Education and electronic medical records and genomics network, challenges, and lessons learned from a large-scale clinical trial using polygenic risk scores

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.

Polygenic scores for longitudinal prediction of incident type 2 diabetes in an ancestrally and medically diverse primary care physician network: a patient cohort study

BACKGROUND

The clinical utility of genetic information for type 2 diabetes (T2D) prediction with polygenic scores (PGS) in ancestrally diverse, real-world US healthcare systems is unclear, especially for those at low clinical phenotypic risk for T2D.

METHODS

We tested the association of PGS with T2D incidence in patients followed within a primary care practice network over 16 years in four hypothetical scenarios that varied by clinical data availability (N = 14,712): (1) age and sex; (2) age, sex, body mass index (BMI), systolic blood pressure, and family history of T2D; (3) all variables in (2) and random glucose; and (4) all variables in (3), HDL, total cholesterol, and triglycerides, combined in a clinical risk score (CRS). To determine whether genetic effects differed by baseline clinical risk, we tested for interaction with the CRS.

RESULTS

PGS was associated with incident T2D in all models. Adjusting for age and sex only, the Hazard Ratio (HR) per PGS standard deviation (SD) was 1.76 (95% CI 1.68, 1.84) and the HR of top 5% of PGS vs interquartile range (IQR) was 2.80 (2.39, 3.28). Adjusting for the CRS, the HR per SD was 1.48 (1.40, 1.57) and HR of the top 5% of PGS vs IQR was 2.09 (1.72, 2.55). Genetic effects differed by baseline clinical risk ((PGS-CRS interaction p = 0.05; CRS below the median: HR 1.60 (1.43, 1.79); CRS above the median: HR 1.45 (1.35, 1.55)).

CONCLUSIONS

Genetic information can help identify high-risk patients even among those perceived to be low risk in a clinical evaluation.

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.

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.