The BabySeq Project: A clinical trial of genome sequencing in a diverse cohort of infants.

Efforts to implement and evaluate genome sequencing (GS) as a screening tool for newborns and infants are expanding worldwide. The first iteration of the BabySeq Project (2015-2019), a randomized controlled trial of newborn sequencing, produced novel evidence on medical, behavioral, and economic outcomes. The second iteration of BabySeq, which began participant recruitment in January 2023, examines GS outcomes in a larger, more diverse cohort of more than 500 infants up to one year of age recruited from pediatric clinics at several sites across the United States. The trial aims for families who self-identify as Black/African American or Hispanic/Latino to make up more than 50% of final enrollment, and key aspects of the trial design were co-developed with a community advisory board. All enrolled families receive genetic counseling and a family history report. Half of enrolled infants are randomized to receive GS with comprehensive interpretation of pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants in more than 4,300 genes associated with childhood-onset and actionable adult-onset conditions, as well as larger-scale chromosomal copy number variants classified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic. GS result reports include variants associated with disease (Mendelian disease risks) and carrier status of autosomal-recessive and X-linked disorders. Investigators evaluate the utility and impacts of implementing a GS screening program in a diverse cohort of infants using medical record review and longitudinal parent surveys. In this perspective, we describe the rationale for the second iteration of the BabySeq Project, the outcomes being assessed, and the key decisions collaboratively made by the study team and community advisory board.

Managing differential performance of polygenic risk scores across groups: Real-world experience of the eMERGE Network.

The differential performance of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) by group is one of the major ethical barriers to their clinical use. It is also one of the main practical challenges for any implementation effort. The social repercussions of how people are grouped in PRS research must be considered in communications with research participants, including return of results. Here, we outline the decisions faced and choices made by a large multi-site clinical implementation study returning PRSs to diverse participants in handling this issue of differential performance. Our approach to managing the complexities associated with the differential performance of PRSs serves as a case study that can help future implementers of PRSs to plot an anticipatory course in response to this issue.

Expanding the genetic and phenotypic landscape of replication factor C complex-related disorders: RFC4 deficiency is linked to a multisystemic disorder.

The precise regulation of DNA replication is vital for cellular division and genomic integrity. Central to this process is the replication factor C (RFC) complex, encompassing five subunits, which loads proliferating cell nuclear antigen onto DNA to facilitate the recruitment of replication and repair proteins and enhance DNA polymerase processivity. While RFC1's role in cerebellar ataxia, neuropathy, and vestibular areflexia syndrome (CANVAS) is known, the contributions of RFC2-5 subunits on human Mendelian disorders is largely unexplored. Our research links bi-allelic variants in RFC4, encoding a core RFC complex subunit, to an undiagnosed disorder characterized by incoordination and muscle weakness, hearing impairment, and decreased body weight. We discovered across nine affected individuals rare, conserved, predicted pathogenic variants in RFC4, all likely to disrupt the C-terminal domain indispensable for RFC complex formation. Analysis of a previously determined cryo-EM structure of RFC bound to proliferating cell nuclear antigen suggested that the variants disrupt interactions within RFC4 and/or destabilize the RFC complex. Cellular studies using RFC4-deficient HeLa cells and primary fibroblasts demonstrated decreased RFC4 protein, compromised stability of the other RFC complex subunits, and perturbed RFC complex formation. Additionally, functional studies of the RFC4 variants affirmed diminished RFC complex formation, and cell cycle studies suggested perturbation of DNA replication and cell cycle progression. Our integrated approach of combining in silico, structural, cellular, and functional analyses establishes compelling evidence that bi-allelic loss-of-function RFC4 variants contribute to the pathogenesis of this multisystemic disorder. These insights broaden our understanding of the RFC complex and its role in human health and disease.

Studying the impact of translational genomic research: Lessons from eMERGE.

Two major goals of the Electronic Medical Record and Genomics (eMERGE) Network are to learn how best to return research results to patient/participants and the clinicians who care for them and also to assess the impact of placing these results in clinical care. Yet since its inception, the Network has confronted a host of challenges in achieving these goals, many of which had ethical, legal, or social implications (ELSIs) that required consideration. Here, we share impediments we encountered in recruiting participants, returning results, and assessing their impact, all of which affected our ability to achieve the goals of eMERGE, as well as the steps we took to attempt to address these obstacles. We divide the domains in which we experienced challenges into four broad categories: (1) study design, including recruitment of more diverse groups; (2) consent; (3) returning results to participants and their health care providers (HCPs); and (4) assessment of follow-up care of participants and measuring the impact of research on participants and their families. Since most phases of eMERGE have included children as well as adults, we also address the particular ELSI posed by including pediatric populations in this research. We make specific suggestions for improving translational genomic research to ensure that future projects can effectively return results and assess their impact on patient/participants and providers if the goals of genomic-informed medicine are to be achieved.

Actionability of unanticipated monogenic disease risks in newborn genomic screening: Findings from the BabySeq Project.

Newborn genomic sequencing (NBSeq) to screen for medically important genetic information is of considerable interest but data characterizing the actionability of such findings, and the downstream medical efforts in response to discovery of unanticipated genetic risk variants, are lacking. From a clinical trial of comprehensive exome sequencing in 127 apparently healthy infants and 32 infants in intensive care, we previously identified 17 infants (10.7%) with unanticipated monogenic disease risks (uMDRs). In this analysis, we assessed actionability for each of these uMDRs with a modified ClinGen actionability semiquantitative metric (CASQM) and created radar plots representing degrees of penetrance of the condition, severity of the condition, effectiveness of intervention, and tolerability of intervention. In addition, we followed each of these infants for 3-5 years after disclosure and tracked the medical actions prompted by these findings. All 17 uMDR findings were scored as moderately or highly actionable on the CASQM (mean 9, range: 7-11 on a 0-12 scale) and several distinctive visual patterns emerged on the radar plots. In three infants, uMDRs revealed unsuspected genetic etiologies for existing phenotypes, and in the remaining 14 infants, uMDRs provided risk stratification for future medical surveillance. In 13 infants, uMDRs prompted screening for at-risk family members, three of whom underwent cancer-risk-reducing surgeries. Although assessments of clinical utility and cost-effectiveness will require larger datasets, these findings suggest that large-scale comprehensive sequencing of newborns will reveal numerous actionable uMDRs and precipitate substantial, and in some cases lifesaving, downstream medical care in newborns and their family members.

Prospective, multi-site study of healthcare utilization after actionable monogenic findings from clinical sequencing.

As large-scale genomic screening becomes increasingly prevalent, understanding the influence of actionable results on healthcare utilization is key to estimating the potential long-term clinical impact. The eMERGE network sequenced individuals for actionable genes in multiple genetic conditions and returned results to individuals, providers, and the electronic health record. Differences in recommended health services (laboratory, imaging, and procedural testing) delivered within 12 months of return were compared among individuals with pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) findings to matched individuals with negative findings before and after return of results. Of 16,218 adults, 477 unselected individuals were found to have a monogenic risk for arrhythmia (n = 95), breast cancer (n = 96), cardiomyopathy (n = 95), colorectal cancer (n = 105), or familial hypercholesterolemia (n = 86). Individuals with P/LP results more frequently received services after return (43.8%) compared to before return (25.6%) of results and compared to individuals with negative findings (24.9%; p < 0.0001). The annual cost of qualifying healthcare services increased from an average of $162 before return to $343 after return of results among the P/LP group (p < 0.0001); differences in the negative group were non-significant. The mean difference-in-differences was $149 (p < 0.0001), which describes the increased cost within the P/LP group corrected for cost changes in the negative group. When stratified by individual conditions, significant cost differences were observed for arrhythmia, breast cancer, and cardiomyopathy. In conclusion, less than half of individuals received billed health services after monogenic return, which modestly increased healthcare costs for payors in the year following return.

Returning Individual Research Results from Digital Phenotyping in Psychiatry.

Psychiatry is rapidly adopting digital phenotyping and artificial intelligence/machine learning tools to study mental illness based on tracking participants' locations, online activity, phone and text message usage, heart rate, sleep, physical activity, and more. Existing ethical frameworks for return of individual research results (IRRs) are inadequate to guide researchers for when, if, and how to return this unprecedented number of potentially sensitive results about each participant's real-world behavior. To address this gap, we convened an interdisciplinary expert working group, supported by a National Institute of Mental Health grant. Building on established guidelines and the emerging norm of returning results in participant-centered research, we present a novel framework specific to the ethical, legal, and social implications of returning IRRs in digital phenotyping research. Our framework offers researchers, clinicians, and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) urgently needed guidance, and the principles developed here in the context of psychiatry will be readily adaptable to other therapeutic areas.

Preferences of parents from diverse backgrounds on genomic screening of apparently healthy newborns.

Genomic sequencing has been proposed as a strategy to expand newborn screening. Perspectives on genomic newborn screening from parents of diverse racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds are needed to shape equitable implementation of this modality. We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews (15 English, 5 Spanish) and seven focus groups (4 English, 3 Spanish) with parents from diverse backgrounds to assess their perspectives regarding which disorders and variants might be screened, data privacy, and barriers to pursuing specialized care. Parents felt that genomic newborn screening would provide them with improved understanding of their children's health and had the potential to yield health and personal benefits. Themes that became evident included: interest in childhood and family health risks, the value of emotional preparation and personal planning, understanding of uncertain and low-risk results, concerns regarding data privacy, and concerns about support following the receipt of a positive newborn screening result. The expected benefits and concerns expressed by parents of diverse backgrounds regarding genomic newborn screening should guide future policy decisions. Their preferences should be considered prior to the implementation of large-scale genomic newborn screening programs.

Parents' decision-making regarding whether to receive adult-onset only genetic findings for their children: Findings from the BabySeq Project.

PURPOSE: Most professional guidelines recommend against genetic screening for adult-onset only (AO) conditions until adulthood, yet others argue that there may be benefit to disclosing such results. We explored parents' decision-making on this issue in the BabySeq Project, a clinical trial of newborn genomic sequencing. METHODS: We conducted interviews with parents (N = 24) who were given the option to receive actionable AO results for their children. Interviews explored parents' motivations to receive and reasons to decline AO genetic disease risk information, their decision-making process, and their suggestions for supporting parents in making this decision. RESULTS: Parents noted several motivations to receive and reasons to decline AO results. Most commonly, parents cited early intervention/surveillance (n = 11), implications for family health (n = 7), and the ability to prepare (n = 6) as motivations to receive these results. The most common reasons to decline were protection of the child's future autonomy (n = 4), negative effect on parenting (n = 3), and anxiety about future disease (n = 3). Parents identified a number of ways to support parents in making this decision. CONCLUSION: Results show considerations to better support parental decision-making that aligns with their values when offering AO genetic information because it is more commonly integrated into pediatric clinical care.

Education and electronic medical records and genomics network, challenges, and lessons learned from a large-scale clinical trial using polygenic risk scores.

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have potential to improve health care by identifying individuals that have elevated risk for common complex conditions. Use of PRS in clinical practice, however, requires careful assessment of the needs and capabilities of patients, providers, and health care systems. The electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) network is conducting a collaborative study which will return PRS to 25,000 pediatric and adult participants. All participants will receive a risk report, potentially classifying them as high risk (∼2-10% per condition) for 1 or more of 10 conditions based on PRS. The study population is enriched by participants from racial and ethnic minority populations, underserved populations, and populations who experience poorer medical outcomes. All 10 eMERGE clinical sites conducted focus groups, interviews, and/or surveys to understand educational needs among key stakeholders-participants, providers, and/or study staff. Together, these studies highlighted the need for tools that address the perceived benefit/value of PRS, types of education/support needed, accessibility, and PRS-related knowledge and understanding. Based on findings from these preliminary studies, the network harmonized training initiatives and formal/informal educational resources. This paper summarizes eMERGE's collective approach to assessing educational needs and developing educational approaches for primary stakeholders. It discusses challenges encountered and solutions provided.

Returning integrated genomic risk and clinical recommendations: The eMERGE study.

PURPOSE: Assessing the risk of common, complex diseases requires consideration of clinical risk factors as well as monogenic and polygenic risks, which in turn may be reflected in family history. Returning risks to individuals and providers may influence preventive care or use of prophylactic therapies for those individuals at high genetic risk. METHODS: To enable integrated genetic risk assessment, the eMERGE (electronic MEdical Records and GEnomics) network is enrolling 25,000 diverse individuals in a prospective cohort study across 10 sites. The network developed methods to return cross-ancestry polygenic risk scores, monogenic risks, family history, and clinical risk assessments via a genome-informed risk assessment (GIRA) report and will assess uptake of care recommendations after return of results. RESULTS: GIRAs include summary care recommendations for 11 conditions, education pages, and clinical laboratory reports. The return of high-risk GIRA to individuals and providers includes guidelines for care and lifestyle recommendations. Assembling the GIRA required infrastructure and workflows for ingesting and presenting content from multiple sources. Recruitment began in February 2022. CONCLUSION: Return of a novel report for communicating monogenic, polygenic, and family history-based risk factors will inform the benefits of integrated genetic risk assessment for routine health care.

Interpretation of Genomic Sequencing Results in Healthy and Ill Newborns: Results from the BabySeq Project.

Genomic sequencing provides many opportunities in newborn clinical care, but the challenges of interpreting and reporting newborn genomic sequencing (nGS) results need to be addressed for its broader and effective application. The BabySeq Project is a pilot randomized clinical trial that explores the medical, behavioral, and economic impacts of nGS in well newborns and those admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Here we present childhood-onset and actionable adult-onset disease risk, carrier status, and pharmacogenomics findings from nGS of 159 newborns in the BabySeq Project. nGS revealed a risk of childhood-onset disease in 15/159 (9.4%) newborns; none of the disease risks were anticipated based on the infants' known clinical or family histories. nGS also revealed actionable adult-onset disease risk in 3/85 (3.5%) newborns whose parents consented to receive this information. Carrier status for recessive diseases and pharmacogenomics variants were reported in 88% and 5% of newborns, respectively. Additional indication-based analyses were performed in 29/32 (91%) NICU newborns and 6/127 (5%) healthy newborns who later had presentations that prompted a diagnostic analysis. No variants that sufficiently explained the reason for the indications were identified; however, suspicious but uncertain results were reported in five newborns. Testing parental samples contributed to the interpretation and reporting of results in 13/159 (8%) newborns. Our results suggest that nGS can effectively detect risk and carrier status for a wide range of disorders that are not detectable by current newborn screening assays or predicted based on the infant's known clinical or family history, and the interpretation of results can substantially benefit from parental testing.

Impact of returning unsolicited genomic results to nongenetic health care providers in the eMERGE III Network.

PURPOSE: As genomic sequencing becomes more common, medically actionable secondary findings will increasingly be returned to health care providers (HCPs), who will be faced with managing the resulting patient care. These findings are generally unsolicited, ie, unrelated to the sequencing indication and/or ordered by another clinician. METHODS: To understand the impact of receiving unsolicited results, we interviewed HCPs who received genomic results for patients enrolled in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Phase III Network, which returned results on >100 actionable genes to eMERGE participants and HCPs. RESULTS: In total, 16 HCPs across 3 eMERGE sites were interviewed about their experience of receiving a positive (likely pathogenic or pathogenic), negative, or variant of uncertain significance result for a patient enrolled in eMERGE Phase III and about managing their patient on the basis of the result. Although unsolicited, HCPs felt responsible for managing the patient's resulting medical care. HCPs indicated that clinical utility depended on the actionability of results, and whereas comfort levels varied, confidence was improved by the availability of subspecialist consults. HCPs were concerned about patient anxiety, insurability, and missing an actionable result in the electronic health record. CONCLUSION: Our findings help inform best practices for return of unsolicited genomic screening findings in the future.

Genetic Determinants of Sudden Unexpected Death in Pediatrics.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate genetic contributions to sudden unexpected death in pediatrics (SUDP). METHODS: We phenotyped and performed exome sequencing for 352 SUDP cases. We analyzed variants in 294 "SUDP genes" with mechanisms plausibly related to sudden death. In a subset of 73 cases with parental data (trios), we performed exome-wide analyses and conducted cohort-wide burden analyses. RESULTS: In total, we identified likely contributory variants in 37 of 352 probands (11%). Analysis of SUDP genes identified pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in 12 of 352 cases (SCN1A, DEPDC5 [2], GABRG2, SCN5A [2], TTN [2], MYBPC3, PLN, TNNI3, and PDHA1) and variants of unknown significance-favor-pathogenic in 17 of 352 cases. Exome-wide analyses of the 73 cases with family data additionally identified 4 de novo pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (SCN1A [2], ANKRD1, and BRPF1) and 4 de novo variants of unknown significance-favor-pathogenic. Comparing cases with controls, we demonstrated an excess burden of rare damaging SUDP gene variants (odds ratio, 2.94; 95% confidence interval, 2.37-4.21) and of exome-wide de novo variants in the subset of 73 with trio data (odds ratio, 3.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.91-5.16). CONCLUSION: We provide strong evidence for a role of genetic factors in SUDP, involving both candidate genes and novel genes for SUDP and expanding phenotypes of disease genes not previously associated with sudden death.

The reckoning: The return of genomic results to 1444 participants across the eMERGE3 Network.

PURPOSE: The goal of Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Phase III Network was to return actionable sequence variants to 25,084 consenting participants from 10 different health care institutions across the United States. The purpose of this study was to evaluate system-based issues relating to the return of results (RoR) disclosure process for clinical grade research genomic tests to eMERGE3 participants. METHODS: RoR processes were developed and approved by each eMERGE institution's internal review board. Investigators at each eMERGE3 site were surveyed for RoR processes related to the participant's disclosure of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and engagement with genetic counseling. Standard statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of the 25,084 eMERGE participants, 1444 had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant identified on the eMERGEseq panel of 67 genes and 14 single nucleotide variants. Of these, 1077 (74.6%) participants had results disclosed, with 562 (38.9%) participants provided with variant-specific genetic counseling. Site-specific processes that either offered or required genetic counseling in their RoR process had an effect on whether a participant ultimately engaged with genetic counseling (P = .0052). CONCLUSION: The real-life experience of the multiarm eMERGE3 RoR study for returning actionable genomic results to consented research participants showed the impact of consent, method of disclosure, and genetic counseling on RoR.

Effects of participation in a U.S. trial of newborn genomic sequencing on parents at risk for depression.

Much emphasis has been placed on participant's psychological safety within genomic research studies; however, few studies have addressed parental psychological health effects associated with their child's participation in genomic studies, particularly when parents meet the threshold for clinical concern for depression. We aimed to determine if parents' depressive symptoms were associated with their child's participation in a randomized-controlled trial of newborn exome sequencing. Parents completed the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) at baseline, immediately post-disclosure, and 3 months post-disclosure. Mothers and fathers scoring at or above thresholds for clinical concern on the EPDS, 12 and 10, respectively, indicating possible Major Depressive Disorder with Peripartum Onset, were contacted by study staff for mental health screening. Parental concerns identified in follow-up conversations were coded for themes. Forty-five parents had EPDS scores above the clinical threshold at baseline, which decreased by an average of 2.9 points immediately post-disclosure and another 1.1 points 3 months post-disclosure (both p ≤ .014). For 28 parents, EPDS scores were below the threshold for clinical concern at baseline, increased by an average of 4.7 points into the elevated range immediately post-disclosure, and decreased by 3.8 points at 3 months post-disclosure (both p < .001). Nine parents scored above thresholds only at 3 months post-disclosure after increasing an average of 5.7 points from immediately post-disclosure (p < .001). Of the 82 parents who scored above the threshold at any time point, 43 (52.4%) were reached and 30 (69.7%) of these 43 parents attributed their elevated scores to parenting stress, balancing work and family responsibilities, and/or child health concerns. Only three parents (7.0%) raised concerns about their participation in the trial, particularly their randomization to the control arm. Elevated scores on the EPDS were typically transient and parents attributed their symptomatology to life stressors in the postpartum period rather than participation in a trial of newborn exome sequencing.

Do research participants share genomic screening results with family members?

The public health impact of genomic screening can be enhanced by cascade testing. However, cascade testing depends on communication of results to family members. While the barriers and facilitators of family communication have been researched following clinical genetic testing, the factors impacting the dissemination of genomic screening results are unknown. Using the pragmatic Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network-3 (eMERGE-3) study, we explored the reported sharing practices of participants who underwent genomic screening across the United States. Six eMERGE-3 sites returned genomic screening results for mostly dominant medically actionable disorders and surveyed adult participants regarding communication of results with first-degree relatives. Across the sites, 279 participants completed a 1-month and/or 6-month post-results survey. By 6 months, only 34% of the 156 respondents shared their results with all first-degree relatives and 4% did not share with any. Over a third (39%) first-degree relatives were not notified of the results. Half (53%) of participants who received their results from a genetics provider shared them with all first-degree relatives compared with 11% of participants who received their results from a non-genetics provider. The most frequent reasons for sharing were a feeling of obligation (72%) and that the information could help family members make medical decisions (72%). The most common reasons indicated for not sharing were that the family members were too young (38%), or they were not in contact (25%) or not close to them (25%). These data indicate that the professional returning the results may impact sharing patterns, suggesting that there is a need to continue to educate healthcare providers regarding approaches to facilitate sharing of genetic results within families. Finally, these data suggest that interventions to increase sharing may be universally effective regardless of the origin of the genetic result.

Discordant results between conventional newborn screening and genomic sequencing in the BabySeq Project.

PURPOSE: Newborn screening (NBS) is performed to identify neonates at risk for actionable, severe, early-onset disorders, many of which are genetic. The BabySeq Project randomized neonates to receive conventional NBS or NBS plus exome sequencing (ES) capable of detecting sequence variants that may also diagnose monogenic disease or indicate genetic disease risk. We therefore evaluated how ES and conventional NBS results differ in this population. METHODS: We compared results of NBS (including hearing screens) and ES for 159 infants in the BabySeq Project. Infants were considered "NBS positive" if any abnormal result was found indicating disease risk and "ES positive" if ES identified a monogenic disease risk or a genetic diagnosis. RESULTS: Most infants (132/159, 84%) were NBS and ES negative. Only one infant was positive for the same disorder by both modalities. Nine infants were NBS positive/ES negative, though seven of these were subsequently determined to be false positives. Fifteen infants were ES positive/NBS negative, all of which represented risk of genetic conditions that are not included in NBS programs. No genetic explanation was identified for eight infants referred on the hearing screen. CONCLUSION: These differences highlight the complementarity of information that may be gleaned from NBS and ES in the newborn period.

Prospective phenotyping of long-term survivors of generalized arterial calcification of infancy (GACI).

PURPOSE: Generalized arterial calcification of infancy (GACI), characterized by vascular calcifications that are often fatal shortly after birth, is usually caused by deficiency of ENPP1. A small fraction of GACI cases result from deficiency of ABCC6, a membrane transporter. The natural history of GACI survivors has not been established in a prospective fashion. METHODS: We performed deep phenotyping of 20 GACI survivors. RESULTS: Sixteen of 20 subjects presented with arterial calcifications, but only 5 had residual involvement at the time of evaluation. Individuals with ENPP1 deficiency either had hypophosphatemic rickets or were predicted to develop it by 14 years of age; 14/16 had elevated intact FGF23 levels (iFGF23). Blood phosphate levels correlated inversely with iFGF23. For ENPP1-deficient individuals, the lifetime risk of cervical spine fusion was 25%, that of hearing loss was 75%, and the main morbidity in adults was related to enthesis calcification. Four ENPP1-deficient individuals manifested classic skin or retinal findings of PXE. We estimated the minimal incidence of ENPP1 deficiency at ~1 in 200,000 pregnancies. CONCLUSION: GACI appears to be more common than previously thought, with an expanding spectrum of overlapping phenotypes. The relationships among decreased ENPP1, increased iFGF23, and rickets could inform future therapies.

Returning negative results from large-scale genomic screening: Experiences from the eMERGE III network.

Population-based genomic screening has the potential to improve health outcomes by identifying genetic causes of disease before they occur. While much attention has been paid to supporting the needs of the small percentage of patients who will receive a life-altering positive genomic screening result that requires medical attention, little attention has been given to the communication of negative screening results. As there are currently no best practices for returning negative genomic screening results, we drew on experiences across the electronic medical records and genomics (eMERGE) III Network to highlight the diversity of reporting methods employed, challenges encountered in reporting negative test results, and "lessons learned" across institutions. A 60-item survey that consisted of both multiple choice and open-ended questions was created to gather data across institutions. Even though institutions independently developed procedures for reporting negative results, and had very different study populations, we identified several similarities of approach, including but not limited to: returning results by mail, placing results in the electronic health record via an automated process, reporting results to participants' primary care provider, and providing genetic counseling to interested patients at no cost. Differences in procedures for reporting negative results included: differences in terminology used to describe negative results, definitions of negative results, guidance regarding the meaning of negative results for participants and their family members, and recommendations for clinical follow up. Our findings highlight emerging practices for reporting negative genomic screening results and highlight the need to create patient education and clinical support tools for reporting negative screening results.