Improving reporting standards for polygenic scores in risk prediction studies.

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs), which often aggregate results from genome-wide association studies, can bridge the gap between initial discovery efforts and clinical applications for the estimation of disease risk using genetics. However, there is notable heterogeneity in the application and reporting of these risk scores, which hinders the translation of PRSs into clinical care. Here, in a collaboration between the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Complex Disease Working Group and the Polygenic Score (PGS) Catalog, we present the Polygenic Risk Score Reporting Standards (PRS-RS), in which we update the Genetic Risk Prediction Studies (GRIPS) Statement to reflect the present state of the field. Drawing on the input of experts in epidemiology, statistics, disease-specific applications, implementation and policy, this comprehensive reporting framework defines the minimal information that is needed to interpret and evaluate PRSs, especially with respect to downstream clinical applications. Items span detailed descriptions of study populations, statistical methods for the development and validation of PRSs and considerations for the potential limitations of these scores. In addition, we emphasize the need for data availability and transparency, and we encourage researchers to deposit and share PRSs through the PGS Catalog to facilitate reproducibility and comparative benchmarking. By providing these criteria in a structured format that builds on existing standards and ontologies, the use of this framework in publishing PRSs will facilitate translation into clinical care and progress towards defining best practice.

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.

Clinical genetic counseling and translation considerations for polygenic scores in personalized risk assessments: A Practice Resource from the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Polygenic scores (PGS) are primed for use in personalized risk assessments for common, complex conditions and population health screening. Although there is growing evidence supporting the clinical validity of these scores in certain diseases, presently, there is no consensus on best practices for constructing PGS or demonstrated clinical utility in practice. Despite these evidence gaps, individuals can access their PGS information through commercial entities, research programs, and clinical programs. This prompts the immediate need for educational resources for clinicians encountering PGS information in clinical practice. This practice resource is intended to increase genetic counselors' and other healthcare providers' understanding and comfort with PGS used in personalized risk assessments. Drawing on best practices in clinical genomics, we discuss the unique considerations for polygenic-based (1) testing, (2) clinical genetic counseling, and (3) translation to population health services. This practice resource outlines the emerging uses of PGS, as well as the critical limitations of this technology that need to be addressed before wide-scale implementation.

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.

Evidence review and considerations for use of first line genome sequencing to diagnose rare genetic disorders.

Early use of genome sequencing (GS) in the diagnostic odyssey can reduce suffering and improve care, but questions remain about which patient populations are most amenable to GS as a first-line diagnostic test. To address this, the Medical Genome Initiative conducted a literature review to identify appropriate clinical indications for GS. Studies published from January 2011 to August 2022 that reported on the diagnostic yield (DY) or clinical utility of GS were included. An exploratory meta-analysis using a random effects model evaluated DY based on cohort size and diagnosed cases per cohort. Seventy-one studies met inclusion criteria, comprising over 13,000 patients who received GS in one of the following settings: hospitalized pediatric patients, pediatric outpatients, adult outpatients, or mixed. GS was the first-line test in 38% (27/71). The unweighted mean DY of first-line GS was 45% (12-73%), 33% (6-86%) in cohorts with prior genetic testing, and 33% (9-60%) in exome-negative cohorts. Clinical utility was reported in 81% of first-line GS studies in hospitalized pediatric patients. Changes in management varied by cohort and underlying molecular diagnosis (24-100%). To develop evidence-informed points to consider, the quality of all 71 studies was assessed using modified American College of Radiology (ACR) criteria, with five core points to consider developed, including recommendations for use of GS in the N/PICU, in lieu of sequential testing and when disorders with substantial allelic heterogeneity are suspected. Future large and controlled studies in the pediatric and adult populations may support further refinement of these recommendations.

Evaluating the impact of a new educational tool on understanding of polygenic risk scores for alcohol use disorder.

Introduction: As gene identification efforts have advanced in psychiatry, so have aspirations to use genome-wide polygenic information for prevention and intervention. Although polygenic risk scores (PRS) for substance use and psychiatric outcomes are not yet available in clinical settings, individuals can access their PRS through online direct-to-consumer resources. One of these widely used websites reports that alcohol use disorder is the third most requested PRS out of >1,000 conditions. However, data indicate that there are misunderstandings about complex genetic concepts, with a lower understanding of PRS being associated with a more negative impact of receiving polygenic risk information. There is a need to develop and evaluate educational tools to increase understanding of PRS. Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of web-based educational information on understanding of PRS for alcohol use disorder. A total of 325 college students (70.4% female; 43.6% White; mean age = 18.9 years) from an urban, diverse university completed the study. Results: Overall, participants were highly satisfied with the educational information. Results from a one-way ANOVA indicated that there was a significant increase in overall understanding of PRS for alcohol use disorder (p-value < 0.001), among individuals who received educational information about PRS and alcohol use disorder, as compared to receiving no accompanying information (adj. p-value < 0.001), or educational information about alcohol use disorder only (adj. p-value < 0.001). Discussion: These findings suggest that the web-based educational tool could be provided alongside polygenic risk information in order to enhance understanding and interpretation of the information. Clinical trial registration: [ClinicalTrials.gov], identifier [NCT05143073].

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.

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.

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.

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.

Association of Rare Pathogenic DNA Variants for Familial Hypercholesterolemia, Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome, and Lynch Syndrome With Disease Risk in Adults According to Family History.

Importance: Pathogenic DNA variants associated with familial hypercholesterolemia, hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, and Lynch syndrome are widely recognized as clinically important and actionable when identified, leading some clinicians to recommend population-wide genomic screening. Objectives: To assess the prevalence and clinical importance of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants associated with each of 3 genomic conditions (familial hypercholesterolemia, hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, and Lynch syndrome) within the context of contemporary clinical care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used gene-sequencing data from 49 738 participants in the UK Biobank who were recruited from 22 sites across the UK between March 21, 2006, and October 1, 2010. Inpatient hospital data date back to 1977; cancer registry data, to 1957; and death registry data, to 2006. Statistical analysis was performed from July 22, 2019, to November 15, 2019. Exposures: Pathogenic or likely pathogenic DNA variants classified by a clinical laboratory geneticist. Main Outcomes and Measures: Composite end point specific to each genomic condition based on atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events for familial hypercholesterolemia, breast or ovarian cancer for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, and colorectal or uterine cancer for Lynch syndrome. Results: Among 49 738 participants (mean [SD] age, 57 [8] years; 27 144 female [55%]), 441 (0.9%) harbored a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant associated with any of 3 genomic conditions, including 131 (0.3%) for familial hypercholesterolemia, 235 (0.5%) for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, and 76 (0.2%) for Lynch syndrome. Presence of these variants was associated with increased risk of disease: for familial hypercholesterolemia, 28 of 131 carriers (21.4%) vs 4663 of 49 607 noncarriers (9.4%) developed atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, 32 of 116 female carriers (27.6%) vs 2080 of 27 028 female noncarriers (7.7%) developed associated cancers; and for Lynch syndrome, 17 of 76 carriers (22.4%) vs 929 of 49 662 noncarriers (1.9%) developed colorectal or uterine cancer. The predicted probability of disease at age 75 years despite contemporary clinical care was 45.3% for carriers of familial hypercholesterolemia, 41.1% for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, and 38.3% for Lynch syndrome. Across the 3 conditions, 39.7% (175 of 441) of the carriers reported a family history of disease vs 23.2% (34 517 of 148 772) of noncarriers. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that approximately 1% of the middle-aged adult population in the UK Biobank harbored a pathogenic variant associated with any of 3 genomic conditions. These variants were associated with an increased risk of disease despite contemporary clinical care and were not reliably detected by family history.

Polygenic background modifies penetrance of monogenic variants for tier 1 genomic conditions.

Genetic variation can predispose to disease both through (i) monogenic risk variants that disrupt a physiologic pathway with large effect on disease and (ii) polygenic risk that involves many variants of small effect in different pathways. Few studies have explored the interplay between monogenic and polygenic risk. Here, we study 80,928 individuals to examine whether polygenic background can modify penetrance of disease in tier 1 genomic conditions - familial hypercholesterolemia, hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, and Lynch syndrome. Among carriers of a monogenic risk variant, we estimate substantial gradients in disease risk based on polygenic background - the probability of disease by age 75 years ranged from 17% to 78% for coronary artery disease, 13% to 76% for breast cancer, and 11% to 80% for colon cancer. We propose that accounting for polygenic background is likely to increase accuracy of risk estimation for individuals who inherit a monogenic risk variant.

Rare Genetic Variants Associated With Sudden Cardiac Death in Adults.

BACKGROUND: Sudden cardiac death occurs in ∼220,000 U.S. adults annually, the majority of whom have no prior symptoms or cardiovascular diagnosis. Rare pathogenic DNA variants in any of 49 genes can pre-dispose to 4 important causes of sudden cardiac death: cardiomyopathy, coronary artery disease, inherited arrhythmia syndrome, and aortopathy or aortic dissection. OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the prevalence of rare pathogenic variants in sudden cardiac death cases versus controls, and the prevalence and clinical importance of such mutations in an asymptomatic adult population. METHODS: The authors performed whole-exome sequencing in a case-control cohort of 600 adult-onset sudden cardiac death cases and 600 matched controls from 106,098 participants of 6 prospective cohort studies. Observed DNA sequence variants in any of 49 genes with known association to cardiovascular disease were classified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic by a clinical laboratory geneticist blinded to case status. In an independent population of 4,525 asymptomatic adult participants of a prospective cohort study, the authors performed whole-genome sequencing and determined the prevalence of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and prospective association with cardiovascular death. RESULTS: Among the 1,200 sudden cardiac death cases and controls, the authors identified 5,178 genetic variants and classified 14 as pathogenic or likely pathogenic. These 14 variants were present in 15 individuals, all of whom had experienced sudden cardiac death-corresponding to a pathogenic variant prevalence of 2.5% in cases and 0% in controls (p < 0.0001). Among the 4,525 participants of the prospective cohort study, 41 (0.9%) carried a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant and these individuals had 3.24-fold higher risk of cardiovascular death over a median follow-up of 14.3 years (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Gene sequencing identifies a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a small but potentially important subset of adults experiencing sudden cardiac death; these variants are present in ∼1% of asymptomatic adults.