Assessment of the Needs of Nephrology Divisions to Implement Return of Clinically Significant Research Genetic Results: A Survey of Nephrotic Syndrome Study Network (NEPTUNE) Investigators

Introduction

There is an increasing need to return genetic testing results to patients with kidney disease who were first genotyped on a research basis. Operationalizing this process in nephrology clinics is challenged by a limited number of genetic providers with whom to partner and a general lack of support services for all clinicians.

Methods

We administered a survey in March 2022 to assess the current ability and ongoing needs of nephrology divisions to return clinically significant research genetic results to patients and to implement clinical genetic testing. This survey was distributed to institutions within the Nephrotic Syndrome Study Network (NEPTUNE) as part of the planning process for return of research genetic results to participants with pathogenic variants in Mendelian nephrotic syndrome genes.

Results

Twenty-seven of 28 sites (96%) completed the survey. 59% (n = 16) of sites said they could handle return of research genetic results independently, with the rest expressing hesitation about the volume and complexity of patients and the limited resources and access to genetics services. 81% (n = 22) of these institutions did have a genetics clinic and 26% (n = 7) have a nephrology genetics clinic. However, 70% (n = 10) of these clinics have a waiting time over 1 month. 89% of divisions (n = 24) were conducting genetic testing and 96% of those (n = 23) used a kidney multi-gene panel. In 46% of divisions (n = 11), nephrologists were handling logistics of obtaining genetic testing samples themselves.

Conclusion

We identified specific areas of support needed for return of clinically significant genetic results from research studies. While the surveyed nephrologists were conducting genetic testing, there were limitations in the support services available. This survey will help guide other research studies that wish to return genetic results to participants and also highlight the need for increasing support to effectively operationalize genetic testing in nephrology clinics.

Impact of returning unsolicited genomic results to nongenetic health care providers in the eMERGE III Network

PURPOSE

As genomic sequencing becomes more common, medically actionable secondary findings will increasingly be returned to health care providers (HCPs), who will be faced with managing the resulting patient care. These findings are generally unsolicited, ie, unrelated to the sequencing indication and/or ordered by another clinician.

METHODS

To understand the impact of receiving unsolicited results, we interviewed HCPs who received genomic results for patients enrolled in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Phase III Network, which returned results on >100 actionable genes to eMERGE participants and HCPs.

RESULTS

In total, 16 HCPs across 3 eMERGE sites were interviewed about their experience of receiving a positive (likely pathogenic or pathogenic), negative, or variant of uncertain significance result for a patient enrolled in eMERGE Phase III and about managing their patient on the basis of the result. Although unsolicited, HCPs felt responsible for managing the patient's resulting medical care. HCPs indicated that clinical utility depended on the actionability of results, and whereas comfort levels varied, confidence was improved by the availability of subspecialist consults. HCPs were concerned about patient anxiety, insurability, and missing an actionable result in the electronic health record.

CONCLUSION

Our findings help inform best practices for return of unsolicited genomic screening findings in the future.

Ethical Issues in Genetics and Infectious Diseases Research: An Interdisciplinary Expert Review

PURPOSE

Research in genetics and infectious diseases (ID) presents novel configurations of ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSIs) related to the intersection of genetics with public health regulations and the control of transmissible diseases. Such research includes work both in pathogen genetics and on the ways that human genetics affect responses to ID. This paper identifies and systematizes the unique issues at this intersection, based on an interdisciplinary expert review.

BASIC PROCEDURES

This paper presents results of a formal issue-spotting exercise among twenty experts in public health, law and genomics, biobanking, genetic epidemiology, ID medicine and public health, philosophy, ethics and ID, ethics and genomics, and law and ID. The focus of the exercise was on the collection, storage, and sharing of genetic information relating to ID.

MAIN FINDINGS

The issue-spotting exercise highlighted the following ELSIs: risks in reporting to government authorities, return of individual research results, and resource allocation - each taking on specific configurations based on the balance between public health and individual privacy/protection.

PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS

The public health implications of interactions between genomics and ID frame considerations for equity and justice. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, these issues are especially pressing.

Predictive Analytics and the Return of "Research" Information to Participants

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates older adults aged 60+ will double by 2050 with 80% living in low to moderate income countries. As remote research studies supported by digital devices increase separation between researchers and participants, it is important to maintain participant trust. Research participants have expressed an interest in accessing both group and individual level results, which are not readily available. To bridge this gap, we engaged residents of a local continuing care senior housing community (CCSHC) to co-design documents used to convey information about study results. The process informed the refinement of informational materials for communicating scientific research that the CCSHC community considers accessible and meaningful.

Physicians' perspectives on receiving unsolicited genomic results

Purpose

Physicians increasingly receive genomic test results they did not order, which we term “unsolicited genomic results” (UGRs). We asked physicians how they think such results will affect them and their patients.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with adult and pediatric primary care and subspecialty physicians at four sites affiliated with a large-scale return-of-results project led by the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network. Twenty-five physicians addressed UGRs and: 1) perceived need for actionability, 2) impact on patients, 3) health care workflow, 4) return of results process, and 5) responsibility for results.

Results

Physicians prioritize actionability of UGRs and the need for clear, evidence-based “paths” for action coupled with clinical decision support (CDS). They identified potential harms to patients including anxiety, false reassurance, and clinical disutility. Clinicians worried about anticipated workflow issues including responding to UGRs and unreimbursed time. They disagreed about who was responsible for responding to UGRs.

Conclusion

The prospect of receiving UGRs for otherwise healthy patients raises important concerns for physicians. Their responses informed development of an in-depth survey for physicians following return of UGRs. Strategic workflow integration of UGRs will likely be necessary to empower physicians to serve their patients effectively.