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.

The Burnout PRedictiOn Using Wearable aNd ArtIficial IntelligEnce (BROWNIE) study: a decentralized digital health protocol to predict burnout in registered nurses.

BACKGROUND: When job demand exceeds job resources, burnout occurs. Burnout in healthcare workers extends beyond negatively affecting their functioning and physical and mental health; it also has been associated with poor medical outcomes for patients. Data-driven technology holds promise for the prediction of occupational burnout before it occurs. Early warning signs of burnout would facilitate preemptive institutional responses for preventing individual, organizational, and public health consequences of occupational burnout. This protocol describes the design and methodology for the decentralized Burnout PRedictiOn Using Wearable aNd ArtIficial IntelligEnce (BROWNIE) Study. This study aims to develop predictive models of occupational burnout and estimate burnout-associated costs using consumer-grade wearable smartwatches and systems-level data. METHODS: A total of 360 registered nurses (RNs) will be recruited in 3 cohorts. These cohorts will serve as training, testing, and validation datasets for developing predictive models. Subjects will consent to one year of participation, including the daily use of a commodity smartwatch that collects heart rate, step count, and sleep data. Subjects will also complete online baseline and quarterly surveys assessing psychological, workplace, and sociodemographic factors. Routine administrative systems-level data on nursing care outcomes will be abstracted weekly. DISCUSSION: The BROWNIE study was designed to be decentralized and asynchronous to minimize any additional burden on RNs and to ensure that night shift RNs would have equal accessibility to study resources and procedures. The protocol employs novel engagement strategies with participants to maintain compliance and reduce attrition to address the historical challenges of research using wearable devices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05481138.

Ethical Aspects of Prodromal Synucleinopathy Prognostic Counseling.

Alpha-synucleinopathies can be identified in their prodromal phase, raising several ethical issues. In this review, we first provide definitions of prodromal α-synucleinopathies and discuss the importance of distinguishing between prodromes and risk factors. Next, we discuss the implications of a diagnosis of prodromal α-synucleinopathy and considerations regarding prognostic counseling in both clinical and research settings. We review available data on patient preferences regarding disclosure as well as providers' perspectives. We examine the pros and cons of disclosing a diagnosis of prodromal α-synucleinopathy, taking into consideration the differences between clinical and research settings. Asking about willingness to know in clinical and research settings and the shared decision-making process applied to prognostic counseling is discussed. Concerning research settings, ethical aspects regarding clinical trials are addressed. Availability of direct-to-consumer technologies will likely lead to novel contexts requiring prognostic counseling, and future neuroprotective or neuromodulating treatments may require further considerations on the timing, role, and importance of prognostic counseling. Recommendations on how to address ethical gaps should be a priority for patients, medical professional societies, and research workgroups. Ethical issues must be considered as an integral part of the overall clinical and research approach to prodromal synucleinopathies.

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.

Implementation of preemptive DNA sequence-based pharmacogenomics testing across a large academic medical center: The Mayo-Baylor RIGHT 10K Study.

PURPOSE: The Mayo-Baylor RIGHT 10K Study enabled preemptive, sequence-based pharmacogenomics (PGx)-driven drug prescribing practices in routine clinical care within a large cohort. We also generated the tools and resources necessary for clinical PGx implementation and identified challenges that need to be overcome. Furthermore, we measured the frequency of both common genetic variation for which clinical guidelines already exist and rare variation that could be detected by DNA sequencing, rather than genotyping. METHODS: Targeted oligonucleotide-capture sequencing of 77 pharmacogenes was performed using DNA from 10,077 consented Mayo Clinic Biobank volunteers. The resulting predicted drug response-related phenotypes for 13 genes, including CYP2D6 and HLA, affecting 21 drug-gene pairs, were deposited preemptively in the Mayo electronic health record. RESULTS: For the 13 pharmacogenes of interest, the genomes of 79% of participants carried clinically actionable variants in 3 or more genes, and DNA sequencing identified an average of 3.3 additional conservatively predicted deleterious variants that would not have been evident using genotyping. CONCLUSION: Implementation of preemptive rather than reactive and sequence-based rather than genotype-based PGx prescribing revealed nearly universal patient applicability and required integrated institution-wide resources to fully realize individualized drug therapy and to show more efficient use of health care resources.

Computational identification of variables in neonatal vocalizations predictive for postpubertal social behaviors in a mouse model of 16p11.2 deletion.

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is often signaled by atypical cries during infancy. Copy number variants (CNVs) provide genetically identifiable cases of ASD, but how early atypical cries predict a later onset of ASD among CNV carriers is not understood in humans. Genetic mouse models of CNVs have provided a reliable tool to experimentally isolate the impact of CNVs and identify early predictors for later abnormalities in behaviors relevant to ASD. However, many technical issues have confounded the phenotypic characterization of such mouse models, including systematically biased genetic backgrounds and weak or absent behavioral phenotypes. To address these issues, we developed a coisogenic mouse model of human proximal 16p11.2 hemizygous deletion and applied computational approaches to identify hidden variables within neonatal vocalizations that have predictive power for postpubertal dimensions relevant to ASD. After variables of neonatal vocalizations were selected by least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (Lasso), random forest, and Markov model, regression models were constructed to predict postpubertal dimensions relevant to ASD. While the average scores of many standard behavioral assays designed to model dimensions did not differentiate a model of 16p11.2 hemizygous deletion and wild-type littermates, specific call types and call sequences of neonatal vocalizations predicted individual variability of postpubertal reciprocal social interaction and olfactory responses to a social cue in a genotype-specific manner. Deep-phenotyping and computational analyses identified hidden variables within neonatal social communication that are predictive of postpubertal behaviors.

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.

Penetrance and outcomes at 1-year following return of actionable variants identified by genome sequencing.

PURPOSE: We estimated penetrance of actionable genetic variants and assessed near-term outcomes following return of results (RoR). METHODS: Participants (n = 2,535) with hypercholesterolemia and/or colon polyps underwent targeted sequencing of 68 genes and 14 single-nucleotide variants. Penetrance was estimated based on presence of relevant traits in the electronic health record (EHR). Outcomes occurring within 1-year of RoR were ascertained by EHR review. Analyses were stratified by tier 1 and non-tier 1 disorders. RESULTS: Actionable findings were present in 122 individuals and results were disclosed to 98. The average penetrance for tier 1 disorder variants (67%; n = 58 individuals) was higher than in non-tier 1 variants (46.5%; n = 58 individuals). After excluding 45 individuals (decedents, nonresponders, known genetic diagnoses, mosaicism), ≥1 outcomes were noted in 83% of 77 participants following RoR; 78% had a process outcome (referral to a specialist, new testing, surveillance initiated); 68% had an intermediate outcome (new test finding or diagnosis); 19% had a clinical outcome (therapy modified, risk reduction surgery). Risk reduction surgery occurred more often in participants with tier 1 than those with non-tier 1 variants. CONCLUSION: Relevant phenotypic traits were observed in 57% whereas a clinical outcome occurred in 19% of participants with actionable genomic variants in the year following RoR.

Increasing access to individualized medicine: a matched-cohort study examining Latino participant experiences of genomic screening.

PURPOSE: Multiple efforts are underway to increase the inclusion of racial minority participants in genomic research and new forms of individualized medicine. These efforts should include studies that characterize how individuals from minority communities experience genomic medicine in diverse health-care settings and how they integrate genetic knowledge into their understandings of health-care needs. METHODS: As part of a large, multisite genomic sequencing study, we surveyed individuals to assess their decision to pursue genomic risk evaluation. Participants included Latino patients recruited at Mountain Park Health Center, a Federally Qualified Health Center in Phoenix, Arizona, and non-Latino patients recruited at a large academic medical center (Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN). Both groups agreed to receive individualized genomic risk assessments. RESULTS: Comparisons between cohorts showed that Latino respondents had lower levels of decisional conflict about pursuing genomic screening but generally scored lower on genetic knowledge. Latino respondents were also more likely to have concerns about the misuse of genomic information, despite both groups having similar views about the value of genomic risk evaluation. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the importance of evaluating sociocultural factors that influence minority patient engagement with genomic medicine in diverse health-care settings.

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.

Measuring Attitudes About Genomic Medicine: Validation of the Genomic Orientation Scale (GO Scale).

OBJECTIVES: Assessing public attitudes about genomic medicine is critical for anticipating patient receptivity to clinical applications of genomics. Although scholars have highlighted the importance of assessing stakeholder opinions and views regarding advances in clinical genomics, to date there has not been a robust tool for measuring these attitudes. We designed a study to evaluate the validity of an instrument we developed for measuring attitudes about genomic medicine. METHODS: We used psychometric methods to validate the Genomic Orientation Scale (GO Scale). Our goal was to create an easy-to-use tool for evaluating positive and negative attitudes about genomic medicine. RESULTS: We describe the validation testing of the GO Scale in a nationally representative sample of 1536 individuals residing in the United States. We report results from convergent and divergent validity testing and Rasch modeling analysis. The study produced a 26-item scale with 2 dimensions-optimism and pessimism. CONCLUSIONS: The GO Scale may be used to characterize attitudinal perspectives among patients, clinicians, and the public. The GO Scale may also be useful in evaluating shifts in attitude over time, for example, following educational interventions, which has not been feasible to date.

An ethics framework for consolidating and prioritizing COVID-19 clinical trials.

Given the dearth of established safe and effective interventions to respond to COVID-19, there is an urgent ethical imperative to conduct meaningful clinical research. The good news is that interventions to be tested are not in short supply. Unfortunately, the human and material resources needed to conduct these trials are finite. It is essential that trials be robust and meet enrollment targets and that lower-quality studies not be permitted to displace higher-quality studies, delaying answers to critical questions. Yet, with few exceptions, existing research review bodies and processes are not designed to ensure these conditions are satisfied. To meet this challenge, we offer guidance for research institutions about how to ethically consolidate and prioritize COVID-19 clinical trials, while recognizing that consolidation and prioritization should also take place upstream (among manufacturers and funders) and at a higher level (e.g. nationally). In our proposed three-stage process, trials must first meet threshold criteria. Those that do are evaluated in a second stage to determine whether the institution has sufficient capacity to support all proposed trials. If it does not, the third stage entails evaluating studies against two additional sets of comparative prioritization criteria: those specific to the study and those that aim to advance diversification of an institution's research portfolio. To implement these criteria fairly, we propose that research institutions form COVID-19 research prioritization committees. We briefly discuss some important attributes of these committees, drawing on the authors' experiences at our respective institutions. Although we focus on clinical trials of COVID-19 therapeutics, our guidance should prove useful for other kinds of COVID-19 research, as well as non-pandemic research, which can raise similar challenges due to the scarcity of research resources.

Factors that Influence Intent to Share Genetic Information Related to Cancer Risk with Family Members.

We describe factors influencing patient decisions to share positive cancer genetic test results with family members. We focused on patients who were diagnosed with several different cancer types but did not have a family history that was suggestive of an inherited risk. Participants were recruited from Mayo Clinic and had been recently diagnosed with cancer. An 80+ gene panel was performed. Before receiving genetic test results, patients completed a 49-item survey on their intent to share their results with relatives. 1,721 (57.7%) of 2,984 individuals who elected to pursue genetic testing completed the survey. Most patients planned to share cancer-related genetic results with a spouse or partner (97.0%), at least one adult child (92.2%), at least one sibling (86.2%), and with at least one parent (70.3%). Familial support scores and familial communication scores were predictive of intent to share cancer-related genetic test results. Our data highlight differences in family communication capacity and support that are important for clinicians to consider when supporting patients who wish to share cancer-related genetic test results with family members. Our data point to several potential interventional strategies that might increase the likelihood of cancer-related genetic test results being shared with family members at risk.

Patient reactions to receiving negative genomic screening results by mail.

PURPOSE: As genomic screening is incorporated into a wider array of clinical settings, it is critical that we understand how patients may respond to a various screening results. Although multiple studies have examined how patients understand positive genomic screening results, few data exist regarding patient engagement with negative screening results. METHODS: An 82-item survey was administered to 1712 individuals who received negative genomic screening results by mail following evaluation of 109 medically actionable genes. Genetic counselors were available to assist with the interpretation of screening results. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred forty-two participants completed the survey (84.2%). The vast majority of respondents valued the information they received, with 98% of respondents reporting that negative genomic screening results were valuable and 72% indicating they would recommend genomic screening to others. Nonetheless, many respondents had questions about their genomic screening results (28%) and would have preferred to receive their screening results in person (18%). CONCLUSION: These data suggest most patients value receiving negative genomic screening results and are comfortable receiving their results by mail. Nevertheless, a significant proportion of patients also reported difficulty understanding some aspects of their results. This finding challenges the idea that communicating genomic screening results by mail alone is sufficient to meet patients' needs.

Returning genomic results in a Federally Qualified Health Center: the intersection of precision medicine and social determinants of health.

PURPOSE: This report describes the return of sequencing results to low-income Latino participants recruited through a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC). We describe challenges in returning research results secondary to social determinants of health and present lessons learned to guide future genomic medicine implementation studies in low-resource settings. METHODS: Five hundred Latino adults (76% women) consented to research sequencing for a predetermined panel of actionable genes. Providers and staff from the FQHC were engaged to align processes with the practice and a community advisory board grounded the project in the local community. RESULTS: A pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant was present in 10 participants (2%). Challenges in return of results included the time lag (582 ± 53 days) between enrollment and returning actionable results, difficulty reaching participants, missed appointments, low health literacy, lack of health insurance, and reconciling results with limited information on family history. Return of one actionable result was deferred due to acute emotional distress secondary to recent traumatic life events. CONCLUSION: The social determinants of health influence the implementation of genomic medicine in low-income populations in low-resource settings. Considering nonbiological factors that contribute to disparities will be necessary to better appreciate how genomic medicine may fit within the context of health equity.

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.

Ethical priority of the most actionable system of biomolecules: the metabolome.

The metabolome is a system of small biomolecules (metabolites) and a direct result of human bioculture. Consequently, metabolomics is well poised to impact anthropological and biomedical research for the foreseeable future. Overall, we provide a perspective on the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of metabolomics, which we argue are often more alarming than those of genomics. Given the current mechanisms to fund research, ELSI beyond human DNA is stifled and in need of considerable attention.

Should pretest genetic counselling be required for patients pursuing genomic sequencing? Results from a survey of participants in a large genomic implementation study.

PURPOSE: We assessed the decision-making of individuals pursuing genomic sequencing without a requirement for pretest genetic counselling. We sought to describe the extent to which individuals who decline genetic counselling reported decisional conflict or struggled to make a decision to pursue genomic testing. METHODS: We administered a 100-item survey to 3037 individuals who consented to the Return of Actionable Variants Empirical study, a genomic medicine implementation study supported by the National Institutes of Health (USA) eMERGE consortium. The primary outcomes of interest were self-reported decisional conflict about the decision to participate in the study and time required to reach a decision. RESULTS: We received 2895 completed surveys (response rate=95.3%), and of these respondents 97.8% completed the decisional conflict scale in its entirety. A majority of individuals (63%) had minimal or no decisional conflict about the pursuit of genomic sequencing and were able to reach a decision quickly (78%). Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified several characteristics associated with decisional conflict, including lower education, lower health literacy, lower self-efficacy in coping, lack of prior experience with genetic testing, not discussing study participation with a family member or friend, and being male. CONCLUSION: As genomic sequencing is used more widely, genetic counselling resources may not be sufficient to meet demand. Our results challenge the notion that all individuals need genetic counselling in order to make an informed decision about genomic sequencing.

Modeling seasonal water yield for landscape management: Applications in Peru and Myanmar.

A common objective of watershed management programs is to secure water supply, especially during the dry season. To develop such programs in contexts of low data and resource availability, program managers need tools to understand the effect of landscape management on the seasonal water balance. However, the performance of simple, parsimonious models is poorly understood. Here, we examine the behavior of a geospatial tool, developed to map monthly water budgets and baseflow contributions and forming part of the InVEST (integrated valuation of ecosystem services and trade-offs) software suite. The model uses monthly climate, topography, and land-use data to compute spatial indices of groundwater recharge, baseflow, and quickflow. We illustrate the model application in two large basins in Peru and Myanmar, where we compare results with observed data and alternative hydrologic models. We show that the spatial distribution of baseflow contributions correlated well with an established model in the Peruvian basin (r2 = 0.81 at the parcel scale). In Myanmar, the model shows an overall satisfactory performance for representing month to month variation (Nash-Sutcliffe-Efficiency 0.6-0.8); however, errors are scale dependent highlighting limitations in representing processes in large basins. Our study highlights modeling challenges, in particular trade-offs between model complexity and accuracy, and illustrates the role that parsimonious models can play to support watershed management programs.

Assessing optimism and pessimism about genomic medicine: Development of a genomic orientation scale.

Efforts to characterize stakeholder attitudes about the implementation of genomic medicine would benefit from a validated instrument for measuring public views of the potential benefits and harms of genomic technologies, which would facilitate comparison across populations and clinical settings. We sought to develop a scale to evaluate attitudes about the future of genomic medicine. We developed a 21-item scale that examined the likelihood of various outcomes of genomic medicine. The scale was administered to participants in a genomic sequencing study. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted and bivariate correlations were calculated. The genomic orientation (GO) scale was completed by 2895 participants. A two-factor structure was identified, corresponding to an optimism subscale (16 items, α = 0.89) and a pessimism subscale (5 items, α = 0.63). Genomic optimism was positively associated with a perceived value of genetic test results, higher health literacy, and decreased decisional conflict about participation in a genomic research study. Genomic pessimism was associated with concerns about genetic testing, lower health literacy, and increased decisional conflict about the decision to participate in the study. The GO scale is a promising tool for measuring both positive and negative views regarding the future of genomic medicine and deserves further validation.