Understanding the present and preparing for the future: Exploring the needs of diagnostic and elective genomic medicine patients

Medical and psychosocial outcomes of state-funded population genomic screening

As the uptake of population screening expands, assessment of medical and psychosocial outcomes is needed. Through the Alabama Genomic Health Initiative (AGHI), a state-funded genomic research program, individuals received screening for pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in 59 actionable genes via genotyping. Of the 3874 eligible participants that received screening results, 858 (22%) responded to an outcomes survey. The most commonly reported motivation for seeking testing through AGHI was contribution to genetic research (64%). Participants with positive results reported a higher median number of planned actions (median = 5) due to AGHI results as compared to negative results (median = 3). Interviews were conducted with survey participants with positive screening results. As determined by certified genetic counselors, 50% of interviewees took appropriate medical action based on their result. There were no negative or harmful actions taken. These findings indicate population genomic screening of an unselected adult population is feasible, is not harmful, and may have positive outcomes on participants now and in the future; however, further research is needed in order to assess clinical utility.

Elective genomic testing: Practice resource of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Genetic counseling for patients who are pursuing genetic testing in the absence of a medical indication, referred to as elective genomic testing (EGT), is becoming more common. This type of testing has the potential to detect genetic conditions before there is a significant health impact permitting earlier management and/or treatment. Pre- and post-test counseling for EGT is similar to indication-based genetic testing. Both require a complete family and medical history when ordering a test or interpreting a result. However, EGT counseling has some special considerations including greater uncertainties around penetrance and clinical utility and a lack of published guidelines. While certain considerations in the selection of a high-quality genetic testing laboratory are universal, there are some considerations that are unique to the selection of a laboratory performing EGT. This practice resource intends to provide guidance for genetic counselors and other healthcare providers caring for adults seeking pre- or post-test counseling for EGT. Genetic counselors and other genetics trained healthcare providers are the ideal medical professionals to supply accurate information to individuals seeking counseling about EGT enabling them to make informed decisions about testing and follow-up.

Genome screening, reporting, and genetic counseling for healthy populations

Rapid advancements of genome sequencing (GS) technologies have enhanced our understanding of the relationship between genes and human disease. To incorporate genomic information into the practice of medicine, new processes for the analysis, reporting, and communication of GS data are needed. Blood samples were collected from adults with a PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) diagnosis (target N = 1500). GS was performed. Data were filtered and analyzed using custom pipelines and gene panels. We developed unique patient-facing materials, including an online intake survey, group counseling presentation, and consultation letters in addition to a comprehensive GS report. The final report includes results generated from GS data: (1) monogenic disease risks; (2) carrier status; (3) pharmacogenomic variants; (4) polygenic risk scores for common conditions; (5) HLA genotype; (6) genetic ancestry; (7) blood group; and, (8) COVID-19 viral lineage. Participants complete pre-test genetic counseling and confirm preferences for secondary findings before receiving results. Counseling and referrals are initiated for clinically significant findings. We developed a genetic counseling, reporting, and return of results framework that integrates GS information across multiple areas of human health, presenting possibilities for the clinical application of comprehensive GS data in healthy individuals.

Elective genetic testing: Genetics professionals' perspectives and practices

Elective genetic testing (EGT) to identify disease risk in individuals who may or may not meet clinical criteria for testing is increasingly being offered in clinical practice. However, little is known about how EGT is currently implemented and how genetics professionals perceive this type of testing. We conducted a mixed-methods survey study to evaluate genetics professionals' perspectives and attitudes about EGT and describe the current landscape of EGT practices in the United States (U.S.) and Canada. Six clinical geneticists and 131 genetic counselors responded to the online survey, among whom 44% reported offering EGT in their practice. Over 84% of survey respondents agreed that EGT may improve health outcomes and understanding of genotype-phenotype correlations, and 85% agreed that potential risks include result misinterpretation and contribution to economic health disparities. Though most respondents felt comfortable providing pretest (77%) and post-test (86%) counseling for EGT, lack of provider resources (such as time and personnel) and prioritization of diagnostic testing were cited most frequently in free-text responses as reasons for not offering EGT. Of those offering EGT, 88% reported positive overall experiences. Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions identified benefits of EGT as expanding access to genetic testing, providing potential health benefits, and providing psychological benefits for patients. Disadvantages included prohibitive costs, limited clinical utility, and strain on resources. Overall, we found that genetics providers perceive both potential benefits and harms of EGT and that those offering this testing had generally positive experiences, although ethical reservations and practical limitations exist.

Barriers and Facilitators for Population Genetic Screening in Healthy Populations: A Systematic Review

Studies suggest that 1-3% of the general population in the United States unknowingly carry a genetic risk factor for a common hereditary disease. Population genetic screening is the process of offering otherwise healthy patients in the general population testing for genomic variants that predispose them to diseases that are clinically actionable, meaning that they can be prevented or mitigated if they are detected early. Population genetic screening may significantly reduce morbidity and mortality from these diseases by informing risk-specific prevention or treatment strategies and facilitating appropriate participation in early detection. To better understand current barriers, facilitators, perceptions, and outcomes related to the implementation of population genetic screening, we conducted a systematic review and searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for articles published from date of database inception to May 2020. We included articles that 1) detailed the perspectives of participants in population genetic screening programs and 2) described the barriers, facilitators, perceptions, and outcomes related to population genetic screening programs among patients, healthcare providers, and the public. We excluded articles that 1) focused on direct-to-consumer or risk-based genetic testing and 2) were published before January 2000. Thirty articles met these criteria. Barriers and facilitators to population genetic screening were organized by the Social Ecological Model and further categorized by themes. We found that research in population genetic screening has focused on stakeholder attitudes with all included studies designed to elucidate individuals' perceptions. Additionally, inadequate knowledge and perceived limited clinical utility presented a barrier for healthcare provider uptake. There were very few studies that conducted long-term follow-up and evaluation of population genetic screening. Our findings suggest that these and other factors, such as prescreen counseling and education, may play a role in the adoption and implementation of population genetic screening. Future studies to investigate macro-level determinants, strategies to increase provider buy-in and knowledge, delivery models for prescreen counseling, and long-term outcomes of population genetic screening are needed for the effective design and implementation of such programs. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020198198.

A study of elective genome sequencing and pharmacogenetic testing in an unselected population

BACKGROUND

Genome sequencing (GS) of individuals without a medical indication, known as elective GS, is now available at a number of centers around the United States. Here we report the results of elective GS and pharmacogenetic panel testing in 52 individuals at a private genomics clinic in Alabama.

METHODS

Individuals seeking elective genomic testing and pharmacogenetic testing were recruited through a private genomics clinic in Huntsville, AL. Individuals underwent clinical genome sequencing with a separate pharmacogenetic testing panel.

RESULTS

Six participants (11.5%) had pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants that may explain one or more aspects of their medical history. Ten participants (19%) had variants that altered the risk of disease in the future, including two individuals with clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential. Forty-four participants (85%) were carriers of a recessive or X-linked disorder. All individuals with pharmacogenetic testing had variants that affected current and/or future medications.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights the importance of collecting detailed phenotype information to interpret results in elective GS.

Out-of-pocket and private pay in clinical genetic testing: A scoping review

Full coverage of the cost of clinical genetic testing is not always available through public or private insurance programs, or a public healthcare system. Consequently, some patients may be faced with the decision of whether to finance testing out-of-pocket (OOP), meet OOP expenses required by their insurer, or not proceed with testing. A scoping review was conducted to identify literature associated with patient OOP and private pay in clinical genetic testing. Seven databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, PAIS, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the JBI Evidence-Based Practice database) were searched, resulting in 83 unique publications included in the review. The presented evidence includes a descriptive analysis, followed by a narrative account of the extracted data. Results were divided into four groups according to clinical indication: (1) hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, (2) other hereditary cancers, (3) prenatal testing, (4) other clinical indications. The majority of studies focused on hereditary cancer and prenatal genetic testing. Overall trends indicated that OOP costs have fallen and payer coverage has improved, but OOP expenses continue to present a barrier to patients who do not qualify for full coverage.

Genetic counseling for patients with positive genomic screening results: Considerations for when the genetic test comes first

Emerging genetic testing delivery models have enabled individuals to receive testing without a medical indication. This article will highlight key considerations for patient care in the setting of adult patients with positive results for monogenic disease identified through genomic screening. Suggestions for how to adapt genetic counseling to a genomic screening population will encompass topics such as phenotyping, risk assessments, and the use of existing guidelines and resources. Case examples will demonstrate principles of genotype-first patient care.