Genetics Visit Uptake Among Individuals Receiving Clinically Actionable Genomic Screening Results.

Importance: Screening unselected populations for clinically actionable genetic disease risk can improve ascertainment and facilitate risk management. Genetics visits may encourage at-risk individuals to perform recommended management, but little has been reported on genetics visit completion or factors associated with completion in genomic screening programs. Objective: To identify factors associated with postdisclosure genetics visits in a genomic screening cohort. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a cohort study of biobank data in a health care system in central Pennsylvania. Participants' exome sequence data were reviewed for pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) results in all genes on the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Secondary Findings list. Clinically confirmed results were disclosed by phone and letter. Participants included adult MyCode biobank participants who received P/LP results between July 2015 and November 2019. Data were analyzed from May 2021 to March 2022. Exposure: Clinically confirmed P/LP result disclosed by phone or letter. Main Outcomes and Measures: Completion of genetics visit in which the result was discussed and variables associated with completion were assessed by electronic health record (EHR) review. Results: Among a total of 1160 participants (703 [60.6%] female; median [IQR] age, 57.0 [42.1-68.5] years), fewer than half of participants (551 of 1160 [47.5%]) completed a genetics visit. Younger age (odds ratio [OR] for age 18-40 years, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.40-6.53; OR for age 41-65 years, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.22-4.74; OR for age 66-80 years, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.41-4.98 vs age ≥81 years); female sex (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.14-1.96); being married (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.23-2.47) or divorced (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.11-2.91); lower Charlson comorbidity index (OR for score of 0-2, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.16-2.68; OR for score of 3-4, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.18-2.54 vs score of ≥5); EHR patient portal use (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.06-1.89); living closer to a genetics clinic (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.14-2.36 for <8.9 miles vs >20.1 miles); successful results disclosure (OR for disclosure by genetic counselor, 16.32; 95% CI, 8.16-37.45; OR for disclosure by research assistant, 20.30; 95% CI, 10.25-46.31 vs unsuccessful phone disclosure); and having a hereditary cancer result (OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.28-3.58 vs other disease risk) were significantly associated with higher rates of genetics visit completion. Preference to follow up with primary care was the most common reported reason for declining a genetics visit (68 of 152 patients [44.7%]). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of a biobank-based population genomic screening program suggests that targeted patient engagement, improving multidisciplinary coordination, and reducing barriers to follow-up care may be necessary for enhancing genetics visit uptake.

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.

Designing implementation strategies to improve identification, cascade testing, and management of families with familial hypercholesterolemia: An intervention mapping approach.

Introduction: Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is a common inherited cholesterol disorder that, without early intervention, leads to premature cardiovascular disease. Multilevel strategies that target all components of FH care including identification, cascade testing, and management are needed to address gaps that exist in FH care. We utilized intervention mapping, a systematic implementation science approach, to identify and match strategies to existing barriers and develop programs to improve FH care. Methods: Data were collected utilizing two methods: a scoping review of published literature, related to any component of FH care, and a parallel mixed method study using interviews and surveys. The scientific literature was searched using key words including "barriers" or "facilitators" and "familial hypercholesterolemia" from inception to December 1, 2021. The parallel mixed method study recruited individuals and families with FH to participate in either dyadic interviews (N = 11 dyads/22 individuals) or online surveys (N = 98 respondents). Data generated from the scoping review, dyadic interviews, and online surveys were used in the 6-step intervention mapping process. Steps 1-3 included a needs assessment, development of program outcomes and creation of evidence-based implementation strategies. Steps 4-6 included program development, implementation, and evaluation of implementation strategies. Results: In steps 1-3, a needs assessment found barriers to FH care included underdiagnosis of the condition which led to suboptimal management due to a myriad of determinants including knowledge gaps, negative attitudes, and risk misperceptions by individuals with FH and clinicians. Literature review highlighted barriers to FH care at the health system level, notably the relative lack of genetic testing resources and infrastructure needed to support FH diagnosis and treatment. Examples of strategies to overcome identified barriers included development of multidisciplinary care teams and educational programs. In steps 4-6, an NHLBI-funded study, the Collaborative Approach to Reach Everyone with FH (CARE-FH), deployed strategies that focused on improving identification of FH in primary care settings. The CARE-FH study is used as an example to describe program development, implementation, and evaluation techniques of implementation strategies. Conclusion: The development and deployment of evidence-based implementation strategies that address barriers to FH care are important next steps to improve identification, cascade testing, and management.

Facilitating family communication of familial hypercholesterolemia genetic risk: Assessing engagement with innovative chatbot technology from the IMPACT-FH study.

Objective: To assess use of two web-based conversational agents, the Family Sharing Chatbot (FSC) and One Month Chatbot (OMC), by individuals with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). Methods: FSC and OMC were sent using an opt-out methodology to a cohort of individuals receiving a FH genetic result. Data from 7/1/2021 through 5/12/2022 was obtained from the electronic health record and the chatbots' HIPAA-secure web portal. Results: Of 175 subjects, 21 (12%) opted out of the chatbots. Older individuals were more likely to opt out. Most (91/154, 59%) preferred receiving chatbots via the patient EHR portal. Seventy-five individuals (49%) clicked the FSC link, 62 (40%) interacted, and 36 (23%) shared a chatbot about their FH result with at least one relative. Ninety-two of the subjects received OMC, 22 (23%) clicked the link and 20 (21%) interacted. Individuals who shared were majority female and younger on average than the overall cohort. Reminders tended to increase engagement. Conclusion: Results demonstrate characteristics relevant to chatbot engagement. Individuals may be more inclined to receive chatbots if integrated within the patient EHR portal. Frequent reminders can potentially improve chatbot utilization. Innovation: FSC and OMC employ innovative digital health technology that can facilitate family communication about hereditary conditions.

Optimizing communication strategies and designing a comprehensive program to facilitate cascade testing for familial hypercholesterolemia.

BACKGROUND: This project aimed to optimize communication strategies to support family communication about familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) and improve cascade testing uptake among at-risk relatives. Individuals and families with FH provided feedback on multiple strategies including: a family letter, digital tools, and direct contact. METHODS: Feedback from participants was collected via dyadic interviews (n = 11) and surveys (n = 98) on communication strategies and their proposed implementation to improve cascade testing uptake. We conducted a thematic analysis to identify how to optimize each strategy. We categorized optimizations and their implementation within the project's healthcare system using a Traffic Light approach. RESULTS: Thematic analysis resulted in four distinct suggested optimizations for each communication strategy and seven suggested optimizations that were suitable across all strategies. Four suggestions for developing a comprehensive cascade testing program, which would offer all optimized communication strategies also emerged. All optimized suggestions coded green (n = 21) were incorporated. Suggestions coded yellow (n = 12) were partially incorporated. Only two suggestions were coded red and could not be incorporated. CONCLUSIONS: This project demonstrates how to collect and analyze stakeholder feedback for program design. We identified feasible suggested optimizations, resulting in communication strategies that are patient-informed and patient-centered. Optimized strategies were implemented in a comprehensive cascade testing program.

Motivating cascade testing for familial hypercholesterolemia: applying the extended parallel process model for clinician communication.

Motivating at-risk relatives to undergo cascade testing for familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is critical for diagnosis and lifesaving treatment. As credible sources of information, clinicians can assist in family communication about FH and motivate cascade testing uptake. However, there are no guidelines regarding how clinicians should effectively communicate with probands (the first person diagnosed in the family) and at-risk relatives. Individuals and families with FH can inform our understanding of the most effective communications to promote cascade testing. Guided by the extended parallel process model (EPPM), we analyzed the perspectives of individuals and families with FH for effective messaging clinicians can use to promote cascade testing uptake. We analyzed narrative data from interviews and surveys collected as part of a larger mixed-methods study. The EPPM was used to identify message features recommended by individuals and families with FH that focus on four key constructs (severity, susceptibility, response efficacy, self-efficacy) to promote cascade testing. Participants included 22 individuals from 11 dyadic interviews and 98 survey respondents. Participants described prioritizing multiple messages that address each EPPM construct to alert relatives about their risk. They illustrated strategies clinicians could use within each EPPM construct to communicate to at-risk relatives about the importance of pursuing diagnosis via cascade testing and subsequent treatment for high cholesterol due to FH. Findings provide guidance on effective messaging to motivate cascade testing uptake for FH and demonstrates how the EPPM may guide communication with at-risk relatives about genetic risk and motivate cascade testing broadly.

Developing and Optimizing Innovative Tools to Address Familial Hypercholesterolemia Underdiagnosis: Identification Methods, Patient Activation, and Cascade Testing for Familial Hypercholesterolemia.

BACKGROUND: Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is the most common cardiovascular genetic disorder and, if left untreated, is associated with increased risk of premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Although FH is common, fatal, and treatable, it is underdiagnosed and undertreated due to a lack of systematic methods to identify individuals with FH and limited uptake of cascade testing. METHODS AND RESULTS: This mixed-method, multi-stage study will optimize, test, and implement innovative approaches for both FH identification and cascade testing in 3 aims. To improve identification of individuals with FH, in Aim 1, we will compare and refine automated phenotype-based and genomic approaches to identify individuals likely to have FH. To improve cascade testing uptake for at-risk individuals, in Aim 2, we will use a patient-centered design thinking process to optimize and develop novel, active family communication methods. Using a prospective, observational pragmatic trial, we will assess uptake and effectiveness of each family communication method on cascade testing. Guided by an implementation science framework, in Aim 3, we will develop a comprehensive guide to identify individuals with FH. Using the Conceptual Model for Implementation Research, we will evaluate implementation outcomes including feasibility, acceptability, and perceived sustainability as well as health outcomes related to the optimized methods and tools developed in Aims 1 and 2. CONCLUSIONS: Data generated from this study will address barriers and gaps in care related to underdiagnosis of FH by developing and optimizing tools to improve FH identification and cascade testing.