Data from a national survey of United States primary care physicians on genetic risk scores for common disease prevention.

Genetic risk scores (GRS) are an emerging and rapidly evolving genomic medicine innovation that may contribute to more precise risk stratification for disease prevention. Inclusion of GRS in routine medical care is imminent, and understanding how physicians perceive and intend to utilize GRS in practice is an important first step in facilitating uptake. This dataset was derived from an electronic survey and comprises one of the first, largest, and broadest samples of United States primary care physician perceptions on the clinical decision-making, benefits, barriers, and utility of GRS to date. The dataset is nearly complete (<1% missing data) and contains responses from 369 PCPs spanning 58 column variables. The public repository includes minimally filtered, de-identified data, all underlying survey versions and items, a data dictionary, and associated analytic files.

The GenoVA study: Equitable implementation of a pragmatic randomized trial of polygenic-risk scoring in primary care.

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) hold promise for disease risk assessment and prevention. The Genomic Medicine at Veterans Affairs (GenoVA) Study is addressing three main challenges to the clinical implementation of PRSs in preventive care: defining and determining their clinical utility, implementing them in time-constrained primary care settings, and countering their potential to exacerbate healthcare disparities. The study processes used to test patients, report their PRS results to them and their primary care providers (PCPs), and promote the use of those results in clinical decision-making are modeled on common practices in primary care. The following diseases were chosen for their prevalence and familiarity to PCPs: coronary artery disease; type 2 diabetes; atrial fibrillation; and breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers. A randomized clinical trial (RCT) design and primary outcome of time-to-new-diagnosis of a target disease bring methodological rigor to the question of the clinical utility of PRS implementation. The study's pragmatic RCT design enhances its relevance to how PRS might reasonably be implemented in primary care. Steps the study has taken to promote health equity include the thoughtful handling of genetic ancestry in PRS construction and reporting and enhanced recruitment strategies to address underrepresentation in research participation. To date, enhanced recruitment efforts have been both necessary and successful: participants of underrepresented race and ethnicity groups have been less likely to enroll in the study than expected but ultimately achieved proportional representation through targeted efforts. The GenoVA Study experience to date offers insights for evaluating the clinical utility of equitable PRS implementation in adult primary care.

Perceived benefits and barriers to implementing precision preventive care: Results of a national physician survey.

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) may improve risk-stratification in preventive care. Their clinical implementation will depend on primary care physicians' (PCPs) uptake. We surveyed PCPs in a national physician database about the perceived clinical utility, benefits, and barriers to the use of PRS in preventive care. Among 367 respondents (participation rate 96.3%), mean (SD) age was 54.9 (12.9) years, 137 (37.3%) were female, and mean (SD) time since medical school graduation was 27.2 (13.3) years. Respondents reported greater perceived utility for more clinical action (e.g., earlier or more intensive screening, preventive medications, or lifestyle modification) for patients with high-risk PRS than for delayed or discontinued prevention actions for low-risk patients (p < 0.001). Respondents most often chose out-of-pocket costs (48%), lack of clinical guidelines (24%), and insurance discrimination concerns (22%) as extreme barriers. Latent class analysis identified 3 subclasses of respondents. Skeptics (n = 83, 22.6%) endorsed less agreement with individual clinical utilities, saw patient anxiety and insurance discrimination as significant barriers, and agreed less often that PRS could help patients make better health decisions. Learners (n = 134, 36.5%) and enthusiasts (n = 150, 40.9%) expressed similar levels of agreement that PRS had utility for preventive actions and that PRS could be useful for patient decision-making. Compared with enthusiasts, however, learners perceived greater barriers to the clinical use of PRS. Overall results suggest that PCPs generally endorse using PRS to guide medical decision-making about preventive care, and barriers identified suggest interventions to address their needs and concerns.

Primary care physician use of patient race and polygenic risk scores in medical decision-making.

PURPOSE: The use of patient race in medicine is controversial for its potential either to exacerbate or address health disparities. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have emerged as a tool for risk stratification models used in preventive medicine. We examined whether PRS results affect primary care physician (PCP) medical decision-making and whether that effect varies by patient race. METHODS: Using an online survey with a randomized experimental design among PCPs in a national database, we ascertained decision-making around atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prevention and prostate cancer screening for case scenario patients who were clinically identical except for randomized reported race. RESULTS: Across 369 PCPs (email open rate = 10.8%, partial completion rate = 93.7%), recommendations varied with PRS results in expected directions (low-risk results, no available PRS results, and high-risk results). Still, physicians randomized to scenarios with Black patients were more likely to recommend statin therapy than those randomized to scenarios with White patients (odds ratio = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.16-2.59, P = .007) despite otherwise identical clinical profiles and independent of PRS results. Similarly, physicians were more likely to recommend prostate cancer screening for Black patients than for White patients (odds ratio = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.06-2.35, P = .025) despite otherwise identical clinical and genetic profiles. CONCLUSION: Despite advances in precision risk stratification, physicians will likely continue to use patient race implicitly or explicitly in medical decision-making.

Patient and provider perspectives on polygenic risk scores: implications for clinical reporting and utilization.

BACKGROUND: Polygenic risk scores (PRS), which offer information about genomic risk for common diseases, have been proposed for clinical implementation. The ways in which PRS information may influence a patient's health trajectory depend on how both the patient and their primary care provider (PCP) interpret and act on PRS information. We aimed to probe patient and PCP responses to PRS clinical reporting choices METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews of both patients (N=25) and PCPs (N=21) exploring responses to mock PRS clinical reports of two different designs: binary and continuous representations of PRS. RESULTS: Many patients did not understand the numbers representing risk, with high numeracy patients being the exception. However, all the patients still understood a key takeaway that they should ask their PCP about actions to lower their disease risk. PCPs described a diverse range of heuristics they would use to interpret and act on PRS information. Three separate use cases for PRS emerged: to aid in gray-area clinical decision-making, to encourage patients to do what PCPs think patients should be doing anyway (such as exercising regularly), and to identify previously unrecognized high-risk patients. PCPs indicated that receiving "below average risk" information could be both beneficial and potentially harmful, depending on the use case. For "increased risk" patients, PCPs were favorable towards integrating PRS information into their practice, though some would only act in the presence of evidence-based guidelines. PCPs describe the report as more than a way to convey information, viewing it as something to structure the whole interaction with the patient. Both patients and PCPs preferred the continuous over the binary representation of PRS (23/25 and 17/21, respectively). We offer recommendations for the developers of PRS to consider for PRS clinical report design in the light of these patient and PCP viewpoints. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs saw PRS information as a natural extension of their current practice. The most pressing gap for PRS implementation is evidence for clinical utility. Careful clinical report design can help ensure that benefits are realized and harms are minimized.

Performance of EHR classifiers for patient eligibility in a clinical trial of precision screening.

BACKGROUND: Validated computable eligibility criteria use real-world data and facilitate the conduct of clinical trials. The Genomic Medicine at VA (GenoVA) Study is a pragmatic trial of polygenic risk score testing enrolling patients without known diagnoses of 6 common diseases: atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, type 2 diabetes, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and prostate cancer. We describe the validation of computable disease classifiers as eligibility criteria and their performance in the first 16 months of trial enrollment. METHODS: We identified well-performing published computable classifiers for the 6 target diseases and validated these in the target population using blinded physician review. If needed, classifiers were refined and then underwent a subsequent round of blinded review until true positive and true negative rates ≥80% were achieved. The optimized classifiers were then implemented as pre-screening exclusion criteria; telephone screens enabled an assessment of their real-world negative predictive value (NPV-RW). RESULTS: Published classifiers for type 2 diabetes and breast and prostate cancer achieved desired performance in blinded chart review without modification; the classifier for atrial fibrillation required two rounds of refinement before achieving desired performance. Among the 1077 potential participants screened in the first 16 months of enrollment, NPV-RW of the classifiers ranged from 98.4% for coronary artery disease to 99.9% for colorectal cancer. Performance did not differ by gender or race/ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Computable disease classifiers can serve as efficient and accurate pre-screening classifiers for clinical trials, although performance will depend on the trial objectives and diseases under study.

Implications of the mechanical (PCI) vs thrombolytic controversy for ST segment elevation myocardial infarction on the organization of emergency medical services: the Boston EMS experience.

With the many advances in rapid reperfusion therapy for management of acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), there is a need to revisit the current plan for prehospital triage (point of entry). Until recently in Boston, and nationwide, there has been a policy that patients with suspected acute MI were brought to the nearest hospital. Then, if ST segment elevation was present, patients were treated with either thrombolytic therapy or primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent data, however, have shown that with advances in interventional devices, techniques and institutional experience, primary PCI is associated with improved outcomes compared with thrombolytic therapy for all patients with STEMI when provided at expert centers with high institutional volumes, with experienced interventional cardiologists as the operators, and with relatively short time to treatment. We describe the rationale for and the implementation of the Boston EMS STEMI Triage Plan and Treatment Registry. Many of the issues that prompted the implementation of the Boston STEMI plan are relevant to all EMS systems. Among these issues are the accuracy of prehospital identification of STEMI patients, the availability of mechanical reperfusion therapy, the appropriate triage of patients with complicated myocardial infarction or shock, as well as the local consensus regarding strength of the evidence favoring mechanical reperfusion. This article describes the history of the Boston EMS STEMI Triage Plan and Treatment Registry and suggests the need for other EMS systems to develop a systematic approach to patients with STEMI.