Return of polygenic risk scores in research: Stakeholders' views on the eMERGE-IV study.

Research on polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for common, genetically complex chronic diseases aims to improve health-related predictions, tailor risk-reducing interventions, and improve health outcomes. Yet, the study and use of PRSs in clinical settings raise equity, clinical, and regulatory challenges that can be greater for individuals from historically marginalized racial, ethnic, and other minoritized communities. As part of the National Human Genome Research Institute-funded Electronic Medical Records and Genomics IV Network, we conducted online focus groups with patients/community members, clinicians, and members of institutional review boards to explore their views on key issues, including PRS research, return of PRS results, clinical translation, and barriers and facilitators to health behavioral changes in response to PRS results. Across stakeholder groups, our findings indicate support for PRS development and a strong interest in having PRS results returned to research participants. However, we also found multi-level barriers and significant differences in stakeholders' views about what is needed and possible for successful implementation. These include researcher-participant interaction formats, health and genomic literacy, and a range of structural barriers, such as financial instability, insurance coverage, and the absence of health-supporting infrastructure and affordable healthy food options in poorer neighborhoods. Our findings highlight the need to revisit and implement measures in PRS studies (e.g., incentives and resources for follow-up care), as well as system-level policies to promote equity in genomic research and health outcomes.

Participant-guided development of bilingual genomic educational infographics for Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Phase IV study.

OBJECTIVE: Developing targeted, culturally competent educational materials is critical for participant understanding of engagement in a large genomic study that uses computational pipelines to produce genome-informed risk assessments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Guided by the Smerecnik framework that theorizes understanding of multifactorial genetic disease through 3 knowledge types, we developed English and Spanish infographics for individuals enrolled in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network. Infographics were developed to explain concepts in lay language and visualizations. We conducted iterative sessions using a modified "think-aloud" process with 10 participants (6 English, 4 Spanish-speaking) to explore comprehension of and attitudes towards the infographics. RESULTS: We found that all but one participant had "awareness knowledge" of genetic disease risk factors upon viewing the infographics. Many participants had difficulty with "how-to" knowledge of applying genetic risk factors to specific monogenic and polygenic risks. Participant attitudes towards the iteratively-refined infographics indicated that design saturation was reached. DISCUSSION: There were several elements that contributed to the participants' comprehension (or misunderstanding) of the infographics. Visualization and iconography techniques best resonated with those who could draw on prior experiences or knowledge and were absent in those without. Limited graphicacy interfered with the understanding of absolute and relative risks when presented in graph format. Notably, narrative and storytelling theory that informed the creation of a vignette infographic was most accessible to all participants. CONCLUSION: Engagement with the intended audience who can identify strengths and points for improvement of the intervention is necessary to the development of effective infographics.

Underrepresentation of blind and deaf participants in the All of Us Research Program.

Blind and deaf individuals comprise large populations that often experience health disparities, with those from marginalized gender, racial, ethnic and low-socioeconomic communities commonly experiencing compounded health inequities. Including these populations in precision medicine research is critical for scientific benefits to accrue to them. We assessed representation of blind and deaf people in the All of Us Research Program (AoURP) 2018-2023 cohort of participants who provided electronic health records and compared it with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2018 national estimates by key demographic characteristics and intersections thereof. Blind and deaf AoURP participants are considerably underrepresented in the cohort, especially among working-age adults (younger than age 65 years), as well as Asian and multi-racial participants. Analyses show compounded underrepresentation at the intersection of multiple marginalization (that is, racial or ethnic minoritized group, female sex, low education and low income), most substantively for working-age blind participants identifying as Black or African American female with education levels lower than high school (representing one-fifth of their national prevalence). Underrepresentation raises concerns about the generalizability of findings in studies that use these data and limited benefits for the already underserved blind and deaf populations.

The need for an intersectionality framework in precision medicine research.

Precision medicine research has seen growing efforts to increase participation of communities that have been historically underrepresented in biomedical research. Marginalized racial and ethnic communities have received particular attention, toward the goal of improving the generalizability of scientific knowledge and promoting health equity. Against this backdrop, research has highlighted three key issues that could impede the promise of precision medicine research: issues surrounding (dis)trust and representation, challenges in translational efforts to improve health outcomes, and the need for responsive community engagement. Existing efforts to address these challenges have predominantly centered on single-dimensional demographic criteria such as race, ethnicity, or sex, while overlooking how these and additional variables, such as disability, gender identity, and socioeconomic factors, can confound and jointly impact research participation. We argue that increasing cohort diversity and the responsiveness of precision medicine research studies to community needs requires an approach that transcends conventional boundaries and embraces a more nuanced, multi-layered, and intersectional framework for data collection, analyses, and implementation. We draw attention to gaps in existing work, highlight how overlapping layers of marginalization might shape and substantiate one another and affect the precision-medicine research cycle, and put forth strategies to facilitate equitable advantages from precision-medicine research to diverse participants and internally heterogeneous communities.

Project Inclusive Genetics: Protecting reproductive autonomy from bias via prenatal patient-centered counseling.

Clinician bias negatively impacts the healthcare received by marginalized communities. In this study, we explored factors that influence clinician and trainee bias against individuals with intellectual disabilities and its impact on clinical judgment in prenatal genetic testing settings. Specifically, we examined bias toward a fetus with a higher chance of developing a disability. We compared genetics specialists with their non-expert counterparts. This web-based study included clinical vignettes, implicit association tests (IATs), and an educational module. 595 participants were recruited via their institution or professional society. We conducted statistical analyses, including regression models controlling for key demographic characteristics, to analyze recommendation patterns and degree of change after the module. Genetics expertise strongly correlated with appropriate testing recommendation when the patient would not consider pregnancy termination (r = 1.784 pre-module, r = 1.502 post-module, p < 0.01). Factors that influenced pre-module recommendation to test include increased age (r = -0.029, p < 0.05), high religiosity (r = 0.525, p < 0.05), and participant personal preference against testing (r = 1.112, p < 0.01). Responses among participants without genetics expertise improved after the educational module (Z = -4.435, p < 0.01). 42% of non-experts who answered inappropriately changed their answer to match guidelines after the module. Individual bias, along with structural and institutional bias, permeates family planning encounters and significantly decreases quality of care. We demonstrate here that anti-bias training is effective, particularly for non-expert providers, and it can improve the care provided to individuals with intellectual disability. Evidence-based training such as this one can help providers make appropriate genetic counseling recommendations.

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.

How do experts in psychiatric genetics view the clinical utility of polygenic risk scores for schizophrenia?

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are promising for identifying common variant-related inheritance for psychiatric conditions but their integration into clinical practice depends on their clinical utility and psychiatrists' understanding of PRS. Our online survey explored these issues with 276 professionals working in psychiatric genetics (RR: 19%). Overall, participants demonstrated knowledge of how to interpret PRS results. Their performance on knowledge-based questions was positively correlated with participants' self-reported familiarity with PRS (r = 0.21, p = 0.0006) although differences were not statistically significant (Wald Chi-square = 3.29, df = 1, p = 0.07). However, only 48.9% of all participants answered all knowledge questions correctly. Many participants (56.5%), especially researchers (42%), indicated having at least occasional conversations about the role of genetics in psychiatric conditions with patients and/or family members. Most participants (62.7%) indicated that PRS are not yet sufficiently robust for assessment of susceptibility to schizophrenia; most significant obstacles were low predictive power and lack of population diversity in available PRS (selected, respectively, by 53.6% and 29.3% of participants). Nevertheless, 89.8% of participants were optimistic about the use of PRS in the next 10 years, suggesting a belief that current shortcomings could be addressed. Our findings inform about the perceptions of psychiatric professionals regarding PRS and the application of PRS in psychiatry.

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.

Precision medicine and the problem of structural injustice.

Many countries currently invest in technologies and data infrastructures to foster precision medicine (PM), which is hoped to better tailor disease treatment and prevention to individual patients. But who can expect to benefit from PM? The answer depends not only on scientific developments but also on the willingness to address the problem of structural injustice. One important step is to confront the problem of underrepresentation of certain populations in PM cohorts via improved research inclusivity. Yet, we argue that the perspective needs to be broadened because the (in)equitable effects of PM are also strongly contingent on wider structural factors and prioritization of healthcare strategies and resources. When (and before) implementing PM, it is crucial to attend to how the organisation of healthcare systems influences who will benefit, as well as whether PM may present challenges for a solidaristic sharing of costs and risks. We discuss these issues through a comparative lens of healthcare models and PM-initiatives in the United States, Austria, and Denmark. The analysis draws attention to how PM hinges on-and simultaneously affects-access to healthcare services, public trust in data handling, and prioritization of healthcare resources. Finally, we provide suggestions for how to mitigate foreseeable negative effects.

The effect of genetic education on the referral of patients to genetic evaluation: Findings from a national survey of nephrologists.

PURPOSE: The success of genomic medicine hinges on the implementation of genetic knowledge in clinical settings. In novel subspecialties, it requires that clinicians refer patients to genetic evaluation or testing, however referral is likely to be affected by genetic knowledge. METHODS: An online survey was administered to self-identified nephrologists working in the United States. Nephrologists' demographic characteristics, genetic education, confidence in clinical genetics, genetic knowledge, and referral rates of patients to genetic evaluation were collected. RESULTS: In total, 201 nephrologists completed the survey. All reported treating patients with genetic forms of kidney disease, and 37% had referred <5 patients to genetic evaluation. A third had limited basic genetic knowledge. Most nephrologists (85%) reported concerns regarding future health insurance eligibility as a barrier to referral to genetic testing. Most adult nephrologists reported insufficient genetic education during residency (65%) and fellowship training (52%). Lower rating of genetic education and lower knowledge in recognizing signs of genetic kidney diseases were significantly associated with lower number of patients referred to the genetic evaluation (P < .001). Most nephrologists reported that improving their genetic knowledge is important for them (>55%). CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to enhance nephrologists' genetic education to increase genetic testing use in nephrology.

People with disability and privacy in precision medicine research: what's at stake?

Re-identification from data used in precision medicine research is presumed to create minimal risk but may disproportionately impact health disparity populations. We consider plausible privacy risks and the negative ramifications thereof for people with disabilities, the largest health disparity population in the USA, and suggest measures to address these concerns.

Data sharing and community-engaged research.

Data sharing must be accompanied by responsibility sharing.

Eligibility criteria in NIH-funded clinical trials: Can adults with intellectual disability get in?

BACKGROUND: Although scientific breakthroughs can promote health equity, there is concern that adults with intellectual disability, a health disparities population, may be excluded from clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which adults with intellectual disability are subject to exclusion from National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded clinical trials. METHODS: We studied recent NIH-funded Phase 2/3, 3, and 4 clinical trials of United States-based working-age adults (>18 < 55 years of age) listed in ClinicalTrials.gov. We coded eligibility criteria for inclusion, direct exclusion, and indirect exclusion of adults with intellectual disability. RESULTS: We rarely identified studies that directly include adults with intellectual disability. Most studies (74.6%) had eligibility criteria that directly and/or indirectly exclude adults with intellectual disability. Approximately one-third of studies had direct exclusion criteria based on cognitive impairment or diagnosis of intellectual disability. Nearly 65% of studies indirectly excluded adults with intellectual disability based on factors likely associated with intellectual disability (e.g., functional capacity, inability to read/write, and/or research staff discretion). CONCLUSIONS: We found less exclusion based on diagnosis of intellectual disability than anticipated. Nonetheless, about three-fourths of studies had eligibility criteria which would likely lead to the direct and/or indirect exclusion of adults with intellectual disability. Our findings suggest substantial cause for concern that adults with intellectual disability experience widespread exclusion from NIH-funded clinical trials-exclusion that may lack appropriate justification and assessment. Consequently, this group is denied equal access to the potential benefits of scientific discovery. We provide recommendations for approaches to include adults with intellectual disability.