Models of communication for polygenic scores and associated psychosocial and behavioral effects on recipients: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to systematically review current models for communicating polygenic scores (PGS) and psycho-behavioral outcomes of receiving PGSs. METHODS: Original research on communicating PGSs and reporting on psycho-behavioral outcomes was included. Search terms were applied to 5 databases and were limited by date (2009-2021). RESULTS: In total, 28 articles, representing 17 studies in several disease settings were identified. There was limited consistency in PGS communication and evaluation/reporting of outcomes. Most studies (n = 14) presented risk in multiple ways (ie, numerically, verbally, and/or visually). Three studies provided personalized lifestyle advice and additional resources. Only 1 of 17 studies reported using behavior change theory to inform their PGS intervention. A total of 8 studies found no evidence of long-term negative psychosocial effects up to 12 months post result. Of 14 studies reporting on behavior, 9 found at least 1 favorable change after PGS receipt. When stratified by risk, 7 out of 9 studies found high PGS was associated with favorable changes including lifestyle, medication, and screening. Low-risk PGS was not associated with maladaptive behaviors (n = 4). CONCLUSION: PGS has the potential to benefit health behavior. High variability among studies emphasizes the need for developing standardized guidelines for communicating PGSs and evaluating psycho-behavioral outcomes. Our findings call for development of best communication practices and evidence-based interventions informed by behavior change theories.

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.

Clinical Implementation of Combined Monogenic and Polygenic Risk Disclosure for Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: State-of-the-art genetic risk interpretation for a common complex disease such as coronary artery disease (CAD) requires assessment for both monogenic variants-such as those related to familial hypercholesterolemia-as well as the cumulative impact of many common variants, as quantified by a polygenic score. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to describe a combined monogenic and polygenic CAD risk assessment program and examine its impact on patient understanding and changes to clinical management. METHODS: Study participants attended an initial visit in a preventive genomics clinic and a disclosure visit to discuss results and recommendations, primarily via telemedicine. Digital postdisclosure surveys and chart review evaluated the impact of disclosure. RESULTS: There were 60 participants (mean age 51 years, 37% women, 72% with no known CAD), including 30 (50%) referred by their cardiologists and 30 (50%) self-referred. Two (3%) participants had a monogenic variant pathogenic for familial hypercholesterolemia, and 19 (32%) had a high polygenic score in the top quintile of the population distribution. In a postdisclosure survey, both the genetic test report (in 80% of participants) and the discussion with the clinician (in 89% of participants) were ranked as very or extremely helpful in understanding the result. Of the 42 participants without CAD, 17 or 40% had a change in management, including statin initiation, statin intensification, or coronary imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Combined monogenic and polygenic assessments for CAD risk provided by preventive genomics clinics are beneficial for patients and result in changes in management in a significant portion of patients.

Association of the Interaction Between Familial Hypercholesterolemia Variants and Adherence to a Healthy Lifestyle With Risk of Coronary Artery Disease.

Importance: Familial hypercholesterolemia variants impair clearance of cholesterol from the circulation and increase risk of coronary artery disease (CAD). The extent to which adherence to a healthy lifestyle is associated with a lower risk of CAD in carriers and noncarriers of variants warrants further study. Objective: To assess the association of the interaction between familial hypercholesterolemia variants and adherence to a healthy lifestyle with risk of CAD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used 2 independent data sets with gene sequencing and lifestyle data from the UK Biobank: a case-control study of 4896 cases and 5279 controls and a cohort study of 39 920 participants. Participants were recruited from 22 sites across the UK between March 21, 2006, and October 1, 2010. The case-control study included participants with CAD and controls at enrollment. The cohort study used a convenience sample of individuals with available gene sequencing data. Statistical analysis was performed from April 2, 2019, to January 20, 2022. Exposures: Pathogenic or likely pathogenic DNA variants classified by a clinical laboratory geneticist and adherence to a healthy lifestyle based on a 4-point scoring system (1 point for each of the following: healthy diet, regular exercise, not smoking, and absence of obesity). Main Outcomes and Measures: Coronary artery disease, defined as myocardial infarction in the case-control study, and myocardial infarction, ischemic heart disease, or coronary revascularization procedure in the cohort study. Results: The case-control study included 10 175 participants (6828 men [67.1%]; mean [SD] age, 58.6 [7.2] years), and the cohort study included 39 920 participants (18 802 men [47.1%]; mean [SD] age at the end of follow-up, 66.4 [8.0] years). A variant was identified in 35 of 4896 cases (0.7%) and 12 of 5279 controls (0.2%), corresponding to an odds ratio of 3.0 (95% CI, 1.6-5.9), and a variant was identified in 108 individuals (0.3%) in the cohort study, in which the hazard ratio for CAD was 3.8 (95% CI, 2.5-5.8). However, this risk appeared to vary according to lifestyle categories in both carriers and noncarriers of familial hypercholesterolemia variants, without a significant interaction between carrier status and lifestyle (odds ratio, 1.2 [95% CI, 0.6-2.5]; P = .62). Among carriers, a favorable lifestyle conferred 86% lower risk of CAD compared with an unfavorable lifestyle (hazard ratio, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.04-0.41]). The estimated risk of CAD by the age of 75 years varied according to lifestyle, ranging from 10.2% among noncarriers with a favorable lifestyle to 24.0% among noncarriers with an unfavorable lifestyle and ranging from 34.5% among carriers with a favorable lifestyle to 66.2% among carriers with an unfavorable lifestyle. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that, among carriers and noncarriers of a familial hypercholesterolemia variant, significant gradients in risk of CAD are noted according to adherence to a healthy lifestyle pattern. Similar to the general population, individuals who carry familial hypercholesterolemia variants are likely to benefit from lifestyle interventions to reduce their risk of CAD.

Design and user experience testing of a polygenic score report: a qualitative study of prospective users.

BACKGROUND: Polygenic scores-which quantify inherited risk by integrating information from many common sites of DNA variation-may enable a tailored approach to clinical medicine. However, alongside considerable enthusiasm, we and others have highlighted a lack of standardized approaches for score disclosure. Here, we review the landscape of polygenic score reporting and describe a generalizable approach for development of a polygenic score disclosure tool for coronary artery disease. METHODS: We assembled a working group of clinicians, geneticists, data visualization specialists, and software developers. The group reviewed existing polygenic score reports and then designed a two-page mock report for coronary artery disease. We then conducted a qualitative user-experience study with this report using an interview guide focused on comprehension, experience, and attitudes. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed for themes identification to inform report revision. RESULTS: Review of nine existing polygenic score reports from commercial and academic groups demonstrated significant heterogeneity, reinforcing the need for additional efforts to study and standardize score disclosure. Using a newly developed mock score report, we conducted interviews with ten adult individuals (50% females, 70% without prior genetic testing experience, age range 20-70 years) recruited via an online platform. We identified three themes from interviews: (1) visual elements, such as color and simple graphics, enable participants to interpret, relate to, and contextualize their polygenic score, (2) word-based descriptions of risk and polygenic scores presented as percentiles were the best recognized and understood, (3) participants had varying levels of interest in understanding complex genomic information and therefore would benefit from additional resources that can adapt to their individual needs in real time. In response to user feedback, colors used for communicating risk were modified to minimize unintended color associations and odds ratios were removed. All 10 participants expressed interest in receiving a polygenic score report based on their personal genomic information. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings describe a generalizable approach to develop a polygenic score report understandable by potential patients. Although additional studies are needed across a wider spectrum of patient populations, these results are likely to inform ongoing efforts related to polygenic score disclosure within clinical practice.

Randomized prospective evaluation of genome sequencing versus standard-of-care as a first molecular diagnostic test.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic yield and clinical relevance of clinical genome sequencing (cGS) as a first genetic test for patients with suspected monogenic disorders. METHODS: We conducted a prospective randomized study with pediatric and adult patients recruited from genetics clinics at Massachusetts General Hospital who were undergoing planned genetic testing. Participants were randomized into two groups: standard-of-care genetic testing (SOC) only or SOC and cGS. RESULTS: Two hundred four participants were enrolled, 202 were randomized to one of the intervention arms, and 99 received cGS. In total, cGS returned 16 molecular diagnoses that fully or partially explained the indication for testing in 16 individuals (16.2% of the cohort, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8.9-23.4%), which was not significantly different from SOC (18.2%, 95% CI 10.6-25.8%, P = 0.71). An additional eight molecular diagnoses reported by cGS had uncertain relevance to the participant's phenotype. Nevertheless, referring providers considered 20/24 total cGS molecular diagnoses (83%) to be explanatory for clinical features or worthy of additional workup. CONCLUSION: cGS is technically suitable as a first genetic test. In our cohort, diagnostic yield was not significantly different from SOC. Further studies addressing other variant types and implementation challenges are needed to support feasibility and utility of broad-scale cGS adoption.