Actionability of unanticipated monogenic disease risks in newborn genomic screening: Findings from the BabySeq Project.

Newborn genomic sequencing (NBSeq) to screen for medically important genetic information is of considerable interest but data characterizing the actionability of such findings, and the downstream medical efforts in response to discovery of unanticipated genetic risk variants, are lacking. From a clinical trial of comprehensive exome sequencing in 127 apparently healthy infants and 32 infants in intensive care, we previously identified 17 infants (10.7%) with unanticipated monogenic disease risks (uMDRs). In this analysis, we assessed actionability for each of these uMDRs with a modified ClinGen actionability semiquantitative metric (CASQM) and created radar plots representing degrees of penetrance of the condition, severity of the condition, effectiveness of intervention, and tolerability of intervention. In addition, we followed each of these infants for 3-5 years after disclosure and tracked the medical actions prompted by these findings. All 17 uMDR findings were scored as moderately or highly actionable on the CASQM (mean 9, range: 7-11 on a 0-12 scale) and several distinctive visual patterns emerged on the radar plots. In three infants, uMDRs revealed unsuspected genetic etiologies for existing phenotypes, and in the remaining 14 infants, uMDRs provided risk stratification for future medical surveillance. In 13 infants, uMDRs prompted screening for at-risk family members, three of whom underwent cancer-risk-reducing surgeries. Although assessments of clinical utility and cost-effectiveness will require larger datasets, these findings suggest that large-scale comprehensive sequencing of newborns will reveal numerous actionable uMDRs and precipitate substantial, and in some cases lifesaving, downstream medical care in newborns and their family members.

Family secrets: Experiences and outcomes of participating in direct-to-consumer genetic relative-finder services.

In recent decades, genetic genealogy has become popular as a result of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing. Some DTC genetic testing companies offer genetic relative-finder (GRF) services that compare the DNA of consenting participants to identify genetic relatives among them and provide each participant a list of their relative matches. We surveyed a convenience sample of GRF service participants to understand the prevalence of discoveries and associated experiences. Almost half (46%) of the 23,196 respondents had participated in GRF services only for non-specific reasons that included interest in building family trees and general curiosity. However, most (82%) also learned the identity of at least one genetic relative. Separately, most respondents (61%) reported learning something new about themselves or their relatives, including potentially disruptive information such as that a person they believed to be their biological parent is in fact not or that they have a sibling they had not known about. Respondents generally reported that discovering this new information had a neutral or positive impact on their lives, and most had low regret regarding their decision to participate in GRF services. Yet some reported making life changes as a result of their discoveries. Compared to respondents making other types of discoveries, those who learned that they were donor conceived reported the highest decisional regret and represented the largest proportion reporting net-negative consequences for themselves. Our findings indicate that discoveries from GRF services may be common and that the consequences for individuals, while generally positive, can be far-reaching and complex.

Parents' decision-making regarding whether to receive adult-onset only genetic findings for their children: Findings from the BabySeq Project.

PURPOSE: Most professional guidelines recommend against genetic screening for adult-onset only (AO) conditions until adulthood, yet others argue that there may be benefit to disclosing such results. We explored parents' decision-making on this issue in the BabySeq Project, a clinical trial of newborn genomic sequencing. METHODS: We conducted interviews with parents (N = 24) who were given the option to receive actionable AO results for their children. Interviews explored parents' motivations to receive and reasons to decline AO genetic disease risk information, their decision-making process, and their suggestions for supporting parents in making this decision. RESULTS: Parents noted several motivations to receive and reasons to decline AO results. Most commonly, parents cited early intervention/surveillance (n = 11), implications for family health (n = 7), and the ability to prepare (n = 6) as motivations to receive these results. The most common reasons to decline were protection of the child's future autonomy (n = 4), negative effect on parenting (n = 3), and anxiety about future disease (n = 3). Parents identified a number of ways to support parents in making this decision. CONCLUSION: Results show considerations to better support parental decision-making that aligns with their values when offering AO genetic information because it is more commonly integrated into pediatric clinical care.

Clinically Indicated Genomic Sequencing of Children in Foster Care: Legal and Ethical Issues.

There are approximately 400 000 children in foster care in the US, approximately one-half of whom have chronic health problems and approximately 10% of whom have complex healthcare needs. Given the increasing relevance of genomic sequencing to guide clinical care for children with rare, chronic, and undiagnosed conditions, it may be an important component of diagnostic evaluation for children in foster care. Clinically indicated genomic sequencing may provide information that has health implications for children in foster care, as well as for their biological parents and other relatives. Whether and how genomic sequencing results impact legal decision making and family court outcomes is not yet well-understood. We describe scenarios that highlight legal, ethical, and policy issues surrounding genomic sequencing for children in foster care using 3 cases adapted from real-world events. Together, these cases highlight important yet underexplored issues that arise when genomic information has legal relevance in family court and ethical implications for child and family well-being. As genomic sequencing becomes more routine for the general pediatric population, additional research is needed to better understand its impacts on children and other stakeholders within the foster care system.

Effects of participation in a U.S. trial of newborn genomic sequencing on parents at risk for depression.

Much emphasis has been placed on participant's psychological safety within genomic research studies; however, few studies have addressed parental psychological health effects associated with their child's participation in genomic studies, particularly when parents meet the threshold for clinical concern for depression. We aimed to determine if parents' depressive symptoms were associated with their child's participation in a randomized-controlled trial of newborn exome sequencing. Parents completed the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) at baseline, immediately post-disclosure, and 3 months post-disclosure. Mothers and fathers scoring at or above thresholds for clinical concern on the EPDS, 12 and 10, respectively, indicating possible Major Depressive Disorder with Peripartum Onset, were contacted by study staff for mental health screening. Parental concerns identified in follow-up conversations were coded for themes. Forty-five parents had EPDS scores above the clinical threshold at baseline, which decreased by an average of 2.9 points immediately post-disclosure and another 1.1 points 3 months post-disclosure (both p ≤ .014). For 28 parents, EPDS scores were below the threshold for clinical concern at baseline, increased by an average of 4.7 points into the elevated range immediately post-disclosure, and decreased by 3.8 points at 3 months post-disclosure (both p < .001). Nine parents scored above thresholds only at 3 months post-disclosure after increasing an average of 5.7 points from immediately post-disclosure (p < .001). Of the 82 parents who scored above the threshold at any time point, 43 (52.4%) were reached and 30 (69.7%) of these 43 parents attributed their elevated scores to parenting stress, balancing work and family responsibilities, and/or child health concerns. Only three parents (7.0%) raised concerns about their participation in the trial, particularly their randomization to the control arm. Elevated scores on the EPDS were typically transient and parents attributed their symptomatology to life stressors in the postpartum period rather than participation in a trial of newborn exome sequencing.

Psychiatric polygenic risk scores: Child and adolescent psychiatrists' knowledge, attitudes, and experiences.

Psychiatric polygenic risk scores (PRS) have potential utility in psychiatric care and prevention, but there are concerns about their implementation. We surveyed 960 US-based practicing child and adolescent psychiatrists' (CAP) about their experiences, perspectives, and potential uses of psychiatric PRS. While 23% of CAP reported that they had never heard of PRS, 10 % of respondents have had a patient/family bring PRS to them and 4% have generated PRS for patients. Though 25% stated they would request PRS if a patient/caregiver asked, 35% indicated that nothing would prompt them to request PRS. Most respondents (54%) believed psychiatric PRS are currently at least slightly useful and 87% believed they will be so in 5 years. More than 70% indicated they would take action in response to a child with a top fifth percentile psychiatric PRS but no diagnosis: 48% would increase monitoring of symptoms, 42% would evaluate for current symptoms, and 4% would prescribe medications. Yet, most respondents were concerned that high-PRS results could lead to overtreatment and negatively impact patients' emotional well-being. Findings indicate emerging use of psychiatric PRS within child and adolescent psychiatry in the US. It is critical to examine the ethical and clinical challenges that PRS may generate and begin efforts to promote their informed and responsible use.

Return of results in a global survey of psychiatric genetics researchers: practices, attitudes, and knowledge.

PURPOSE: Patient-participants in psychiatric genetics research may be at an increased risk for negative psychosocial impacts related to the return of genetic research results. Examining psychiatric genetics researchers' return of results practices and perspectives can aid the development of empirically informed and ethically sound guidelines. METHODS: A survey of 407 psychiatric genetics researchers from 39 countries was conducted to examine current return of results practices, attitudes, and knowledge. RESULTS: Most respondents (61%) reported that their studies generated medically relevant genomic findings. Although 24% have returned results to individual participants, 52% of those involved in decisions about return of results plan to return or continue to return results. Respondents supported offering "medically actionable" results related to psychiatric disorders (82%), and the majority agreed non-medically actionable risks for Huntington (71%) and Alzheimer disease (64%) should be offered. About half (49%) of respondents supported offering reliable polygenic risk scores for psychiatric conditions. Despite plans to return, only 14% of researchers agreed there are adequate guidelines for returning results, and 59% rated their knowledge about how to manage the process for returning results as poor. CONCLUSION: Psychiatric genetics researchers support returning a wide range of results to patient-participants, but they lack adequate knowledge and guidelines.

Genetic testing in ambulatory cardiology clinics reveals high rate of findings with clinical management implications.

PURPOSE: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in adults in the United States, yet the benefits of genetic testing are not universally accepted. METHODS: We developed the "HeartCare" panel of genes associated with CVD, evaluating high-penetrance Mendelian conditions, coronary artery disease (CAD) polygenic risk, LPA gene polymorphisms, and specific pharmacogenetic (PGx) variants. We enrolled 709 individuals from cardiology clinics at Baylor College of Medicine, and samples were analyzed in a CAP/CLIA-certified laboratory. Results were returned to the ordering physician and uploaded to the electronic medical record. RESULTS: Notably, 32% of patients had a genetic finding with clinical management implications, even after excluding PGx results, including 9% who were molecularly diagnosed with a Mendelian condition. Among surveyed physicians, 84% reported medical management changes based on these results, including specialist referrals, cardiac tests, and medication changes. LPA polymorphisms and high polygenic risk of CAD were found in 20% and 9% of patients, respectively, leading to diet, lifestyle, and other changes. Warfarin and simvastatin pharmacogenetic variants were present in roughly half of the cohort. CONCLUSION: Our results support the use of genetic information in routine cardiovascular health management and provide a roadmap for accompanying research.

Psychiatric genomics researchers' perspectives on best practices for returning results to individual participants.

PURPOSE: Large-scale array-based and sequencing studies have advanced our understanding of the genetic architecture of psychiatric disorders, but also increased the potential to generate an exponentially larger amount of clinically relevant findings. As genomic testing becomes more widespread in psychiatry research, urgency grows to establish best practices for offering return of results (RoR) to individuals at risk or diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder. METHODS: We interviewed an international sample (n = 39) of psychiatric genetics researchers to examine conceptualizations of "best practices" for RoR to individual research participants. RESULTS: While the vast majority of researchers do not offer RoR, most believed medically actionable findings (85%) and clinically valid but non-medically actionable findings (54%) should be offered. Researchers identified three main areas for improvement: interfacing with individual participants; interdisciplinary training, guidance, and integration; and quality planning and resource allocation for returning results. CONCLUSION: There are significant gaps between researchers' visions for "best" versus "actual" RoR practices. While researchers call for participant-centered practices, including consent practices that consider any special needs of participants with psychiatric disorders, return of individually meaningful results, and effective follow-up and provisions for treatment, the current reality is that consent and RoR practices lack standardized and evidence-based norms.

Educating military primary health-care providers in genomic medicine: lessons learned from the MilSeq Project.

PURPOSE: With few trained genetics professionals, the Military Health System is ill-equipped to manage the rapid expansion of genomic medicine. The MilSeq Project introduces an alternative service delivery model (ASDM) in which primary health-care providers (HCPs) provide post-test counseling (PTC) to healthy Airmen who have undergone exome sequencing. We describe HCP performance after a prerequisite educational intervention (EI). METHODS: After a brief EI and pre-/posteducation surveys, HCPs were eligible to provide PTC with a genetic counselor available for consult. PTC was recorded, transcribed, and reviewed. Opportunities for improvement were organized into four error adjustment categories: (1) knowledge limitation, (2) minor, (3) moderate, and (4) critical. Thematic analysis was also performed. RESULTS: Pre-/posteducation survey responses revealed statistically significant improvements in all domains. Minor error adjustments were most represented (n = 93), followed by knowledge limitation (n = 39) and moderate (n = 19). No critical errors were identified, and 17 transcripts required no adjustment. Thematic analysis revealed four themes that would benefit from more focused education: (1) family-centered care, (2) conveying risk, (3) disease knowledge, and (4) assay knowledge. CONCLUSION: HCPs demonstrated competence in basic PTC after a brief EI. This ASDM may be a viable interim response to the shortage of genetics professionals in some systems.

Airmen and health-care providers' attitudes toward the use of genomic sequencing in the US Air Force: findings from the MilSeq Project.

PURPOSE: The use of genomic sequencing (GS) in military settings poses unique considerations, including the potential for GS to impact service members' careers. The MilSeq Project investigated the use of GS in clinical care of active duty Airmen in the United States Air Force (USAF). METHODS: We assessed perceived risks, benefits, and attitudes toward use of GS in the USAF among patient participants (n = 93) and health-care provider participants (HCPs) (n = 12) prior to receiving or disclosing GS results. RESULTS: Participants agreed that there are health benefits associated with GS (90% patients, 75% HCPs), though more HCPs (75%) than patients (40%) agreed that there are risks (p = 0.048). The majority of both groups (67% HCPs, 77% patients) agreed that they trust the USAF with genetic information, but far fewer agreed that genetic information should be used to make decisions about deployment (5% patients, 17% HCPs) or duty assignments (3% patients, 17% HCPs). Despite their hesitancy, patients were supportive of the USAF testing for nondisease traits that could impact their duty performance. Eighty-seven percent of patients did not think their GS results would influence their career. CONCLUSION: Results suggest favorable attitudes toward the use of GS in the USAF when not used for deployment or assignment decisions.

Responsibility, culpability, and parental views on genomic testing for seriously ill children.

PURPOSE: We describe parental perceptions of and experiences with genomic sequencing (GS) in the care of seriously ill children. Understanding parents' perspectives is vital for clinicians caring for children, given the uptake of genomic technologies into clinical practice. METHODS: Longitudinal, semistructured interviews were conducted with parents of pediatric cancer patients who underwent exome sequencing (ES) as a part of the BASIC3 study. Interviews were conducted at baseline, one to eight months after results disclosure, and approximately one year after disclosure. Using thematic qualitative analysis, parent interviews were coded with both inductive and deductive approaches. RESULTS: Before receiving genomic information, parents indicated that they saw ES as something responsible parents would agree to if their child had cancer. Some parents talked about the possibility of sequencing affecting feelings of culpability for their child's cancer, worrying that they passed on a cancer-causing gene or made parenting decisions that caused the disease. However, after receiving their child's ES results many reported feeling relieved of guilt and worry, and felt they had fulfilled parental duties by agreeing to ES for their child. CONCLUSION: These results reveal a layer of meaning that parents associate with GS that may inform clinicians' approach to care.

Parental interest in genomic sequencing of newborns: enrollment experience from the BabySeq Project.

PURPOSE: Newborn genomic sequencing (nGS) has great potential to improve pediatric care. Parental interest and concerns about genomics are relatively unexplored. Understanding why parents decline research consent for nGS may reveal implementation barriers. METHODS: We evaluated parental interest in a randomized trial of nGS in well-baby and intensive care unit nursery settings. Interested families attended an informational enrollment session (ES) with a genetic counselor prior to consenting. Reason(s) for declining participation and sociodemographic associations were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 3860 eligible approached families, 10% attended ES, 67% of whom enrolled. Of 1760 families queried for decline reasons, 58% were uninterested in research. Among 499 families considering research, principal reasons for decline prior to ES included burdensome study logistics (48%), feeling overwhelmed postpartum (17%), and lack of interest/discomfort with genetic testing (17%). Decliners after ES more often cited concerns about privacy/insurability (41%) and uncertain/unfavorable results (23%). CONCLUSION: Low interest in research and study logistics were major initial barriers to postpartum enrollment and are likely generic to many postpartum research efforts. Concerns over privacy and result implications were most commonly cited in decliners after ES. Understanding parental concerns around research nGS may inform future integration of nGS into newborn screening, predictive testing, and pediatric diagnostics.

Psychiatric genetics researchers' views on offering return of results to individual participants.

In the middle of growing consensus that genomics researchers should offer to return clinically valid, medically relevant, and medically actionable findings identified in the course of research, psychiatric genetics researchers face new challenges. As they uncover the genetic architecture of psychiatric disorders through genome-wide association studies and integrate whole genome and whole exome sequencing to their research, there is a pressing need for examining these researchers' views regarding the return of results (RoR) and the unique challenges for offering RoR from psychiatric genetics research. Based on qualitative interviews with 39 psychiatric genetics researchers from different countries operating at the forefront of their field, we provide an insider's view of researchers' practices regarding RoR and the most contentious issues in psychiatry researchers' decision-making around RoR, including what are the strongest ethical, scientific, and practical arguments for and against offering RoR from this research. Notably, findings suggest that psychiatric genetics researchers (85%) overwhelmingly favor offering RoR of at least some findings, but only 22% of researchers are returning results. Researchers identified a number of scientific and practical concerns about RoR, and about how to return results in a responsible way to patients diagnosed with a severe psychiatric disorder. Furthermore, findings help highlight areas for further discussion and resolution of conflicts in the practice of RoR in psychiatric genetics research. As the pace of discovery in psychiatric genetics continues to surge, resolution of these uncertainties gains greater urgency to avoid ethical pitfalls and to maximize the positive impact of RoR.

The BabySeq project: implementing genomic sequencing in newborns.

BACKGROUND: The greatest opportunity for lifelong impact of genomic sequencing is during the newborn period. The "BabySeq Project" is a randomized trial that explores the medical, behavioral, and economic impacts of integrating genomic sequencing into the care of healthy and sick newborns. METHODS: Families of newborns are enrolled from Boston Children's Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital nurseries, and half are randomized to receive genomic sequencing and a report that includes monogenic disease variants, recessive carrier variants for childhood onset or actionable disorders, and pharmacogenomic variants. All families participate in a disclosure session, which includes the return of results for those in the sequencing arm. Outcomes are collected through review of medical records and surveys of parents and health care providers and include the rationale for choice of genes and variants to report; what genomic data adds to the medical management of sick and healthy babies; and the medical, behavioral, and economic impacts of integrating genomic sequencing into the care of healthy and sick newborns. DISCUSSION: The BabySeq Project will provide empirical data about the risks, benefits and costs of newborn genomic sequencing and will inform policy decisions related to universal genomic screening of newborns. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02422511 . Registration date: 10 April 2015.

Adult genetic risk screening.

Recent advances in genetic analysis especially DNA sequencing technology open a new strategy for adult disease prevention by genetic screening. Physicians presently treat disease pathology with less emphasis on disease risk prevention/reduction. Genetic screening has reduced the incidence of untreatable childhood genetic diseases and improved the care of newborns. The opportunity exists to expand screening programs and reduce the incidence of adult onset diseases via genetic risk identification and disease intervention. This article outlines the approach, challenges, and benefits of such screening for adult genetic disease risks.