From Calculation to Communication: Using Risk Score Calculators to Inform Clinical Decision Making and Facilitate Patient Engagement.

BACKGROUND: Risk score calculators are a widely developed tool to support clinicians in identifying and managing risk for certain diseases. However, little is known about physicians' applied experiences with risk score calculators and the role of risk score estimates in clinical decision making and patient communication. METHODS: Physicians providing care in outpatient community-based clinical settings (N = 20) were recruited to participate in semi-structured individual interviews to assess their use of risk score calculators in practice. Two study team members conducted an inductive thematic analysis using a consensus-based coding approach. RESULTS: Participants referenced at least 20 risk score calculators, the most common being the Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Calculator. Ecological factors related to the clinical system (e.g., time), patient (e.g., receptivity), and physician (e.g., experience) influenced conditions and patterns of risk score calculator use. For example, compared with attending physicians, residents tended to use a greater variety of risk score calculators and with higher frequency. Risk score estimates were generally used in clinical decision making to improve or validate clinical judgment and in patient communication to serve as a motivational tool. CONCLUSIONS: The degree to which risk score estimates influenced physician decision making and whether and how these scores were communicated to patients varied, reflecting a nuanced role of risk score calculator use in clinical practice. The theory of planned behavior can help explain how attitudes, beliefs, and norms shape the use of risk score estimates in clinical decision making and patient communication. Additional research is needed to evaluate best practices in the use of risk score calculators and risk score estimates. HIGHLIGHTS: The risk score calculators and estimates that participants referenced in this study represented a range of conditions (e.g., heart disease, anxiety), levels of model complexity (e.g., probability calculations, scales of severity), and output formats (e.g., point estimates, risk intervals).Risk score calculators that are easily accessed, have simple inputs, and are trusted by physicians appear more likely to be used.Risk score estimates were generally used in clinical decision making to improve or validate clinical judgment and in patient communication to serve as a motivational tool.Risk score estimates helped participants manage the uncertainty and complexity of various clinical situations, yet consideration of the limitations of these estimates was relatively minimal.Developers of risk score calculators should consider the patient- (e.g., response to risk score estimates) and physician- (e.g., training status) related characteristics that influence risk score calculator use in addition that of the clinical system.

Exploring genetic counselors' practice of discussing clinical trials with patients.

Despite concerted and accelerated efforts to increase the knowledge of medicine and disease via clinical studies, clinical trials continue to face low enrollment for all patient groups. The dissemination of the availability of clinical trials to individuals with or at risk for hereditary disorders is critical. This study acts as a foundation in determining an unexplored role of clinical trial discussion in genetic counseling practice. Board-certified, patient-facing genetic counselors in the United States were invited to participate in an anonymous survey via the National Society of Genetic Counselors. Between February and April 2022, 157 participants (N = 157) completed the survey on clinical trial discussion with patients, barriers, and facilitators to discussing clinical trials with patients, research experience, and demographics. Survey results identified that most respondents have discussed the availability of clinical trials with a patient (85%). Almost one-third have previous research experience working for a clinical trial (30%). Most agreed that discussions of clinical trials are within the scope of genetic counseling (82%); however, one-third were not comfortable discussing them with patients (34%). Respondents who know how to find specific clinical trials (p < 0.001) were reportedly more likely to be comfortable discussing clinical trials with their patients. In addition to clinical research exposure, this study suggests that further education and training is necessary for genetic counselors to learn how to find and identify specific clinical trials for their patients. In turn, we hope for this to increase genetic counselors' comfort of clinical trial discussion.

Genetic sex validation for sample tracking in next-generation sequencing clinical testing.

OBJECTIVE: Data from DNA genotyping via a 96-SNP panel in a study of 25,015 clinical samples were utilized for quality control and tracking of sample identity in a clinical sequencing network. The study aimed to demonstrate the value of both the precise SNP tracking and the utility of the panel for predicting the sex-by-genotype of the participants, to identify possible sample mix-ups. RESULTS: Precise SNP tracking showed no sample swap errors within the clinical testing laboratories. In contrast, when comparing predicted sex-by-genotype to the provided sex on the test requisition, we identified 110 inconsistencies from 25,015 clinical samples (0.44%), that had occurred during sample collection or accessioning. The genetic sex predictions were confirmed using additional SNP sites in the sequencing data or high-density genotyping arrays. It was determined that discrepancies resulted from clerical errors (49.09%), samples from transgender participants (3.64%) and stem cell or bone marrow transplant patients (7.27%) along with undetermined sample mix-ups (40%) for which sample swaps occurred prior to arrival at genome centers, however the exact cause of the events at the sampling sites resulting in the mix-ups were not able to be determined.

Genetic Sex Validation for Sample Tracking in Clinical Testing.

Objective: Data from DNA genotyping via a 96-SNP panel in a study of 25,015 clinical samples were utilized for quality control and tracking of sample identity in a clinical sequencing network. The study aimed to demonstrate the value of both the precise SNP tracking and the utility of the panel for predicting the sex-by-genotype of the participants, to identify possible sample mix-ups. Results: Precise SNP tracking showed no sample swap errors within the clinical testing laboratories. In contrast, when comparing predicted sex-by-genotype to the provided sex on the test requisition, we identified 110 inconsistencies from 25,015 clinical samples (0.44%), that had occurred during sample collection or accessioning. The genetic sex predictions were confirmed using additional SNP sites in the sequencing data or high-density genotyping arrays. It was determined that discrepancies resulted from clerical errors, samples from transgender participants and stem cell or bone marrow transplant patients along with undetermined sample mix-ups.

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.

Proteomic and genetic analyses of influenza A viruses identify pan-viral host targets.

Influenza A Virus (IAV) is a recurring respiratory virus with limited availability of antiviral therapies. Understanding host proteins essential for IAV infection can identify targets for alternative host-directed therapies (HDTs). Using affinity purification-mass spectrometry and global phosphoproteomic and protein abundance analyses using three IAV strains (pH1N1, H3N2, H5N1) in three human cell types (A549, NHBE, THP-1), we map 332 IAV-human protein-protein interactions and identify 13 IAV-modulated kinases. Whole exome sequencing of patients who experienced severe influenza reveals several genes, including scaffold protein AHNAK, with predicted loss-of-function variants that are also identified in our proteomic analyses. Of our identified host factors, 54 significantly alter IAV infection upon siRNA knockdown, and two factors, AHNAK and coatomer subunit COPB1, are also essential for productive infection by SARS-CoV-2. Finally, 16 compounds targeting our identified host factors suppress IAV replication, with two targeting CDK2 and FLT3 showing pan-antiviral activity across influenza and coronavirus families. This study provides a comprehensive network model of IAV infection in human cells, identifying functional host targets for pan-viral HDT.

Defining critical educational components of informed consent for genetic testing: views of US-based genetic counselors and medical geneticists.

The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Consent and Disclosure Recommendation (CADRe) framework proposes that key components of informed consent for genetic testing can be covered with a targeted discussion for many conditions rather than a time-intensive traditional genetic counseling approach. We surveyed US genetics professionals (medical geneticists and genetic counselors) on their response to scenarios that proposed core informed consent concepts for clinical genetic testing developed in a prior expert consensus process. The anonymous online survey included responses to 3 (of 6 possible) different clinical scenarios that summarized the application of the core concepts. There was a binary (yes/no) question asking respondents whether they agreed the scenarios included the minimum necessary and critical educational concepts to allow an informed decision. Respondents then provided open-ended feedback on what concepts were missing or could be removed. At least one scenario was completed by 238 respondents. For all but one scenario, over 65% of respondents agreed that the identified concepts portrayed were sufficient for an informed decision; the exome scenario had the lowest agreement (58%). Qualitative analysis of the open-ended comments showed no consistently mentioned concepts to add or remove. The level of agreement with the example scenarios suggests that the minimum critical educational components for pre-test informed consent proposed in our prior work is a reasonable starting place for targeted pre-test discussions. This may be helpful in providing consistency to the clinical practice of both genetics and non-genetics providers, meeting patients' informational needs, tailoring consent for psychosocial support, and in future guideline development.

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.

Multi-ancestry genome- and phenome-wide association studies of diverticular disease in electronic health records with natural language processing enriched phenotyping algorithm.

OBJECTIVE: Diverticular disease (DD) is one of the most prevalent conditions encountered by gastroenterologists, affecting ~50% of Americans before the age of 60. Our aim was to identify genetic risk variants and clinical phenotypes associated with DD, leveraging multiple electronic health record (EHR) data sources of 91,166 multi-ancestry participants with a Natural Language Processing (NLP) technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a NLP-enriched phenotyping algorithm that incorporated colonoscopy or abdominal imaging reports to identify patients with diverticulosis and diverticulitis from multicenter EHRs. We performed genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of DD in European, African and multi-ancestry participants, followed by phenome-wide association studies (PheWAS) of the risk variants to identify their potential comorbid/pleiotropic effects in clinical phenotypes. RESULTS: Our developed algorithm showed a significant improvement in patient classification performance for DD analysis (algorithm PPVs ≥ 0.94), with up to a 3.5 fold increase in terms of the number of identified patients than the traditional method. Ancestry-stratified analyses of diverticulosis and diverticulitis of the identified subjects replicated the well-established associations between ARHGAP15 loci with DD, showing overall intensified GWAS signals in diverticulitis patients compared to diverticulosis patients. Our PheWAS analyses identified significant associations between the DD GWAS variants and circulatory system, genitourinary, and neoplastic EHR phenotypes. DISCUSSION: As the first multi-ancestry GWAS-PheWAS study, we showcased that heterogenous EHR data can be mapped through an integrative analytical pipeline and reveal significant genotype-phenotype associations with clinical interpretation. CONCLUSION: A systematic framework to process unstructured EHR data with NLP could advance a deep and scalable phenotyping for better patient identification and facilitate etiological investigation of a disease with multilayered data.

Integrating clinical genetics in cardiology: Current practices and recommendations for education.

PURPOSE: Recent advances in genetics can facilitate the identification of at-risk individuals and diagnosis of cardiovascular disorders. As a nascent field, more research is needed to optimize the clinical practice of cardiovascular genetics, including the assessment of educational needs to promote appropriate use of genetic testing. METHODS: Qualitative interviews conducted with cardiovascular specialists (N = 43) were audiotaped. Thematic analysis was conducted on professional transcripts. RESULTS: Participants recognized the value of genetics in identifying and diagnosing at-risk individuals. However, organizational systems, cost, and feeling of unpreparedness were identified as barriers. Participants felt that the rapid pace of genetic science resulted in further challenges to maintaining an adequate knowledge base and highlighted genetics experts' importance. Even when a genetics expert was available, participants wanted to know more about which patients benefit most from genetic testing and expressed a desire to better understand management recommendations associated with a positive test result. CONCLUSION: Participants recognized the benefit but felt underprepared to provide recommendations for genetic testing and, in some cases, lacked organizational resources to refer patients to a genetics expert. Additional training in genetics for cardiology practitioners and ensuring availability of a genetics expert can improve the use of genetics in cardiology settings.

Practitioners' Confidence and Desires for Education in Cardiovascular and Sudden Cardiac Death Genetics.

Background Educating cardiologists and health care professionals about cardiovascular genetics and genetic testing is essential to improving diagnosis and management of patients with inherited cardiomyopathies and arrhythmias and those at higher risk for sudden cardiac death. The aim of this study was to understand cardiology and electrophysiology practitioners' current practices, confidence, and knowledge surrounding genetic testing in cardiology and desired topics for an educational program. Methods and Results A one-time survey was administered through purposive email solicitation to 131 cardiology practitioners in the United States. Of these, 107 self-identified as nongenetic practitioners. Over three quarters of nongenetic practitioners reported that they refer patients to genetic providers to discuss cardiovascular genetic tests (n=82; 76.6%). More than half of nongenetic practitioners reported that they were not confident about the types of cardiovascular genetic testing available (n=60; 56%) and/or in ordering appropriate cardiovascular genetic tests (n=66; 62%). In addition, 45% (n=22) of nongenetic practitioners did not feel confident making cardiology treatment recommendations based on genetic test results. Among all providers, the most desired topics for an educational program were risk assessment (94%) and management of inherited cardiac conditions based on guidelines (91%). Conclusions This study emphasizes the importance of access to genetics services in the cardiology field and the need for addressing the identified deficit in confidence and knowledge about cardiogenetics and genetic testing among nongenetic providers. Additional research is needed, including more practitioners from underserved areas.

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.

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.

Defining the Critical Components of Informed Consent for Genetic Testing.

PURPOSE: Informed consent for genetic testing has historically been acquired during pretest genetic counseling, without specific guidance defining which core concepts are required. METHODS: The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Consent and Disclosure Recommendations Workgroup (CADRe) used an expert consensus process to identify the core concepts essential to consent for clinical genetic testing. A literature review identified 77 concepts that are included in informed consent for genetic tests. Twenty-five experts (9 medical geneticists, 8 genetic counselors, and 9 bioethicists) completed two rounds of surveys ranking concepts' importance to informed consent. RESULTS: The most highly ranked concepts included: (1) genetic testing is voluntary; (2) why is the test recommended and what does it test for?; (3) what results will be returned and to whom?; (4) are there other types of potential results, and what choices exist?; (5) how will the prognosis and management be impacted by results?; (6) what is the potential family impact?; (7) what are the test limitations and next steps?; and (8) potential risk of genetic discrimination and legal protections. CONCLUSION: Defining the core concepts necessary for informed consent for genetic testing provides a foundation for quality patient care across a variety of healthcare providers and clinical indications.

Penetrance of Breast Cancer Susceptibility Genes From the eMERGE III Network.

Background: Unbiased estimates of penetrance are challenging but critically important to make informed choices about strategies for risk management through increased surveillance and risk-reducing interventions. Methods: We studied the penetrance and clinical outcomes of 7 breast cancer susceptibility genes (BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53, CHEK2, ATM, PALB2, and PTEN) in almost 13 458 participants unselected for personal or family history of breast cancer. We identified 242 female participants with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in 1 of the 7 genes for penetrance analyses, and 147 women did not previously know their genetic results. Results: Out of the 147 women, 32 women were diagnosed with breast cancer at an average age of 52.8 years. Estimated penetrance by age 60 years ranged from 17.8% to 43.8%, depending on the gene. In clinical-impact analysis, 42.3% (95% confidence interval = 31.3% to 53.3%) of women had taken actions related to their genetic results, and 2 new breast cancer cases were identified within the first 12 months after genetic results disclosure. Conclusions: Our study provides population-based penetrance estimates for the understudied genes CHEK2, ATM, and PALB2 and highlights the importance of using unselected populations for penetrance studies. It also demonstrates the potential clinical impact of genetic testing to improve health care through early diagnosis and preventative screening.

Comprehension and personal value of negative non-diagnostic genetic panel testing.

Increasing interest and pursuit of genetic testing by the general public have raised concerns about their understanding and use of their results. While most research has focused on individuals receiving positive genetic test results, there have been limited investigations assessing the understanding and utility of receiving negative genetic test results. Individuals who receive a negative (or uninformative) genetic test result may not appreciate the limitations of genetic testing and their residual disease risk. The goals of this study were to explore participant understanding and perceived utility of negative non-diagnostic genetic test results. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants who received negative non-diagnostic genetic test results from the electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network (eMERGE) testing panel at Northwestern University. A total of 17 participants were interviewed. While many expressed a lack of understanding of genetics and the relationship between genes, disease, and environment, most acknowledged that they had residual risk to develop a health problem and should continue with their routine health management. Additionally, participants expressed that their negative results had personal value, by providing them peace of mind and learning additional knowledge about themselves and their health. Participants did not anticipate that results would have an impact on their lifestyle, but felt the results were useful for sharing with their physician and could inform future genetic testing decisions. While mostly positive, some participants were disappointed not to learn more individualized results. While a more thorough exploration is necessary, findings in this study can aid efforts to improve or innovate informed consent for genomic testing, as well as scalable modes of result return that foster comprehension following negative genetic testing.

Participant choices for return of genomic results in the eMERGE Network.

PURPOSE: Secondary findings are typically offered in an all or none fashion when sequencing is used for clinical purposes. This study aims to describe the process of offering categorical and granular choices for results in a large research consortium. METHODS: Within the third phase of the electronic MEdical Records and GEnomics (eMERGE) Network, several sites implemented studies that allowed participants to choose the type of results they wanted to receive from a multigene sequencing panel. Sites were surveyed to capture the details of the implementation protocols and results of these choices. RESULTS: Across the ten eMERGE sites, 4664 participants including adolescents and adults were offered some type of choice. Categories of choices offered and methods for selecting categories varied. Most participants (94.5%) chose to learn all genetic results, while 5.5% chose subsets of results. Several sites allowed participants to change their choices at various time points, and 0.5% of participants made changes. CONCLUSION: Offering choices that include learning some results is important and should be a dynamic process to allow for changes in scientific knowledge, participant age group, and individual preference.

Returning Results in the Genomic Era: Initial Experiences of the eMERGE Network.

A goal of the 3rd phase of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE3) Network was to examine the return of results (RoR) of actionable variants in more than 100 genes to consenting participants and their healthcare providers. Each of the 10 eMERGE sites developed plans for three essential elements of the RoR process: Disclosure to the participant, notification of the health care provider, and integration of results into the electronic health record (EHR). Procedures and protocols around these three elements were adapted as appropriate to individual site requirements and limitations. Detailed information about the RoR procedures at each site was obtained through structured telephone interviews and follow-up surveys with the clinical investigator leading or participating in the RoR process at each eMERGE3 institution. Because RoR processes at each of the 10 sites allowed for taking into account differences in population, disease focus and institutional requirements, significant heterogeneity of process was identified, including variability in the order in which patients and clinicians were notified and results were placed in the EHR. This heterogeneity in the process flow for eMERGE3 RoR reflects the "real world" of genomic medicine in which RoR procedures must be shaped by the needs of the patients and institutional environments.

Understanding the Return of Genomic Sequencing Results Process: Content Review of Participant Summary Letters in the eMERGE Research Network.

A challenge in returning genomic test results to research participants is how best to communicate complex and clinically nuanced findings to participants in a manner that is scalable to the large numbers of participants enrolled. The purpose of this study was to examine the features of genetic results letters produced at each Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE3) Network site to assess their readability and content. Letters were collected from each site, and a qualitative analysis of letter content and a quantitative analysis of readability statistics were performed. Because letters were produced independently at each eMERGE site, significant heterogeneity in readability and content was found. The content of letters varied widely from a baseline of notifying participants that results existed to more detailed information about positive or negative results, as well as materials for sharing with family members. Most letters were significantly above the Centers for Disease Control-suggested reading level for health communication. While continued effort should be applied to make letters easier to understand, the ongoing challenge of explaining complex genomic information, the implications of negative test results, and the uncertainty that comes with some types of test and result makes simplifying letter text challenging.