed by including pediatric populations in this research. We make specific suggestions for improving translational genomic research to ensure that future projects can effectively return results and assess their impact on patient/participants and providers if the goals of genomic-informed medicine are to be achieved.

Familial Hypercholesterolemia in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network: Prevalence, Penetrance, Cardiovascular Risk, and Outcomes After Return of Results

BACKGROUND

The implications of secondary findings detected in large-scale sequencing projects remain uncertain. We assessed prevalence and penetrance of pathogenic familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) variants, their association with coronary heart disease (CHD), and 1-year outcomes following return of results in phase III of the electronic medical records and genomics network.

METHODS

Adult participants (n=18 544) at 7 sites were enrolled in a prospective cohort study to assess the clinical impact of returning results from targeted sequencing of 68 actionable genes, including LDLR, APOB, and PCSK9. FH variant prevalence and penetrance (defined as low-density lipoprotein cholesterol >155 mg/dL) were estimated after excluding participants enrolled on the basis of hypercholesterolemia. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of CHD compared to age- and sex-matched controls without FH-associated variants. Process (eg, referral to a specialist or ordering new tests), intermediate (eg, new diagnosis of FH), and clinical (eg, treatment modification) outcomes within 1 year after return of results were ascertained by electronic health record review.

RESULTS

The prevalence of FH-associated pathogenic variants was 1 in 188 (69 of 13,019 unselected participants). Penetrance was 87.5%. The presence of an FH variant was associated with CHD (odds ratio, 3.02 [2.00-4.53]) and premature CHD (odds ratio, 3.68 [2.34-5.78]). At least 1 outcome occurred in 92% of participants; 44% received a new diagnosis of FH and 26% had treatment modified following return of results.

CONCLUSIONS

In a multisite cohort of electronic health record-linked biobanks, monogenic FH was prevalent, penetrant, and associated with presence of CHD. Nearly half of participants with an FH-associated variant received a new diagnosis of FH and a quarter had treatment modified after return of results. These results highlight the potential utility of sequencing electronic health record-linked biobanks to detect FH.

A pragmatic clinical trial of cascade testing for familial hypercholesterolemia

PURPOSE

We compared new cases detected per index case in familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) families with or without an identifiable monogenic etiology.

METHODS

We enrolled 52 FH probands with a pathogenic variant (FH^g+) in LDLR, APOB, or PCSK9 and 73 probands without such a variant (FH^g-). After direct contact by the study team, family members (FMs) of FH^g+ probands could opt-in for genetic testing and FMs of FH^g- probands were asked to provide a lipid profile. New cases were defined as presence of a pathogenic variant in FH^g+ families and as low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥155 mg/dL in FH^g- families.

RESULTS

Of 71 FH^g+ probands seen by a genetic counselor, 52 consented and identified 253 FMs (111 consented and were tested, yielding 48 new cases). Of 101 FH^g- probands who received counseling, 73 consented and identified 295 FMs (63 consented and were tested, yielding 17 new cases). New case detection per index case was significantly greater in FH^g+ than in FH^g- families (0.92 vs 0.23), a result of higher cascade testing uptake (43.9 vs 21.4%) and yield (43.2 vs 27.0%) in the former.

CONCLUSION

New case detection rate was significantly higher in FH families with a monogenic etiology than in those without such an etiology owing to greater uptake and yield of cascade testing.

Workforce Considerations When Building a Precision Medicine Program

This paper describes one healthcare system’s approach to strategically deploying genetic specialists and pharmacists to support the implementation of a precision medicine program. In 2013, Sanford Health initiated the development of a healthcare system-wide precision medicine program. Here, we report the necessary staffing including the genetic counselors, genetic counseling assistants, pharmacists, and geneticists. We examined the administrative and electronic medical records data to summarize genetic referrals over time as well as the uptake and results of an enterprise-wide genetic screening test. Between 2013 and 2020, the number of genetic specialists employed at Sanford Health increased by 190%, from 10.1 full-time equivalents (FTEs) to 29.3 FTEs. Over the same period, referrals from multiple provider types to genetic services increased by 423%, from 1438 referrals to 7517 referrals. Between 2018 and 2020, 11,771 patients received a genetic screening, with 4% identified with potential monogenic medically actionable predisposition (MAP) findings and 95% identified with at least one informative pharmacogenetic result. Of the MAP-positive patients, 85% had completed a session with a genetics provider. A strategic workforce staffing and deployment allowed Sanford Health to manage a new genetic screening program, which prompted a large increase in genetic referrals. This approach can be used as a template for other healthcare systems interested in the development of a precision medicine program.

Pathogenic variants in arteriopathy genes detected in a targeted sequencing study: Penetrance and 1-year outcomes after return of results

PURPOSE

We estimated the penetrance of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in arteriopathy-related genes and assessed near-term outcomes following return of results.

METHODS

Participants (N = 24,520) in phase III of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics network underwent targeted sequencing of 68 actionable genes, including 9 genes associated with arterial aneurysmal diseases. Penetrance was estimated on the basis of the presence of relevant clinical traits. Outcomes occurring within 1 year of return of results included new diagnoses, referral to a specialist, new tests ordered, surveillance initiated, and new medications started.

RESULTS

P/LP variants were present in 34 participants. The average penetrance across genes was 59%, ranging from 86% for FBN1 variants to 25% for SMAD3. Of 16 participants in whom results were returned, 1-year outcomes occurred in 63%. A new diagnosis was made in 44% of the participants, 56% were referred to a specialist, a new test was ordered in 44%, surveillance was initiated in 31%, and a new medication was started in 31%.

CONCLUSION

Penetrance of P/LP variants in arteriopathy-related genes, identified in a large, targeted sequencing study, was variable and overall lower than that reported in clinical cohorts. Meaningful outcomes within the first year were noted in 63% of participants who received results.

Managing Pandora's Box: Familial Expectations around the Return of (Future) Germline Results

BACKGROUND

Pediatric oncology patients are increasingly being offered germline testing to diagnose underlying cancer predispositions. Meanwhile, as understanding of variant pathogenicity evolves, planned reanalysis of genomic results has been suggested. Little is known regarding the types of genomic information that parents and their adolescent children with cancer prefer to receive at the time of testing or their expectations around the future return of genomic results.

METHODS

Parents and adolescent children with cancer eligible for genomic testing for cancer predisposition were surveyed regarding their attitudes and expectations for receiving current and future germline results (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02530658).

RESULTS

All parents (100%) desired to learn about results for treatable or preventable conditions, with 92.4% wanting results even when there is no treatment or prevention. Parents expressed less interest in receiving uncertain results for themselves (88.3%) than for their children (95.3%). Most parents (95.9%) and adolescents (87.9%) believed that providers have a responsibility to share new or updated germline results indefinitely or at any point during follow-up care. Fewer parents (67.5%) indicated that they would want results if their child was deceased: 10.3% would not want to be contacted, 19.3% were uncertain.

CONCLUSIONS

Expectations for return of new or updated genomic results are high among pediatric oncology families, although up to one third of parents have reservations about receiving such information in the event of their child's death. These results underscore the importance of high-quality pre-and post-test counseling, conducted by individuals trained in consenting around genomic testing to elicit family preferences and align expectations around the return of germline results.

Return of Results Policies for Genomic Research: Current Practices & The Hearts in Rhythm Organization Approach

Research teams developing biobanks and/or genomic databases must develop policies for the disclosure and reporting of potentially actionable genomic results to research participants. Currently, a broad range of approaches to the return of results exist, with some studies opting for non-disclosure of research results while others follow clinical guidelines for the return of potentially actionable findings from sequencing. In this review, we describe current practices and highlight decisions a research team must make when designing a return of results policy, from informed consent to disclosure practices and clinical validation options. The unique challenges of returning incidental findings in cardiac genes, including reduced penetrance and the lack of clinical screening standards for phenotype-negative individuals are discussed. Lastly, the National Hearts in Rhythm Organization (HiRO) Registry approach is described to provide a rationale for the selective return of field-specific variants to those participating in disease-specific research. Our goal is to provide researchers with a resource when developing a return of results policy tailored for their research program, based on unique factors related to study design, research team composition and availability of clinical resources.

Penetrance and outcomes at 1-year following return of actionable variants identified by genome sequencing

PURPOSE

We estimated penetrance of actionable genetic variants and assessed near-term outcomes following return of results (RoR).

METHODS

Participants (n = 2,535) with hypercholesterolemia and/or colon polyps underwent targeted sequencing of 68 genes and 14 single-nucleotide variants. Penetrance was estimated based on presence of relevant traits in the electronic health record (EHR). Outcomes occurring within 1-year of RoR were ascertained by EHR review. Analyses were stratified by tier 1 and non-tier 1 disorders.

RESULTS

Actionable findings were present in 122 individuals and results were disclosed to 98. The average penetrance for tier 1 disorder variants (67%; n = 58 individuals) was higher than in non-tier 1 variants (46.5%; n = 58 individuals). After excluding 45 individuals (decedents, nonresponders, known genetic diagnoses, mosaicism), ≥1 outcomes were noted in 83% of 77 participants following RoR; 78% had a process outcome (referral to a specialist, new testing, surveillance initiated); 68% had an intermediate outcome (new test finding or diagnosis); 19% had a clinical outcome (therapy modified, risk reduction surgery). Risk reduction surgery occurred more often in participants with tier 1 than those with non-tier 1 variants.

CONCLUSION

Relevant phenotypic traits were observed in 57% whereas a clinical outcome occurred in 19% of participants with actionable genomic variants in the year following RoR.

"Who Doesn't Like Receiving Good News?" Perspectives of Individuals Who Received Genomic Screening Results by Mail

As genomic sequencing expands to screen larger numbers of individuals, offering genetic counseling to everyone may not be possible. One approach to managing this limitation is for a genetic counselor to communicate clinically actionable results in person or by telephone, but report other results by mail. We employed this approach in a large genomic implementation study. In this paper, we describe participants' experiences receiving genomic screening results by mail. We conducted 50 semi-structured telephone interviews with individuals who received neutral genomic screening results by mail. Most participants were satisfied receiving neutral results by mail. Participants generally had a good understanding of results; however, a few participants had misunderstandings about their genomic screening results, including mistaken beliefs about their disease risk and the comprehensiveness of the test. No one reported plans to alter health behaviors, defer medical evaluations, or take other actions that might be considered medically problematic. Reporting neutral results by mail is unlikely to cause recipients distress or generate misunderstandings that may result in reduced vigilance in following recommended preventive health strategies. Nonetheless, some individuals may benefit from additional genetic counseling support to help situate their results in the context of personal concerns and illness experiences.

Genetic basis of hypercholesterolemia in adults

We investigated monogenic and polygenic causes of hypercholesterolemia in a population-based cohort, excluding secondary hypercholesterolemia, and using an established framework to identify pathogenic variants. We studied 1682 individuals (50.2 ± 8.6 years, 41.3% males) from southeast Minnesota with primary hypercholesterolemia (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥155 mg/dl in the absence of identifiable secondary causes). Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) phenotype was defined as a Dutch Lipid Clinic Network (DLCN) score ≥6. Participants underwent sequencing of LDLR, APOB, and PCSK9, and genotyping of 12 LDL-C-associated single-nucleotide variants to construct a polygenic score (PGS) for LDL-C. The presence of a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant was considered monogenic etiology and a PGS ≥90th percentile was considered polygenic etiology. The mean LDL-C level was 187.3 ± 32.3 mg/dl and phenotypic FH was present in 8.4% of the cohort. An identifiable genetic etiology was present in 17.1% individuals (monogenic in 1.5% and polygenic in 15.6%). Phenotypic and genetic FH showed poor overlap. Only 26% of those who met the clinical criteria of FH had an identifiable genetic etiology and of those with an identifiable genetic etiology only 12.9% met clinical criteria for FH. Genetic factors explained 7.4% of the variance in LDL-C. In conclusion, in adults with primary hypercholesterolemia, 17.1% had an identifiable genetic etiology and the overlap between phenotypic and genetic FH was modest.

Integrating Genomic Screening into Primary Care: Provider Experiences Caring for Latino Patients at a Community-Based Health Center

Introduction:

Minority communities have had limited access to advances in genomic medicine. Mayo Clinic and Mountain Park Health Center, a Federally Qualified Health Center in Phoenix, Arizona, partnered to assess the feasibility of offering genomic screening to Latino patients receiving care at a community-based health center. We examined primary care provider (PCP) experiences reporting genomic screening results and integrating those results into patient care.

Methods:

We conducted open-ended, semi-structured interviews with PCPs and other members of the health care team charged with supporting patients who received positive genomic screening results. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically.

Results:

Of the 500 patients who pursued genomic screening, 10 received results indicating a genetic variant that warranted clinical management. PCPs felt genomic screening was valuable to patients and their families, and that genomic research should strive to include underrepresented minorities. Providers identified multiple challenges integrating genomic sequencing into patient care, including difficulties maintaining patient contact over time; arranging follow-up medical care; and managing results in an environment with limited genetics expertise. Providers also reflected on the ethics of offering genomic sequencing to patients who may not be able to pursue diagnostic testing or follow-up care due to financial constraints.

Conclusions:

Our results highlight the potential benefits and challenges of bringing advances in precision medicine to community-based health centers serving under-resourced populations. By proactively considering patient support needs, and identifying financial assistance programs and patient-referral mechanisms to support patients who may need specialized medical care, PCPs and other health care providers can help to ensure that precision medicine lives up to its full potential as a tool for improving patient care.

Researchers' perspectives on return of individual genetics results to research participants: a qualitative study

Genetic results are usually not returned to research participants in Uganda despite their increased demand. We report on researchers' perceptions and experiences of return of individual genetic research results. The study involved 15 in-depth interviews of investigators involved in genetics and/or genomic research. A thematic approach was used to interpret the results. The four themes that emerged from the data were the need for return of individual results including incidental findings, community engagement and the consenting process, implications and challenges to return of individual results. While researchers are willing to return clinically significant genetic results to research participants, they remain unsure of how this should be implemented. Suggestions to aid implementation of return of results included reconsenting of participants before receiving individual genetic results and increasing access to genetic counseling services. Community engagement to determine community perceptions and individual preferences for the return of results, and also prepare participants to safely receive results emerged as another way to support return of results. Researchers have a positive attitude toward the return of clinically significant genetic results to research participants. There is need to develop national guidance on genetic research and also build capacity for clinical genetics and genetic counseling.

Integrating pharmacogenomics into the electronic health record by implementing genomic indicators

Pharmacogenomics (PGx) clinical decision support integrated into the electronic health record (EHR) has the potential to provide relevant knowledge to clinicians to enable individualized care. However, past experience implementing PGx clinical decision support into multiple EHR platforms has identified important clinical, procedural, and technical challenges. Commercial EHRs have been widely criticized for the lack of readiness to implement precision medicine. Herein, we share our experiences and lessons learned implementing new EHR functionality charting PGx phenotypes in a unique repository, genomic indicators, instead of using the problem or allergy list. The Gen-Ind has additional features including a brief description of the clinical impact, a hyperlink to the original laboratory report, and links to additional educational resources. The automatic generation of genomic indicators from interfaced PGx test results facilitates implementation and long-term maintenance of PGx data in the EHR and can be used as criteria for synchronous and asynchronous CDS.

Experiences of Latino Participants Receiving Neutral Genomic Screening Results: A Qualitative Study

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to characterize experiences of Latino participants receiving genomic screening results.

METHODS

Participants were recruited at a federally qualified health center in the USA. In-person, semi-structured interviews were conducted in either Spanish or English by a bilingual, bicultural interviewer. Questions focused on motivations for pursuing genomic sequencing, concerns about receiving genomic screening results, and perceived benefits of receiving genomic information. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and translated.

RESULTS

Fifty individuals completed an interview; 39 were conducted in Spanish. Participants described mixed motivations for pursuing genomic screening. Participants viewed the benefits of genomic screening in relation to not only their personal health but to the health of their families and their communities. Participants tended to have few concerns about genomic screening. Those concerns related to potential loss of privacy, misuses of genomic information, and the possibility of receiving distressing results. Some participants had misunderstandings about the scope of the test and the potential implications of their results. Most felt it was better to know about a genetic predisposition to disease than to remain uninformed. Participants felt that genomic screening was worthwhile.

DISCUSSION

This is one of the first studies to examine the experiences of Latino individuals receiving genomic screening results. Our results suggest that many Latino patients in the US see value in genomic screening and have limited concerns about its potential to cause harm. These results inform ongoing efforts to increase the availability of genomic medicine to underrepresented populations and add to our understanding of sociocultural drivers in the adoption of precision medicine.

Increasing access to individualized medicine: a matched-cohort study examining Latino participant experiences of genomic screening

Purpose:

Multiple efforts are underway to increase the inclusion of racial minority participants in genomic research and new forms of individualized medicine. These efforts should include studies that characterize how individuals from minority communities experience genomic medicine in diverse healthcare settings and how they integrate genetic knowledge into their understandings of healthcare needs.

Methods:

As part of a large, multisite genomic sequencing study, we surveyed individuals to assess their decision to pursue genomic risk evaluation. Participants included Latino patients recruited at Mountain Park Health Center, a Federally Qualified Health Center in Phoenix, AZ, and non-Latino patients recruited at a large academic medical center (Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN). Both groups agreed to receive individualized genomic risk assessments.

Results:

Comparisons between cohorts showed that Latino respondents had lower levels of decisional conflict about pursuing genomic screening but generally scored lower on genetic knowledge. Latino respondents were also more likely to have concerns about the misuse of genomic information, despite both groups having similar views about the value of genomic risk evaluation.

Conclusion:

Our results highlight the importance of evaluating sociocultural factors that influence minority patient engagement with genomic medicine in diverse healthcare settings.

"They're Not Going to Do Nothing for Me": Research Participants' Attitudes towards Elective Genetic Counseling

As applications of genomic sequencing have expanded, offering genetic counseling support to all patients is arguably no longer practical. Additionally, whether individuals desire and value genetic counseling services for genomic screening is unclear. We offered elective genetic counseling to 5110 individuals prior to undergoing sequencing and 2310 participants who received neutral results to assess demand. A total of 0.2% of the study participants accessed genetic counseling services prior to sequencing, and 0.3% reached out after receiving neutral results. We later conducted 50 interviews with participants to understand why they did not access these services. Many interviewees did not recall the availability of genetic counseling and were unfamiliar with the profession. Interviewees described not needing counseling before sequencing because they understood the study and felt that they could cope with any result. Counseling was considered equally unnecessary after learning neutral results. Although the participants had questions about their results, they did not feel that speaking with a genetic counselor would be helpful. Genomic screening efforts that employ opt-in models of genetic counseling may need to clarify the potential value of genetic counseling support from the outset and feature genetic counseling services more prominently in program materials.

Patient reactions to receiving negative genomic screening results by mail

PURPOSE

As genomic screening is incorporated into a wider array of clinical settings, it is critical that we understand how patients may respond to a various screening results. Although multiple studies have examined how patients understand positive genomic screening results, few data exist regarding patient engagement with negative screening results.

METHODS

An 82-item survey was administered to 1712 individuals who received negative genomic screening results by mail following evaluation of 109 medically actionable genes. Genetic counselors were available to assist with the interpretation of screening results.

RESULTS

One thousand four hundred forty-two participants completed the survey (84.2%). The vast majority of respondents valued the information they received, with 98% of respondents reporting that negative genomic screening results were valuable and 72% indicating they would recommend genomic screening to others. Nonetheless, many respondents had questions about their genomic screening results (28%) and would have preferred to receive their screening results in person (18%).

CONCLUSION

These data suggest most patients value receiving negative genomic screening results and are comfortable receiving their results by mail. Nevertheless, a significant proportion of patients also reported difficulty understanding some aspects of their results. This finding challenges the idea that communicating genomic screening results by mail alone is sufficient to meet patients' needs.

Population-based Genetic Testing for Precision Prevention

Global interest in genetic testing for cancer susceptibility genes (CSG) has surged with falling costs, increasing awareness, and celebrity endorsement. Current access to genetic testing is based on clinical criteria/risk model assessment which uses family history as a surrogate. However, this approach is fraught with inequality, massive underutilization, and misses 50% CSG carriers. This reflects huge missed opportunities for precision prevention. Early CSG identification enables uptake of risk-reducing strategies in unaffected individuals to reduce cancer risk. Population-based genetic testing (PGT) can overcome limitations of clinical criteria/family history-based testing. Jewish population studies show population-based BRCA testing is feasible, acceptable, has high satisfaction, does not harm psychologic well-being/quality of life, and is extremely cost-effective, arguing for changing paradigm to PGT in the Jewish population. Innovative approaches for delivering pretest information/education are needed to facilitate informed decision-making for PGT. Different health systems will need context-specific implementation strategies and management pathways, while maintaining principles of population screening. Data on general population PGT are beginning to emerge, prompting evaluation of wider implementation. Sophisticated risk prediction models incorporating genetic and nongenetic data are being used to stratify populations for ovarian cancer and breast cancer risk and risk-adapted screening/prevention. PGT is potentially cost-effective for panel testing of breast and ovarian CSGs and for risk-adapted breast cancer screening. Further research/implementation studies evaluating the impact, clinical efficacy, psychologic and socio-ethical consequences, and cost-effectiveness of PGT are needed.

Challenges in returning results in a genomic medicine implementation study: the Return of Actionable Variants Empirical (RAVE) study

To inform the process of returning results in genome sequencing studies, we conducted a quantitative and qualitative assessment of challenges encountered during the Return of Actionable Variants Empiric (RAVE) study conducted at Mayo Clinic. Participants (n = 2535, mean age 63 ± 7, 57% female) were sequenced for 68 clinically actionable genes and 14 single nucleotide variants. Of 122 actionable results detected, 118 were returnable; results were returned by a genetic counselor—86 in-person and 12 by phone. Challenges in returning actionable results were encountered in a significant proportion (38%) of the cohort and were related to sequencing and participant contact. Sequencing related challenges (n = 14), affecting 13 participants, included reports revised based on clinical presentation (n = 3); reports requiring corrections (n = 2); mosaicism requiring alternative DNA samples for confirmation (n = 3); and variant re-interpretation due to updated informatics pipelines (n = 6). Participant contact related challenges (n = 44), affecting 38 participants, included nonresponders (n = 20), decedents (n = 1), and previously known results (n = 23). These results should be helpful to investigators preparing for return of results in large-scale genomic sequencing projects.

Returning genomic results in a Federally Qualified Health Center: the intersection of precision medicine and social determinants of health

Purpose:

This report describes the return of sequencing results to low-income Latino participants recruited through a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC). We describe challenges in returning research results secondary to social determinants of health and present lessons learned to guide future genomic medicine implementation studies in low resource settings.

Methods:

500 Latino adults (76% women) consented to research sequencing for a predetermined panel of actionable genes. Providers and staff from the FQHC were engaged to align processes with the practice and a Community Advisory Board grounded the project in the local community.

Results:

A pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant was present in 10 participants (2%). Challenges in return of results included the time lag (582±53 days) between enrollment and returning actionable results, difficulty reaching participants, missed appointments, low health literacy, lack of health insurance, and reconciling results with limited information on family history. Return of one actionable result was deferred due to acute emotional distress secondary to recent traumatic life events.

Conclusion:

The social determinants of health influence the implementation of genomic medicine in low-income populations in low-resource settings. Considering non-biological factors that contribute to disparities will be necessary to better appreciate how genomic medicine may fit within the context of health equity.

Failure to follow up on a medically actionable finding from direct to consumer genetic testing: A case report

BACKGROUND

A 61-year-old woman underwent direct to consumer genetic testing and was found to be homozygous for the C282Y HFE variant (c.845G>A :p.Cys282Tyr) which is classified as pathogenic/likely pathogenic for hereditary hemochromatosis. However, no action was taken by the individual.

METHODS

The individual took part in the Mayo Clinic Return of Actionable Variants Empiric (RAVE) study and the actionable finding was confirmed and results disclosed in person by a genetic counselor with subsequent referral to a hepatologist.

RESULTS

Further testing revealed iron overload with an elevated ferritin level (560 ng/ml) and increased ferritin saturation (74%). Phlebotomy was initiated with subsequent normalization of the ferritin levels (252 ng/ml).

CONCLUSION

This case highlights that actionable genetic results may not be acted on after direct to consumer testing and the need for effective genetic counseling after such testing.

Neutral, Negative, or Negligible? Changes in Patient Perceptions of Disease Risk Following Receipt of a Negative Genomic Screening Result

Most individuals who undergo genomic screening will receive negative results or results not sufficient to warrant a clinical response. Even though a majority of individuals receive negative results, little is known about how negative results may impact individuals' perception of disease risk. Changes in risk perception (specifically reductions in perceived risk) may affect both probands and their family members if inaccurate information is communicated to family members. We surveyed patients who received negative results as part of their participation in a genomic screening study and assessed their perceptions of disease risk following receipt of results. Participants had either hyperlipidemia or colon polyps (or both) and received their negative genomic screening results by mail. Of 1712 total individuals recruited, 1442 completed the survey (84.2% completion rate). Approximately one quarter of individuals believed their risk for heart disease to be lower and approximately one third of individuals believed their risk for colon cancer to be lower after receiving and evaluating their negative genomic screening result. 78% of those who believed their risk for one or both diseases had declined had already shared or intended to share their result with family members. Our study suggests patients may interpret a negative genomic screening result as implying a reduction in their overall disease risk.

Using the electronic health record for genomics research

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although primarily designed for medical documentation and billing purposes, the electronic health record (EHR) has significant potential for translational research. In this article, we provide an overview of the use of the EHR for genomics research with a focus on heritable lipid disorders.

RECENT FINDINGS

Linking the EHR to genomic data enables repurposing of vast phenotype data for genomic discovery. EHR data can be used to study the genetic basis of common and rare disorders, identify subphenotypes of diseases, assess pathogenicity of novel genomic variants, investigate pleiotropy, and rapidly assemble cohorts for genomic medicine clinical trials. EHR-based discovery can inform clinical practice; examples include use of polygenic risk scores for assessing disease risk and use of phenotype data to interpret rare variants. Despite limitations such as missing data, variable use of standards and poor interoperablility between disparate systems, the EHR is a powerful resource for genomic research.

SUMMARY

When linked to genomic data, the EHR can be leveraged for genomic discovery, which in turn can inform clinical care, exemplifying the virtuous cycle of a learning healthcare system.

Should pretest genetic counselling be required for patients pursuing genomic sequencing? Results from a survey of participants in a large genomic implementation study

PURPOSE

We assessed the decision-making of individuals pursuing genomic sequencing without a requirement for pretest genetic counselling. We sought to describe the extent to which individuals who decline genetic counselling reported decisional conflict or struggled to make a decision to pursue genomic testing.

METHODS

We administered a 100-item survey to 3037 individuals who consented to the Return of Actionable Variants Empirical study, a genomic medicine implementation study supported by the National Institutes of Health (USA) eMERGE consortium. The primary outcomes of interest were self-reported decisional conflict about the decision to participate in the study and time required to reach a decision.

RESULTS

We received 2895 completed surveys (response rate=95.3%), and of these respondents 97.8% completed the decisional conflict scale in its entirety. A majority of individuals (63%) had minimal or no decisional conflict about the pursuit of genomic sequencing and were able to reach a decision quickly (78%). Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified several characteristics associated with decisional conflict, including lower education, lower health literacy, lower self-efficacy in coping, lack of prior experience with genetic testing, not discussing study participation with a family member or friend, and being male.

CONCLUSION

As genomic sequencing is used more widely, genetic counselling resources may not be sufficient to meet demand. Our results challenge the notion that all individuals need genetic counselling in order to make an informed decision about genomic sequencing.

Developing a Process for Returning Medically Actionable Genomic Variants to Latino Patients in a Federally Qualified Health Center

AIM

To develop a process for returning medically actionable genomic variants to Latino patients receiving care in a Federally Qualified Health Center.

METHODS

Prior to recruitment, researchers met with primary care providers to (1) orient clinicians to the project, (2) establish a process for returning actionable and nonactionable results to participants and providers through the electronic health record, and (3) develop a process for offering clinical decision support for follow-up education and care. A Community Advisory Board was engaged to provide input on recruitment strategies and materials for conveying results to participants. Participants in the Sangre Por Salud (Blood for Health) Biobank with hyperlipidemia or colon polyps represented the pool of potentially eligible participants.

RESULTS

A total of 1,621 individuals were invited to participate and 710 agreed to an in- person consenting visit (194 no-showed and 16 declined). Over 12-months, 500 participants were enrolled. Participants were primarily Spanish-speaking (81.6%), female (74.2%), and enrolled because of hyperlipidemia (95.4%). All but 2 participants opted to receive primary (i.e., related to enrollment phenotypes) as well as secondary actionable results.

CONCLUSION

Efforts to bring precision medicine to community-based health centers serving minority patients may require multilevel engagement activities to include individuals, providers, health systems, and the community.

Design of a Controlled Trial of Cascade Screening for Hypercholesterolemia: The (CASH) Study

To inform guidelines for screening family members of patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), we designed a clinical trial to compare the yield of cascade screening in FH patients with and without an identifiable pathogenic variant. Participants with hypercholesterolemia (Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) > 155 mg/dL) underwent sequencing of LDLR, APOB, and PCSK9 and genotyping of six single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with LDL-C followed by calculation of a polygenic score for LDL-C. We identified 24 patients with definite FH (pathogenic variant in one of the three FH genes), 76 patients with probable FH (Dutch lipid clinic network (DLCN) score ≥ 6, no pathogenic variant), and 262 patients with possible FH (DLCN score 3⁻5, no pathogenic variant). We will enroll 50 patients with definite FH by recruiting an additional 26 from the FH Clinic at Mayo and 50 patients each with probable and possible FH, matching on age and sex. Family members of patients with definite FH will undergo testing for the relevant pathogenic variant using saliva kits and family members of those with probable/possible FH will have a lipid profile checked. We will assess the number of new cases detected (defined as presence of a pathogenic variant in the family member of definite FH patient or LDL-C > 155 mg/dL (>130 mg/dL in children) in family members of probable/possible FH patients, and the cost of detecting a new case. The proposed clinical trial will compare the yield and cost of cascade screening for FH patients with/without an identifiable pathogenic variant, and thereby inform guidelines for cascade screening for FH.