Provision of cardiovascular genetic counseling services: current practice and future directions

Implementing Precision Medicine for Dilated Cardiomyopathy: Insights from The DCM Consortium

Background

Clinical genetic evaluation of dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is implemented variably or not at all. Identifying needs and barriers to genetic evaluations will enable strategies to enhance precision medicine care.

Methods

An online survey was conducted in June 2024 among cardiologist investigators of the DCM Consortium from US advanced heart failure/transplant (HF/TX) programs to collect demographics, training, program characteristics, genetic evaluation practices for DCM, and implementation needs. An in-person discussion followed.

Results

Twenty-five cardiologists (28% female, 12% Hispanic, 68% White) participated in the survey and 15 in the discussion; genetics training backgrounds varied greatly. Clinical genetic testing for DCM was conducted by all programs with annual uptake ranging from 5%-70% (median 25%). Thirteen respondents (52%) did not use selection criteria for testing whereas others selected patients based on specific clinical and family history data. Eight (32%) ordered testing by themselves, and the remainder had testing managed mostly by a genetic counselor or others with genetic expertise (16/17; 94%). Six themes were distilled from open-ended responses regarding thoughts for the future and included access to genetics services, navigating uncertainty, knowledge needs, cost concerns, family-based care barriers, and institutional infrastructure limitations. Following an in-person discussion, four areas were identified for focused effort: improved reimbursement for genetic services, genetic counselor integration with HF/TX teams, improved provider education resources, and more research to find missing heritability and to resolve uncertain results.

Conclusions

HF/TX programs have implementation challenges in the provision of DCM genetic evaluations; targeted plans to facilitate precision medicine for DCM are needed.

The genetic counselor workforce in inherited retinal disease clinics: a descriptive assessment

BACKGROUND

Genetic counselors (GCs) have practiced in Inherited Retinal Disease (IRD) clinics for several decades. In this small subspecialty of genetic counseling, GCs are critical for patient understanding of genetic information, which can have prognostic, systemic, family planning and therapeutic implications. Recently, both access to genetic testing for IRDs and the number of genes associated with IRDs (>350) has increased dramatically. However, the practice models and roles of IRD GCs have not been previously described.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

GCs working in academic IRD clinics were surveyed to assess their experience, clinical practices, and roles performed. The collected data was compared to the broader genetic counseling profession and to other specialties using publicly available data on GC professional practices.

RESULTS

While roles of IRD GCs were overlapping with those of the overall genetic counseling profession, all survey respondents reported diverse roles that included both clinical and non-clinical duties, spending up to half their time on research and educational responsibilities. Most respondents (89%) felt that their clinic's MD to GC ratio was too high, while clinical load varied. IRD GCs report varying degrees of prior genetic counseling and ophthalmology-specific experience but unanimously desire additional subspecialty-specific training.

CONCLUSIONS

This descriptive assessment of a small subspecialty suggests a need for growth in the number of GCs practicing in IRD clinics and could help to inform development of new GC positions in IRD centers. It also highlights the desire for additional GC-specific education and may be relevant to curriculum development within GC programs.

Legal approaches to risk of harm in genetic counseling: perspectives from Quebec and Qatar

Genetic counseling is a fast-growing profession worldwide, with genetic counselors taking on increasingly comprehensive and autonomous roles in the healthcare sector. However, the absence of appropriate legal frameworks could potentially create risks of harm to the public. Legal recognition serves to protect the public from risk of harm by regulating the safe and competent practice of healthcare professionals. Genetic counseling is not legally recognized in most world jurisdictions. Examination of the legal status of genetic counseling in different jurisdictions and whether existing legal mechanisms are adequate to address potential risks of harm is therefore timely. This paper examines the different roles of genetic counselors in the Canadian province of Quebec and the state of Qatar, the authors' respective jurisdictions. It considers the types of harms that may be created where appropriate legal mechanisms are lacking, considering the socio-political and legal differences between the two jurisdictions. Moreover, it examines the legal status of genetic counseling in Quebec and Qatar to determine whether these statuses appropriately address the identified risks of harm. The authors argue that existing legal frameworks are inadequate to address these risks and recommend that additional regulatory mechanisms be implemented to properly protect the public from risks of harm.

Evaluation of Clinical Practices Related to Variants of Uncertain Significance Results in Inherited Cardiac Arrhythmia and Inherited Cardiomyopathy Genes

Background:

Increasing use of genetic tests have identified many variants of uncertain significance (VUS) in genes associated with inherited arrhythmias and cardiomyopathies. Evaluation of clinical practices, including medical management recommendations for VUS patients and their families, is important to prevent over- or under-treatment that may result in morbidity or mortality. The purpose of this study is to describe practices related to VUS results including information and medical management recommendations providers give patients and their families.

Methods:

An anonymous online survey was distributed to genetic counselors (GCs) and cardiologists who have seen at least one patient for inherited arrhythmias or cardiomyopathies. The survey explored providers’ confidence in counseling, explanation of VUSs, topics covered before and after genetic testing, and clinical recommendations using a hypothetical scenario maximizing uncertainty with an unclear clinical and molecular diagnosis. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and median confidence and likelihood of making various medical recommendations were compared across provider type.

Results:

Providers (N=102) who completed the survey included 29 cardiovascular GCs, 50 GCs from other specialties, and 23 cardiologists. GCs feel more confident than cardiologists counseling about VUS results ( P <0.001); while both cardiovascular GCs and cardiologists feel more confident than other GCs in providing input regarding medical management recommendations ( P =0.001 and P =0.01, respectively). Cardiologists were more likely than cardiac GCs to recommend clinical testing for family members even though testing in the scenario is expected to be uninformative.

Conclusions:

These findings illustrate how the expertise of different providers may impact decision processes, suggesting the need for interdisciplinary clinics to optimize care for challenging cases.

A Person-Centered Approach to Cardiovascular Genetic Testing

Cardiovascular genetic counselors provide guidance to people facing the reality or prospect of inherited cardiovascular conditions. Key activities in this role include discussing clinical cardiac screening for at-risk family members and offering genetic testing. Psychological factors often influence whether patients choose to have genetic testing and how they understand and communicate the results to at-risk relatives, so psychological counseling increases the impact of genetic education and medical recommendations. This work reviews the literature on the factors that influence patient decisions about cardiovascular genetic testing and the psychological impact of results on people who opt to test. It also models use of a psychological framework to apply themes from the literature to routine cardiovascular genetic counseling practice. Modifications of the framework are provided to show how it can be adapted to serve the needs of both new and experienced genetic counselors.

Establishment of Specialized Clinical Cardiovascular Genetics Programs: Recognizing the Need and Meeting Standards: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Cardiovascular genetics is a rapidly evolving subspecialty within cardiovascular medicine, and its growth is attributed to advances in genome sequencing and genetic testing and the expanding understanding of the genetic basis of multiple cardiac conditions, including arrhythmias (channelopathies), heart failure (cardiomyopathies), lipid disorders, cardiac complications of neuromuscular conditions, and vascular disease, including aortopathies. There have also been great advances in clinical diagnostic methods, as well as in therapies to ameliorate symptoms, slow progression of disease, and mitigate the risk of adverse outcomes. Emerging challenges include interpretation of genetic test results and the evaluation, counseling, and management of genetically at-risk family members who have inherited pathogenic variants but do not yet manifest disease. With these advances and challenges, there is a need for specialized programs combining both cardiovascular medicine and genetics expertise. The integration of clinical cardiovascular findings, including those obtained from physical examination, imaging, and functional assessment, with genetic information allows for improved diagnosis, prognostication, and cascade family testing to identify and to manage risk, and in some cases to provide genotype-specific therapy. This emerging subspecialty may ultimately require a new cardiovascular subspecialist, the genetic cardiologist, equipped with these combined skills, to permit interpretation of genetic variation within the context of phenotype and to extend the utility of genetic testing. This scientific statement outlines current best practices for delivering cardiovascular genetic evaluation and care in both the pediatric and the adult settings, with a focus on team member expertise and conditions that most benefit from genetic evaluation.

Exploring Predictors of Genetic Counseling and Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: Findings from the 2015 U.S. National Health Interview Survey

Despite efforts to increase the availability of clinical genetic testing and counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian (HBOC)-related cancers, these services remain underutilized in clinical settings. There have been few efforts to understand the public's use of cancer genetic services, particularly for HBOC-related cancers. This analysis is based on data from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), a U.S.-based nationwide probability sample, to better understand the public's use of HBOC-related clinical cancer genetic services. Bivariate analyses were used to compute percentages and examine the associations of familial cancer risk for three genetic services outcomes (ever had genetic counseling for cancer risk, ever discussed genetic testing for cancer risk with a provider, and ever had genetic testing for cancer risk). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the association of familial cancer risk and other demographic and health variables with genetic services. Most women (87.67%) in this study were at low risk based on self-reported family history of breast and ovarian cancer, 10.65% were at medium risk, and 1.68% were at high risk. Overall, very small numbers of individuals had ever had genetic counseling (2.78%), discussed genetic testing with their physician (4.55%) or had genetic testing (1.64%). Across all genetic services outcomes, individuals who were at higher familial risk were more likely to have had genetic counseling than those at lower risk (high risk: aOR = 5.869, 95% CI = 2.911-11.835; medium risk: aOR = 4.121, 95% CI = 2.934-5.789), discussed genetic testing (high risk: aOR = 5.133, 95% CI = 2.699-9.764; medium risk: aOR = 3.649, 95% CI = 2.696-4.938), and completed genetic testing (high risk: aOR = 8.531, 95% CI = 3.666-19.851; medium risk aOR = 3.057, 95% CI = 1.835-5.094). Those who perceived themselves as being more likely to develop cancer than the average woman were more likely to engage in genetic counseling (aOR = 1.916, 95% CI = 1.334-2.752), discuss genetic testing (aOR = 3.314, 95% CI = 2.463-4.459) or have had genetic testing (aOR = 1.947, 95% CI = 1.13-3.54). Personal cancer history was also a significant predictor of likelihood to have engaged in genetic services. Our findings highlight: (1) potential under-utilization of cancer genetic services among high risk populations in the U.S. and (2) differences in genetic services use based on individual's characteristics such as self-reported familial risk, personal history, and beliefs about risk of cancer. These results align with other studies which have noted that awareness and use of genetic services are low in the general population and likely not reaching individuals who could benefit most from screening for inherited cancers. Efforts to promote public awareness of familial cancer risk may lead to better uptake of cancer genetic services.

An examination of the factors contributing to the expansion of subspecialty genetic counseling

In recent years, genetic counselors have moved into increasingly varied areas of patient care. Yet limited information is known about how these genetic counselors transitioned from more general clinical practice to subspecialized practice. This study was designed to answer three research questions: (1) What common factors establish a need for a genetic counselor in a subspecialty setting? (2) How do genetic counselors in subspecialties establish their positions? (3) Once established, how do the positions of these genetic counselors evolve as the subspecialty expands? Phone interviews with subspecialized genetic counselors led to the development of an online survey distributed through the National Society of Genetic Counselors ListServ. Sixty-eight of the 144 initial participants met eligibility criteria for participation as subspecialty genetic counselors in a clinical role. Physician interest in hiring a genetic counselor, clinical need, genetic counselor interest in subspecialty area, and available genetic testing were commonly reported as contributing factors to position creation. Most subspecialty genetic counseling positions were created as new positions, rather than evolved from a previous position. Over time, subspecialty positions drew more departmental funding and included increased clinical coordination or administrative responsibilities. The results of this study can encourage genetic counselors to collaborate with their medical institutions to utilize their skill-set in diverse areas of patient care.

Genetic Basis for Congenital Heart Disease: Revisited: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

This review provides an updated summary of the state of our knowledge of the genetic contributions to the pathogenesis of congenital heart disease. Since 2007, when the initial American Heart Association scientific statement on the genetic basis of congenital heart disease was published, new genomic techniques have become widely available that have dramatically changed our understanding of the causes of congenital heart disease and, clinically, have allowed more accurate definition of the pathogeneses of congenital heart disease in patients of all ages and even prenatally. Information is presented on new molecular testing techniques and their application to congenital heart disease, both isolated and associated with other congenital anomalies or syndromes. Recent advances in the understanding of copy number variants, syndromes, RASopathies, and heterotaxy/ciliopathies are provided. Insights into new research with congenital heart disease models, including genetically manipulated animals such as mice, chicks, and zebrafish, as well as human induced pluripotent stem cell-based approaches are provided to allow an understanding of how future research breakthroughs for congenital heart disease are likely to happen. It is anticipated that this review will provide a large range of health care-related personnel, including pediatric cardiologists, pediatricians, adult cardiologists, thoracic surgeons, obstetricians, geneticists, genetic counselors, and other related clinicians, timely information on the genetic aspects of congenital heart disease. The objective is to provide a comprehensive basis for interdisciplinary care for those with congenital heart disease.

Rationale for the Cytogenomics of Cardiovascular Malformations Consortium: A Phenotype Intensive Registry Based Approach

Cardiovascular malformations (CVMs) are the most common birth defect, occurring in 1%–5% of all live births. Although the genetic contribution to CVMs is well recognized, the genetic causes of human CVMs are identified infrequently. In addition, a failure of systematic deep phenotyping of CVMs, resulting from the complexity and heterogeneity of malformations, has obscured genotype-phenotype correlations and contributed to a lack of understanding of disease mechanisms. To address these knowledge gaps, we have developed the Cytogenomics of Cardiovascular Malformations (CCVM) Consortium, a multi-site alliance of geneticists and cardiologists, contributing to a database registry of submicroscopic genetic copy number variants (CNVs) based on clinical chromosome microarray testing in individuals with CVMs using detailed classification schemes. Cardiac classification is performed using a modification to the National Birth Defects Prevention Study approach, and non-cardiac diagnoses are captured through ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes. By combining a comprehensive approach to clinically relevant genetic analyses with precise phenotyping, the Consortium goal is to identify novel genomic regions that cause or increase susceptibility to CVMs and to correlate the findings with clinical phenotype. This registry will provide critical insights into genetic architecture, facilitate genotype-phenotype correlations, and provide a valuable resource for the medical community.