Genomic testing is best integrated into clinical practice when it is actionable

Age-Based Genomic Screening during Childhood: Ethical and Practical Considerations in Public Health Genomics Implementation

Genomic sequencing offers an unprecedented opportunity to detect inherited variants that are implicated in rare Mendelian disorders, yet there are many challenges to overcome before this technology can routinely be applied in the healthy population. The age-based genomic screening (ABGS) approach is a novel alternative to genome-scale sequencing at birth that aims to provide highly actionable genetic information to parents over the course of their child's routine health care. ABGS utilizes an established metric to identify conditions with high clinical actionability and incorporates information about the age of onset and age of intervention to determine the optimal time to screen for any given condition. Ongoing partnerships with parents and providers are instrumental to the co-creation of educational resources and strategies to address potential implementation barriers. Implementation science frameworks and informative empirical data are used to evaluate strategies to establish this unique clinical application of targeted genomic sequencing. Ultimately, a pilot project conducted in primary care pediatrics clinics will assess patient and implementation outcomes, parent and provider perspectives, and the feasibility of ABGS. A validated, stakeholder-informed, and practical ABGS program will include hundreds of conditions that are actionable during infancy and childhood, setting the stage for a longitudinal implementation that can assess clinical and health economic outcomes.

Public Interest in Population Genetic Screening for Cancer Risk

An emerging role for DNA sequencing is to identify people at risk for an inherited cancer syndrome in order to prevent or ameliorate the manifestation of symptoms. Two cancer syndromes, Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Lynch Syndrome meet the “Tier 1” evidence threshold established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for routine testing of patients with a personal or family history of cancer. Advancements in genomic medicine have accelerated public health pilot programs for these highly medically actionable conditions. In this brief report, we provide descriptive statistics from a survey of 746 US respondents from a Qualtrics panel about the public’s awareness of genetic testing, interest in learning about their cancer risk, and likelihood of participating in a population genetic screening (PGS) test. Approximately of half the respondents were aware of genetic testing for inherited cancer risk (n = 377/745, 50.6%) and would choose to learn about their cancer risk (n-309/635, 48.7%). Characteristics of those interested in learning about their cancer risk differed by educational attainment, age, income, insurance status, having a primary care doctor, being aware of genetic testing, and likelihood of sharing information with family (p < 0.05). A sizeable majority of the respondents who were interested in about learning their cancer risk also said that they were likely to participate in a PGS test that involved a clinical appointment and blood draw, but no out-of-pocket cost (n = 255/309, 82.5%). Reasons for not wanting to participate included not finding test results interesting or important, concerns about costs, and feeling afraid to know the results. Overall, our results suggest that engaging and educating the general population about the benefits of learning about an inherited cancer predisposition may be an important strategy to address recruitment barriers to PGS.

Appraisal and development of evidence-based clinical decision support to enable perioperative pharmacogenomic application

Variable responses to medications complicates perioperative care. As a potential solution, we evaluated and synthesized pharmacogenomic evidence that may inform anesthesia and pain prescribing to identify clinically actionable drug/gene pairs. Clinical decision-support (CDS) summaries were developed and were evaluated using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II. We found that 93/180 (51%) of commonly-used perioperative medications had some published pharmacogenomic information, with 18 having actionable evidence: celecoxib/diclofenac/flurbiprofen/ibuprofen/piroxicam/CYP2C9, codeine/oxycodone/tramadol CYP2D6, desflurane/enflurane/halothane/isoflurane/sevoflurane/succinylcholine/RYR1/CACNA1S, diazepam/CYP2C19, phenytoin/CYP2C9, succinylcholine/mivacurium/BCHE, and morphine/OPRM1. Novel CDS summaries were developed for these 18 medications. AGREE II mean ± standard deviation scores were high for Scope and Purpose (95.0 ± 2.8), Rigor of Development (93.2 ± 2.8), Clarity of Presentation (87.3 ± 3.0), and Applicability (86.5 ± 3.7) (maximum score = 100). Overall mean guideline quality score was 6.7 ± 0.2 (maximum score = 7). All summaries were recommended for clinical implementation. A critical mass of pharmacogenomic evidence exists for select medications commonly used in the perioperative setting, warranting prospective examination for clinical utility.

Actionability of commercial laboratory sequencing panels for newborn screening and the importance of transparency for parental decision-making

BACKGROUND

Newborn screening aims to identify individual patients who could benefit from early management, treatment, and/or surveillance practices. As sequencing technologies have progressed and we move into the era of precision medicine, genomic sequencing has been introduced to this area with the hopes of detecting variants related to a vastly expanded number of conditions. Though implementation of genomic sequencing for newborn screening in public health and clinical settings is limited, commercial laboratories have begun to offer genomic screening panels for neonates.

METHODS

We examined genes listed on four commercial laboratory genomic screening panels for neonates and assessed their clinical actionability using an established age-based semi-quantitative metric to categorize them. We identified genes that were included on multiple panels or distinct between panels.

RESULTS

Three hundred and nine genes appeared on one or more commercial panels: 74 (23.9%) genes were included in all four commercial panels, 45 (14.6%) were on only three panels, 76 (24.6%) were on only two panels, and 114 (36.9%) genes were listed on only one of the four panels. Eighty-two genes (26.5%) listed on one or more panels were assessed by our method to be inappropriate for newborn screening and to require additional parental decision-making. Conversely, 249 genes that we previously identified as being highly actionable were not listed on any of the four commercial laboratory genomic screening panels.

CONCLUSIONS

Commercial neonatal genomic screening panels have heterogeneous content and may contain some conditions with lower actionability than would be expected for public health newborn screening; conversely, some conditions with higher actionability may be omitted from these panels. The lack of transparency about how conditions are selected suggests a need for greater detail about panel content in order for parents to make informed decisions. The nuanced activity of gene list selection for genomic screening should be iteratively refined with evidence-based approaches to provide maximal benefit and minimal harm to newborns.

Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in US FDA-Approved Drug Labels (2000-2020)

Pharmacogenomics (PGx) is a key subset of precision medicine that relates genomic variation to individual response to pharmacotherapy. We assessed longitudinal trends in US FDA approval of new drugs labeled with PGx information. Drug labels containing PGx information were obtained from Drugs@FDA and guidelines from PharmGKB were used to compare the actionability of PGx information in drug labels across therapeutic areas. The annual proportion of new drug approvals with PGx labeling has increased by nearly threefold from 10.3% (n = 3) in 2000 to 28.2% (n = 11) in 2020. Inclusion of PGx information in drug labels has increased for all clinical areas over the last two decades but most prominently for cancer therapies, which comprise the largest proportion (75.5%) of biomarker–drug pairs for which PGx testing is required. Clinically actionable information was more frequently observed in biomarker–drug pairs associated with cancer drugs compared to those for other therapeutic areas (n = 92 (59.7%) vs. n = 62 (40.3%), p < 0.0051). These results suggest that further evidence is needed to support the clinical adoption of pharmacogenomics in non-cancer therapeutic areas.

A Global Review on the Utility of Genetic Testing for Familial Hypercholesterolemia

Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is a genetic disorder of cholesterol metabolism that affects an estimated 1/250 persons in the United States and abroad. FH is hallmarked by high low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and an increased risk of premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. This review summarizes recent global evidence showing the utility of FH genetic testing across diverse populations. Clinical and other qualitative outcomes following FH genetic testing were improved FH diagnosis, treatment initiation or continued treatment, treatment modification, improved total or LDL cholesterol levels, education on lifestyle management, and genetic counseling. This summary of evidence should be considered by those seeking overall evidence and knowledge gaps on the utility of FH genetic testing from a global perspective and for certain ethnic and age populations. These findings can be used to inform insurance policies and coverage decisions for FH genetic testing, policy recommendations to reduce the clinical and public health burden of FH, clinical practice and guidelines to improve the management of FH populations, and ongoing research involving FH genetic testing. We conclude that further investigations are needed to examine: (1) non-clinical outcomes following FH genetic testing; (2) patient-reported outcomes following FH genetic testing to convey patient experiences, values, and goals; and (3) clinical outcomes following FH genetic testing in non-Caucasian and pediatric populations in the United States and abroad.