Evaluation of Malignant Hyperthermia Features in Patients with Pathogenic or Likely Pathogenic RYR1 Variants Disclosed through a Population Genomic Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: Malignant hyperthermia (MH) susceptibility is a heritable musculoskeletal disorder that can present as a potentially fatal hypermetabolic response to triggering anesthesia agents. Genomic screening for variants in MH-associated genes RYR1 and CACNA1S provides an opportunity to prevent morbidity and mortality. There are limited outcomes data from disclosing variants in RYR1, the most common MH susceptibility gene, in unselected populations. The authors sought to identify the rate of MH features or fulminant episodes after triggering agent exposure in an unselected population undergoing genomic screening including actionable RYR1 variants. METHODS: The MyCode Community Health Initiative by Geisinger (USA) is an electronic health record-linked biobank that discloses pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants in clinically actionable genes to patient-participants. Available electronic anesthesia and ambulatory records for participants with actionable RYR1 results returned through December 2020 were evaluated for pertinent findings via double-coded chart reviews and reconciliation. Descriptive statistics for observed phenotypes were calculated. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-two participants had an actionable RYR1 variant disclosed during the study period. None had previous documented genetic testing for MH susceptibility; one had previous contracture testing diagnosing MH susceptibility. Sixty-eight participants (44.7%) had anesthesia records documenting triggering agent exposure during at least one procedure. None received dantrolene treatment or had documented muscle rigidity, myoglobinuria, hyperkalemia, elevated creatine kinase, severe myalgia, or tea-colored urine. Of 120 possibly MH-related findings (postoperative intensive care unit admissions, hyperthermia, arterial blood gas evaluation, hypercapnia, or tachycardia), 112 (93.3%) were deemed unlikely to be MH events; 8 (6.7%) had insufficient records to determine etiology. CONCLUSIONS: Results demonstrate a low frequency of classic intraanesthetic hypermetabolic phenotypes in an unselected population with actionable RYR1 variants. Further research on the actionability of screening for MH susceptibility in unselected populations, including economic impact, predictors of MH episodes, and expanded clinical phenotypes, is necessary.

A randomized controlled trial of genetic testing and cascade screening in familial hypercholesterolemia.

PURPOSE: Family-based cascade screening from index probands is considered an effective way of identifying undiagnosed individuals with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). The role of genetic testing of the proband in the success of cascade screening for FH is unknown. METHODS: We randomized 240 individuals with a clinical diagnosis of FH to genetic testing for FH (n = 160) or usual care with lipid testing alone (n = 80). The primary study endpoint was the proportion of probands with at least one relative enrolled in the study within one year after the notification of results. RESULTS: Proband median age was 59 (47-67) and 71% were female. Only 28 (12%) probands succeeded in enrolling a relative. While the genetic testing group had a higher proportion of probands with relatives enrolled (13.1%) compared with the usual care group (8.8%), this difference was not significant (p = 0.40). In subgroup analyses, enrollment of a relative was higher in the pathogenic variant group (22.7%) compared to the no pathogenic variant (9.5%) and usual care groups (8.8%) (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: We observed a low rate of family participation in cascade screening despite repeated recommendations to probands. Compared to usual care, genetic testing did not improve family participation in cascade screening for FH. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT04526457.

Genetic counseling clinical documentation: Practice Resource of the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Clinical documentation is an important extension of a genetic counseling encounter. The traditional types of clinical documentation include the clinical visit note (including follow-up visit note), letter to the referring physician, letter to the patient, and result summary to the patient and referring physician. Increasing patient volumes, new genetic counseling service delivery models, transition to electronic medical records (EMR), new specialty clinics in genetics, and advances in genetic testing technologies challenge the practice of writing multiple types of clinical documents. This practice resource (PR) seeks to provide best practices for U.S.-based genetic counselors to write efficient and comprehensive clinical documentation using a hybrid clinical document designed to facilitate communication between individual providers, providers, and patients/families, and providers and payers. The content of the hybrid clinical documentation will vary by genetic specialty but may include a summary of genetic services evaluation, genetic testing options and eligibility information, genetic test results, potential risks for genetic conditions, implications for family members, and medical management recommendations. An outline of a general hybrid document along with examples of hybrid clinic notes for three types of genetic counseling specialties is included in this document.

Yield of Familial Hypercholesterolemia Genetic and Phenotypic Diagnoses After Electronic Health Record and Genomic Data Screening.

Background Data mining of electronic health records to identify patients suspected of familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) has been limited by absence of both phenotypic and genomic data in the same cohort. Methods and Results Using the Geisinger MyCode Community Health Initiative cohort (n=130 257), we ran 2 screening algorithms (Mayo Clinic [Mayo] and flag, identify, network, deliver [FIND] FH) to determine FH genetic and phenotypic diagnostic yields. With 29 243 excluded by Mayo (for secondary causes of hypercholesterolemia, no lipid value in electronic health records), 52 034 excluded by FIND FH (insufficient data to run the model), and 187 excluded for prior FH diagnosis, a final cohort of 59 729 participants was created. Genetic diagnosis was based on presence of a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in FH genes. Charts from 180 variant-negative participants (60 controls, 120 identified by FIND FH and Mayo) were reviewed to calculate Dutch Lipid Clinic Network scores; a score ≥5 defined probable phenotypic FH. Mayo flagged 10 415 subjects; 194 (1.9%) had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic FH variant. FIND FH flagged 573; 34 (5.9%) had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant, giving a net yield from both of 197 out of 280 (70%). Confirmation of a phenotypic diagnosis was constrained by lack of electronic health record data on physical findings or family history. Phenotypic FH by chart review was present by Mayo and/or FIND FH in 13 out of 120 versus 2 out of 60 not flagged by either (P<0.09). Conclusions Applying 2 recognized FH screening algorithms to the Geisinger MyCode Community Health Initiative identified 70% of those with a pathogenic or likely pathogenic FH variant. Phenotypic diagnosis was rarely achievable due to missing data.

Investigating Psychological Impact after Receiving Genetic Risk Results-A Survey of Participants in a Population Genomic Screening Program.

Genomic screening programs have potential to benefit individuals who may not be clinically ascertained, but little is known about the psychological impact of receiving genetic results in this setting. The current study sought to further the understanding of individuals' psychological response to receiving an actionable genetic test result from genomic screening. Telephone surveys were conducted with patient-participants at 6 weeks and 6 months post genetic result disclosure between September 2019 and May 2021 and assessed emotional response to receiving results via the FACToR, PANAS, and decision regret scales. Overall, 354 (29.4%) study participants completed both surveys. Participants reported moderate positive emotions and low levels of negative emotions, uncertainty, privacy concern, and decision regret over time. There were significant decreases in negative emotions (p = 0.0004) and uncertainty (p = 0.0126) between time points on the FACToR scale. "Interested" was the highest scoring discrete emotion (T1 3.6, T2 3.3, scale 0−5) but was significantly lower at 6 months (<0.0001). Coupled with other benefits of genomic screening, these results of modest psychological impact waning over time adds support to clinical utility of population genomic screening programs. However, questions remain regarding how to elicit an emotional response that motivates behavior change without causing psychological harm.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Experiences with Population Genetic Testing Offered Through a Primary Care Network.

Aims: To explore patient experiences in a large-scale primary care-based, preemptive genetic testing program. Methods: Patients who received genetic results from the initiative were invited to participate in an online survey 3 weeks postresult disclosure. A 6-month follow-up survey was sent to assess changes over time. Results: The initial survey was completed by 1646 patients, with 544 completing the 6-month follow-up survey. The following outcomes were high overall: patient-reported understanding of results (cancer: 87%; cardiac: 86%); perceived utility (75%); positive emotions (relieved: 66.8%; happy: 62.0%); family result sharing (67.6%); and satisfaction (87%), although analysis by demographic factors identified groups who may benefit from additional education and emotional support. Results-related health behaviors and discussions with providers increased over time (screening procedures 6.1% to 14.2% p < 0.001; provider discussion 10.3% to 25.3%, p < 0.001), and were more likely to take place for patients with positive cancer and/or cardiac results (39.8% vs. 7.6%, p < 0.001). Forty-seven percent of patients reported insurance discrimination concerns, and most (79.4%) were not familiar with privacy and nondiscrimination laws. Concerns regarding discrimination and negative emotions decreased between the two survey time points (privacy issues 44.6% to 35.1% p < 0.001; life insurance discrimination concerns 35.5% to 29.6%, p = 0.001; anxiety 8.1% to 3.3%, p < 0.001; and uncertainty 19.8% to 12.8%, p < 0.001). These findings led to the development and integration of additional patient resources to improve program implementation. Conclusion: Our findings highlight patient experiences with and areas of need in a community-based genomic screening pilot initiative using a mixed primary care/genetics provider model to deliver precision medicine.

Patient perspectives following pharmacogenomics results disclosure in an integrated health system.

AIM: To assess patient perceptions and utilization of pharmacogenomics (PGx) testing in an integrated community health system. METHODS: Fifty-seven patients completed an online survey assessing their experiences with PGx testing offered through two methods: a designated PGx clinic or direct access in-home testing. RESULTS: The majority of participants perceived PGx testing as helpful in their healthcare and reported understanding their results. Some had concerns about privacy and discrimination; most lacked familiarity with the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. There were no significant differences in views between participants tested through either model. CONCLUSION: Participants reported value in both methods of PGx testing. Patient experiences, understanding and result utilization will play an important role in informing future development and implementation of PGx programs.

National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center Dispersion Modeling of the Full-scale Radiological Dispersal Device (FSRDD) Field Trials.

The results of the National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center (NARAC) model simulations are compared to measured data from the Full-Scale Radiological Dispersal Device (FSRDD) field trials. The series of explosive radiological dispersal device (RDD) experiments was conducted in 2012 by Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) and collaborating organizations. During the trials, a wealth of data was collected, including a variety of deposition and air concentration measurements. The experiments were conducted with one of the stated goals being to provide measurements to atmospheric dispersion modelers. These measurements can be used to facilitate important model validation studies. For this study, meteorological observations recorded during the tests are input to the diagnostic meteorological model, ADAPT, which provides 3-D, time-varying mean wind and turbulence fields to the LODI dispersion model. LODI concentration and deposition results are compared to the measured data, and the sensitivity of the model results to changes in input conditions (such as the particle activity size distribution of the source) and model physics (such as the rise of the buoyant cloud of explosive products) is explored. The NARAC simulations predicted the experimentally measured deposition results reasonably well considering the complexity of the release. Changes to the activity size distribution of the modeled particles can improve the agreement of the model results to measurement.