Physicians' perspectives on receiving unsolicited genomic results

Impact of selection bias on polygenic risk score estimates in healthcare settings

BACKGROUND

Hospital-based biobanks are being increasingly considered as a resource for translating polygenic risk scores (PRS) into clinical practice. However, since these biobanks originate from patient populations, there is a possibility of bias in polygenic risk estimation due to overrepresentation of patients with higher frequency of healthcare interactions.

METHODS

PRS for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression were calculated using summary statistics from the largest available genomic studies for a sample of 24 153 European ancestry participants in the Mass General Brigham (MGB) Biobank. To correct for selection bias, we fitted logistic regression models with inverse probability (IP) weights, which were estimated using 1839 sociodemographic, clinical, and healthcare utilization features extracted from electronic health records of 1 546 440 non-Hispanic White patients eligible to participate in the Biobank study at their first visit to the MGB-affiliated hospitals.

RESULTS

Case prevalence of bipolar disorder among participants in the top decile of bipolar disorder PRS was 10.0% (95% CI 8.8-11.2%) in the unweighted analysis but only 6.2% (5.0-7.5%) when selection bias was accounted for using IP weights. Similarly, case prevalence of depression among those in the top decile of depression PRS was reduced from 33.5% (31.7-35.4%) to 28.9% (25.8-31.9%) after IP weighting.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-random selection of participants into volunteer biobanks may induce clinically relevant selection bias that could impact implementation of PRS in research and clinical settings. As efforts to integrate PRS in medical practice expand, recognition and mitigation of these biases should be considered and may need to be optimized in a context-specific manner.

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.

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.

Attitudes about pharmacogenomic testing vary by healthcare specialty

Aim: To understand how attitudes toward pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing among healthcare providers varies by specialty. Methods: Providers reported comfort ordering PGx testing and its perceived utility on web-based surveys before and after genetics education. Primary quantitative analyses compared primary care providers (PCPs) to specialty providers at both timepoints. Results: PCPs were more likely than specialty care providers to rate PGx testing as useful at both timepoints. Education increased comfort ordering PGx tests, with larger improvements among PCPs than specialty providers. Over 90% of cardiology and internal medicine providers rated PGx testing as useful at pre- and post-education. Conclusion: PCPs overwhelmingly perceive PGx to be useful, and provider education is particularly effective for improving PCPs' confidence. Education for all specialties will be essential to ensure appropriate integration into routine practice.

A practical checklist for return of results from genomic research in the European context

An increasing number of European research projects return, or plan to return, individual genomic research results (IRR) to participants. While data access is a data subject's right under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and many legal and ethical guidelines allow or require participants to receive personal data generated in research, the practice of returning results is not straightforward and raises several practical and ethical issues. Existing guidelines focusing on return of IRR are mostly project-specific, only discuss which results to return, or were developed outside Europe. To address this gap, we analysed existing normative documents identified online using inductive content analysis. We used this analysis to develop a checklist of steps to assist European researchers considering whether to return IRR to participants. We then sought feedback on the checklist from an interdisciplinary panel of European experts (clinicians, clinical researchers, population-based researchers, biobank managers, ethicists, lawyers and policy makers) to refine the checklist. The checklist outlines seven major components researchers should consider when determining whether, and how, to return results to adult research participants: 1) Decide which results to return; 2) Develop a plan for return of results; 3) Obtain participant informed consent; 4) Collect and analyse data; 5) Confirm results; 6) Disclose research results; 7) Follow-up and monitor. Our checklist provides a clear outline of the steps European researchers can follow to develop ethical and sustainable result return pathways within their own research projects. Further legal analysis is required to ensure this checklist complies with relevant domestic laws.

Electronic Health Records' Support for Primary Care Physicians' Situation Awareness: A Metanarrative Review

OBJECTIVE

Situation awareness (SA) refers to people's perception and understanding of their dynamic environment. In primary care, reduced SA among physicians increases errors in clinical decision-making and, correspondingly, patients' risk of experiencing adverse outcomes. Our objective was to understand the extent to which electronic health records (EHRs) support primary care physicians (PCPs)' SA during clinical decision-making.

METHOD

We conducted a metanarrative review of papers in selected academic databases, including CINAHL and MEDLINE. Eligible studies included original peer-reviewed research published between January 2012 and August 2020 on PCP-EHR interactions. We iteratively queried, screened, and summarized literature focused on EHRs supporting PCPs' clinical decision-making and care management for adults. Then, we mapped findings to an established SA framework to classify external factors (individual, task, and system) affecting PCPs' levels of SA (1-Perception, 2-Comprehension, and 3-Projection) and identified SA barriers.

RESULTS

From 1504 articles identified, we included and synthesized 19 studies. Study designs were largely noninterventional. Studies described EHR workflow misalignments, usability issues, and communication challenges. EHR information, including lab results and care plans, was characterized as incomplete, untimely, or irrelevant. Unmet information needs made it difficult for PCPs to obtain even basic SA, Level 1 SA. Prevalent barriers to PCPs developing SA with EHRs were errant mental models, attentional tunneling, and data overload.

CONCLUSION

Based on our review, EHRs do not support the development of higher levels of SA among PCPs. Review findings suggest SA-oriented design processes for health information technology could improve PCPs' SA, satisfaction, and decision-making.

Attitudes among Parents towards Return of Disease-Related Polygenic Risk Scores (PRS) for Their Children

The electronic MEdical Records and GEnomics (eMERGE) consortium will return risk reports pertaining to specific diseases, a key component of which will be polygenic risk scores (PRS), to 25,000 participants, including 5000 children. Understanding comprehension and the perceived value of these PRS-based reports among parents will be critical for effective return of results in children. To address this issue, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 40 African American and Hispanic parents at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and Boston Children's Hospital. Each participant received a hypothetical risk report identifying their child as high risk for either type 2 diabetes or asthma. Participants were assessed on their comprehension of absolute versus relative risk framing, likelihood of following risk-reduction recommendations, perceived value of the information, psychosocial impact, education/support needed, and suggestions to improve the PRS-based report to make it more accessible. Results demonstrated high perceived value in receiving PRS-based reports but also draws attention to important shortfalls in comprehension due to factors including the health of the child, family history, and how the risk was framed. This study provides an insight into implementing the return of genomic risk scores in a pediatric setting.

Workforce Considerations When Building a Precision Medicine Program

This paper describes one healthcare system’s approach to strategically deploying genetic specialists and pharmacists to support the implementation of a precision medicine program. In 2013, Sanford Health initiated the development of a healthcare system-wide precision medicine program. Here, we report the necessary staffing including the genetic counselors, genetic counseling assistants, pharmacists, and geneticists. We examined the administrative and electronic medical records data to summarize genetic referrals over time as well as the uptake and results of an enterprise-wide genetic screening test. Between 2013 and 2020, the number of genetic specialists employed at Sanford Health increased by 190%, from 10.1 full-time equivalents (FTEs) to 29.3 FTEs. Over the same period, referrals from multiple provider types to genetic services increased by 423%, from 1438 referrals to 7517 referrals. Between 2018 and 2020, 11,771 patients received a genetic screening, with 4% identified with potential monogenic medically actionable predisposition (MAP) findings and 95% identified with at least one informative pharmacogenetic result. Of the MAP-positive patients, 85% had completed a session with a genetics provider. A strategic workforce staffing and deployment allowed Sanford Health to manage a new genetic screening program, which prompted a large increase in genetic referrals. This approach can be used as a template for other healthcare systems interested in the development of a precision medicine program.

Impact of returning unsolicited genomic results to nongenetic health care providers in the eMERGE III Network

PURPOSE

As genomic sequencing becomes more common, medically actionable secondary findings will increasingly be returned to health care providers (HCPs), who will be faced with managing the resulting patient care. These findings are generally unsolicited, ie, unrelated to the sequencing indication and/or ordered by another clinician.

METHODS

To understand the impact of receiving unsolicited results, we interviewed HCPs who received genomic results for patients enrolled in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Phase III Network, which returned results on >100 actionable genes to eMERGE participants and HCPs.

RESULTS

In total, 16 HCPs across 3 eMERGE sites were interviewed about their experience of receiving a positive (likely pathogenic or pathogenic), negative, or variant of uncertain significance result for a patient enrolled in eMERGE Phase III and about managing their patient on the basis of the result. Although unsolicited, HCPs felt responsible for managing the patient's resulting medical care. HCPs indicated that clinical utility depended on the actionability of results, and whereas comfort levels varied, confidence was improved by the availability of subspecialist consults. HCPs were concerned about patient anxiety, insurability, and missing an actionable result in the electronic health record.

CONCLUSION

Our findings help inform best practices for return of unsolicited genomic screening findings in the future.

Incomplete Penetrance of Population-Based Genetic Screening Results in Electronic Health Record

The clinical value of population-based genetic screening projects depends on the actions taken on the findings. The Healthy Nevada Project (HNP) is an all-comer genetic screening and research project based in northern Nevada. HNP participants with CDC Tier 1 findings of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC), Lynch syndrome (LS), or familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) are notified and provided with genetic counseling. However, the HNP subsequently takes a “hands-off” approach: it is the responsibility of notified participants to share their findings with their healthcare providers, and providers are expected to implement the recommended action plans. Thus, the HNP presents an opportunity to evaluate the efficiency of participant and provider responses to notification of important genetic findings, using electronic health records (EHRs) at Renown Health (a large regional hospital in northern Nevada). Out of 520 HNP participants with findings, we identified 250 participants who were notified of their findings and who had an EHR. 107 of these participants responded to a survey, with 76 (71%) indicating that they had shared their findings with their healthcare providers. However, a sufficiently specific genetic diagnosis appeared in the EHRs and problem lists of only 22 and 10%, respectively, of participants without prior knowledge. Furthermore, review of participant EHRs provided evidence of possible relevant changes in clinical care for only a handful of participants. Up to 19% of participants would have benefited from earlier screening due to prior presentation of their condition. These results suggest that continuous support for both participants and their providers is necessary to maximize the benefit of population-based genetic screening. We recommend that genetic screening projects require participants’ consent to directly document their genetic findings in their EHRs. Additionally, we recommend that they provide healthcare providers with ongoing training regarding documentation of findings and with clinical decision support regarding subsequent care.

Improved provider preparedness through an 8-part genetics and genomic education program

PURPOSE

Large-scale genetics education appropriate for general practice providers is a growing priority. We describe the content and impact of a mandatory system-wide program implemented at Sanford Health.

METHODS

The Imagenetics Initiative at Sanford Health developed a 2-year genetics education program with quarterly web-based modules that were mandatory for all physicians and advanced practice providers. Scores of 0 to 5 were calculated for each module on the basis of the number of objectives that the participants reported as fulfilled. In addition, the participants completed surveys before starting and after finishing the education program, which included a 7-item measure scored 7 to 28 on the perceived preparedness to practice genetics.

RESULTS

Between 2252 and 2822 Sanford Health employees completed each of the 8 quarterly education modules. The ratings were highest for the module about using genomics to improve patient management (mean score = 4.3) and lowest for the module about different types of genetic tests and specialists. The mean perceived preparedness scores increased from 15.7 at pre-education to 19.1 at post-education (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Web-based genetics education was highly effective in increasing health care providers' confidence about using genetics. Both comfort with personal knowledge and confidence regarding access to the system's genomic medicine experts increased significantly. The results demonstrate how scalable approaches can improve provider preparedness.

Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives

Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders’ perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.

Primary care providers' responses to unsolicited Lynch syndrome secondary findings of varying clinical significance

Purpose:

How primary care providers (PCPs) respond to genomic secondary findings (SFs) of varying clinical significance (pathogenic, uncertain significance (VUS), or benign) is unknown.

Methods:

We randomized 148 American Academy of Family Physicians members to review three reports with varying significance for Lynch syndrome. Participants provided open-ended responses about the follow-up they would address and organized the SF reports and five other topics in the order they would prioritize responding to them (1=highest priority, 6=lowest priority).

Results:

PCPs suggested referrals more often for pathogenic variants or VUSs than benign variants (72% vs 16%, p<0.001). PCPs were also more likely to address further workup, like a colonoscopy or EGD, in response to pathogenic variants or VUSs than benign variants (43% vs 4%, p<0.001). The likelihoods of addressing referrals or further workup were similar when PCPs reviewed pathogenic variants and VUSs (both p>0.46). SF reports were prioritized highest for pathogenic variants (2.7 for pathogenic variants, 3.6 for VUSs, 4.3 for benign variants, all p≤0.014).

Conclusions:

Results suggest that while PCPs appreciated the differences in clinical significance, disclosure of VUSs as SFs would substantially increase downstream health care utilization.

Views on genomic research result delivery methods and informed consent: a review

There has been little discussion of the way genomic research results should be returned and how to obtain informed consent for this. We systematically searched the empirical literature, identifying 63 articles exploring stakeholder perspectives on processes for obtaining informed consent about return of results and/or result delivery. Participants, patients and members of the public generally felt they should choose which results are returned to them and how, ranging from direct (face-to-face, telephone) to indirect (letters, emails, web-based delivery) communication. Professionals identified inadequacies in result delivery processes in the research context. Our findings have important implications for ensuring participants are supported in deciding which results they wish to receive or, if no choice is offered, preparing them for potential research outcomes.

An electronic health record (EHR) log analysis shows limited clinician engagement with unsolicited genetic test results

How clinicians utilize medically actionable genomic information, displayed in the electronic health record (EHR), in medical decision-making remains unknown. Participating sites of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network have invested resources into EHR integration efforts to enable the display of genetic testing data across heterogeneous EHR systems. To assess clinicians’ engagement with unsolicited EHR-integrated genetic test results of eMERGE participants within a large tertiary care academic medical center, we analyzed automatically generated EHR access log data. We found that clinicians viewed only 1% of all the eMERGE genetic test results integrated in the EHR. Using a cluster analysis, we also identified different user traits associated with varying degrees of engagement with the EHR-integrated genomic data. These data contribute important empirical knowledge about clinicians limited and brief engagements with unsolicited EHR-integrated genetic test results of eMERGE participants. Appreciation for user-specific roles provide additional context for why certain users were more or less engaged with the unsolicited results. This study highlights opportunities to use EHR log data as a performance metric to more precisely inform ongoing EHR-integration efforts and decisions about the allocation of informatics resources in genomic research.

Patients' Views About the Disclosure of Collateral Findings in Pragmatic Clinical Trials: a Focus Group Study

BACKGROUND

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are increasingly being conducted to efficiently generate evidence to inform healthcare decision-making. Despite their growing acceptance, PCTs may involve a variety of ethical issues, including the management of pragmatic clinical trial-collateral findings (PCT-CFs), that is, information that emerges in PCTs that is unrelated to the primary research questions but may have implications for patients, clinicians, and health systems.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to understand patients' views about PCT-CF disclosure, including how, by whom, and the nature and extent of information provided.

DESIGN

Prospective, qualitative focus group study.

PARTICIPANTS

Focus groups were conducted in Baltimore, MD; Houston, TX; and Seattle, WA (overall N = 66), during July and August 2019.

APPROACH

All groups discussed a hypothetical scenario involving the detection of a PCT-CF of contraindicated medications. Participants were asked about their reactions to the PCT-CF and issues related to its disclosure.

KEY RESULTS

Reactions to learning about the PCT-CF were mixed, ranging from fear of a significant health problem, anger that the contraindicated medications had gone unnoticed and/or for being included in research without their permission, to gratitude for the information. Preferences for how such disclosures are made varied but were driven by several consistent desires, namely minimizing patient harm and anxiety and demonstrating trust and respect. Many wanted their treating clinician to be informed of the PCT-CF so that they would be prepared to answer patients' questions and to discuss treatment options.

CONCLUSIONS

The detection of PCT-CFs is likely to increase with further expansion of PCTs. As such, clinicians will undoubtedly become involved in the management of PCT-CFs. Our data illustrate some of the challenges clinicians may face when their patients are informed of a PCT-CF and the need to develop guidance for disclosing PCT-CFs in ways that align with patients' preferences and values.

Health and kinship matter: Learning about direct-to-consumer genetic testing user experiences via online discussions

Background

Millions of people have undergone direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT), but little is known about individuals' motivations and experiences (e.g., discussion topics and emotions after obtaining the test results) in engaging with DTC-GT services. Previous studies either involved only a small number of DTC-GT consumers or were based on hypothetical scenarios.

Objective

Our study aimed to fill this gap by investigating online discussions about DTC-GT that developed naturally among tens of thousands of social media users.

Methods

We focused on the posts that were published in the r/23andme and r/AncestryDNA subreddits, which correspond to the two companies with the largest number of consumers in the DTC-GT market. We applied computational methods to infer and examine the topics discussed, temporal trends in posting rates and themes (e.g., aggregation of related topics), and emotions expressed in these online forums.

Results

We collected 157,000 posts published by 16,500 Reddit users between 2013 and 2019. We found that the posting rates increased sharply after popular promotional events (e.g., each Amazon Prime Day and Black Friday) and most posts were inquiries into, or status updates about, testing progress. The inferred themes of Ancestral Origin and Kinship/Feelings were the two most frequently discussed, while discussions about the Health Risks theme focused primarily on submitting DTC-GT raw data to third parties for interpretation. The Kinship/Feelings theme exhibited the largest range of emotional response. A qualitative review of the posts with extreme emotions showed that some people became excited because they found their biological parents or other kin, while others became upset because they unexpectedly found that their parents or other kin were not biologically related to them.

Conclusion

This research demonstrates that online social media platforms can serve as a rich resource for characterizing actual DTC-GT experiences. The findings suggest that DTC-GT consumers' purchasing behaviors are associated with societal events and that future investigations should consider how DTC-GT challenges our understanding of kinship structure and function, genomic privacy, and the interpretation of health risks.

Clinical Decision Support and Implications for the Clinician Burnout Crisis

OBJECTIVES

This survey aimed to review aspects of clinical decision support (CDS) that contribute to burnout and identify key themes for improving the acceptability of CDS to clinicians, with the goal of decreasing said burnout.

METHODS

We performed a survey of relevant articles from 2018-2019 addressing CDS and aspects of clinician burnout from PubMed and Web of Science™. Themes were manually extracted from publications that met inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine articles met inclusion criteria, including 12 review articles. Review articles were either prescriptive, describing how CDS should work, or analytic, describing how current CDS tools are deployed. The non-review articles largely demonstrated poor relevance and acceptability of current tools, and few studies showed benefits in terms of efficiency or patient outcomes from implemented CDS. Encouragingly, multiple studies highlighted steps that succeeded in improving both acceptability and relevance of CDS.

CONCLUSIONS

CDS can contribute to clinician frustration and burnout. Using the techniques of improving relevance, soliciting feedback, customization, measurement of outcomes and metrics, and iteration, the effects of CDS on burnout can be ameliorated.

The composition and capacity of the clinical genetics workforce in high-income countries: a scoping review

As genetics becomes increasingly integrated into all areas of health care and the use of complex genetic tests continues to grow, the clinical genetics workforce will likely face greatly increased demand for its services. To inform strategic planning by health-care systems to prepare to meet this future demand, we performed a scoping review of the genetics workforce in high-income countries, summarizing all available evidence on its composition and capacity published between 2010 and 2019. Five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PAIS, CINAHL, and Web of Science) and gray literature sources were searched, resulting in 162 unique studies being included in the review. The evidence presented includes the composition and size of the workforce, the scope of practice for genetics and nongenetics specialists, the time required to perform genetics-related tasks, case loads of genetics providers, and opportunities to increase efficiency and capacity. Our results indicate that there is currently a shortage of genetics providers and that there is a lack of consensus about the appropriate boundaries between the scopes of practice for genetics and nongenetics providers. Moreover, the results point to strategies that may be used to increase productivity and efficiency, including alternative service delivery models, streamlining processes, and the automation of tasks.

Managing thromboembolic risk in patients with hereditary and acquired thrombophilias

While we are now able to diagnose inherited thrombophilias in a substantial number of patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE), the initial hope that their presence would inform recurrence risk and thus decisions on anticoagulation duration has largely been disappointing. Indeed, the presence or absence of transient provoking risk factors has proven to be the most important determinant of VTE recurrence risk. Thus, particular attention to transient acquired risk factors for VTE remains paramount, as they have generally been shown to carry more prognostic weight than inherited thrombophilias. The presence of other acquired risk factors may require additional management considerations, whether pertaining to anticoagulant choice, as in antiphospholipid antibody syndrome, or to addressing a new predisposing medical condition, as in malignancy. Antithrombin deficiency or the presence of ≥1 thrombophilic defect may be exceptions that can have a role in prognostication; however, as illustrated in this review through several case vignettes, interpretation and clinical application of the results of inherited thrombophilia testing is nuanced. We have chosen to focus on cases in which patients have been identified as having thrombophilic defects rather than the indications for undertaking testing in the first place or the extent of investigation. Management decisions in such cases ultimately hinge on individualized consideration of the benefits and risks of anticoagulation along with patient preference rather than on an algorithmic pathway based on thrombophilia status.

The difference in knowledge and concerns between healthcare professionals and patients about genetic-related issues: A questionnaire-based study

Effective adoption of genetics in clinical practice requires the support of and interaction between the different partners of healthcare system; healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients. The study aimed to assess and compare the knowledge, factors affecting the knowledge, and concerns of HCPs and patients regarding genetic-related issues such as lack of knowledge about genetics and genetic conditions, awareness of the importance of genetics in clinical practice and genetic services and resources deficits. A cross sectional study was conducted in different areas of Jordan using a convenient sampling approach. An English questionnaire was self-administered to HCPs. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with patients in Arabic by trained researcher. A total of 1000 HCPs and 1448 patients were recruited. There was a significant difference (p<0.001) in the knowledge between HCPs and patients. Among HCPs, physicians (OR = 2.278, 95%CI = 1.410–3.680, p = 0.001) and pharmacists (OR = 2.163, 95%CI = 1.362–3.436, p = 0.001) were more knowledgeable than nurses. In addition, females were more knowledgeable than males (OR = 1.717, 95%CI = 1.203–2.451, p = 0.003). Among patients, participants who had a bachelor degree (OR = 1.579, 95%CI = 1.231–2.025, p<0.001) were more knowledgeable compared to those who only had school education. HCPs appeared to have more concerns than patients (p<0.001) regarding all genetic-related issues. These findings suggested a positive association between education and genetic knowledge as well as concerns; as HCPs were more knowledgeable and concerned than patients. Appropriate integration and expansion of basic genetic knowledge courses and clinical genetic training in the curriculum should be adopted to prepare HCPs to enhance the integration of genetic information in clinical settings.

Ethical conflicts in translational genetic research: lessons learned from the eMERGE-III experience

PURPOSE

The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Consortium integrated biorepository-based research with electronic health records (EHR) to return results from large-scale genetic tests to participants and uploaded those data into the EHR. This article explores the ethical issues investigators encountered in that process.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with study personnel of the eMERGE-III Consortium sites that returned results.

RESULTS

We discuss major ethical issues that arose while attempting to return research results from the eMERGE Consortium to individual participants. These included difficulties recontacting those participants who had not explicitly consented to such and disclosing results to many participants with insufficient infrastructure and staff. Investigators reported being driven by a supererogatory clinical impulse.

CONCLUSION

All these issues ultimately derive from ethical conflicts inherent to translational work being done at the interface of research and clinical care. A critical rethinking of this divide is important, but infrastructural support for such work is necessary for an ethically sound rollout of large-scale genetic testing.

Polygenic risk scores: from research tools to clinical instruments

Genome-wide association studies have shown unequivocally that common complex disorders have a polygenic genetic architecture and have enabled researchers to identify genetic variants associated with diseases. These variants can be combined into a polygenic risk score that captures part of an individual's susceptibility to diseases. Polygenic risk scores have been widely applied in research studies, confirming the association between the scores and disease status, but their clinical utility has yet to be established. Polygenic risk scores may be used to estimate an individual's lifetime genetic risk of disease, but the current discriminative ability is low in the general population. Clinical implementation of polygenic risk score (PRS) may be useful in cohorts where there is a higher prior probability of disease, for example, in early stages of diseases to assist in diagnosis or to inform treatment choices. Important considerations are the weaker evidence base in application to non-European ancestry and the challenges in translating an individual's PRS from a percentile of a normal distribution to a lifetime disease risk. In this review, we consider how PRS may be informative at different points in the disease trajectory giving examples of progress in the field and discussing obstacles that need to be addressed before clinical implementation.

Returning Results in the Genomic Era: Initial Experiences of the eMERGE Network

A goal of the 3rd phase of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE3) Network was to examine the return of results (RoR) of actionable variants in more than 100 genes to consenting participants and their healthcare providers. Each of the 10 eMERGE sites developed plans for three essential elements of the RoR process: Disclosure to the participant, notification of the health care provider, and integration of results into the electronic health record (EHR). Procedures and protocols around these three elements were adapted as appropriate to individual site requirements and limitations. Detailed information about the RoR procedures at each site was obtained through structured telephone interviews and follow-up surveys with the clinical investigator leading or participating in the RoR process at each eMERGE3 institution. Because RoR processes at each of the 10 sites allowed for taking into account differences in population, disease focus and institutional requirements, significant heterogeneity of process was identified, including variability in the order in which patients and clinicians were notified and results were placed in the EHR. This heterogeneity in the process flow for eMERGE3 RoR reflects the “real world” of genomic medicine in which RoR procedures must be shaped by the needs of the patients and institutional environments.

What Results Should Be Returned from Opportunistic Screening in Translational Research?

Increasingly, patients without clinical indications are undergoing genomic tests. The purpose of this study was to assess their appreciation and comprehension of their test results and their clinicians' reactions. We conducted 675 surveys with participants from the Vanderbilt Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) cohort. We interviewed 36 participants: 19 had received positive results, and 17 were self-identified racial minorities. Eleven clinicians who had patients who had participated in eMERGE were interviewed. A further 21 of these clinicians completed surveys. Participants spontaneously admitted to understanding little or none of the information returned to them from the eMERGE study. However, they simultaneously said that they generally found testing to be "helpful," even when it did not inform their health care. Primary care physicians expressed discomfort in being asked to interpret the results for their patients and described it as an undue burden. Providing genetic testing to otherwise healthy patients raises a number of ethical issues that warrant serious consideration. Although our participants were enthusiastic about enrolling and receiving their results, they express a limited understanding of what the results mean for their health care. This fact, coupled the clinicians' concern, urges greater caution when educating and enrolling participants in clinically non-indicated testing.

How Can Law and Policy Advance Quality in Genomic Analysis and Interpretation for Clinical Care?

Delivering high quality genomics-informed care to patients requires accurate test results whose clinical implications are understood. While other actors, including state agencies, professional organizations, and clinicians, are involved, this article focuses on the extent to which the federal agencies that play the most prominent roles - the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services enforcing CLIA and the FDA - effectively ensure that these elements are met and concludes by suggesting possible ways to improve their oversight of genomic testing.

The Implementation Chasm Hindering Genome-informed Health Care

The promises of precision medicine are often heralded in the medical and lay literature, but routine integration of genomics in clinical practice is still limited. While the "last mile' infrastructure to bring genomics to the bedside has been demonstrated in some healthcare settings, a number of challenges remain - both in the receptivity of today's health system and in its technical and educational readiness to respond to this evolution in care. To improve the impact of genomics on health and disease management, we will need to integrate both new knowledge and new care processes into existing workflows. This change will be onerous and time-consuming, but hopefully valuable to the provision of high quality, economically feasible care worldwide.

Pharmacogenetics in primary care

The use of pharmacogenetic information is becoming mainstream with insurance companies and others starting to pay for widescale implementation of this new technology starting with patients who have anxiety and depression. It has been introduced in response to the unpredictability of medication, the high number of adverse drug events, and lack of drug effectiveness. Greater than one-third of patients are identified as having one or more pharmacogenetic variants. Each pharmacogenetic variant may affect the metabolism of several medications used in primary care, in addition to the antidepressant and anti-anxiolytic medications. Pharmacogenetic information is evolving with major international working groups providing continuous updates. It is challenging to incorporate this new information along with all the other variables needed to identify safe and effective drug options within a normal consultation. Medication decision support software is one solution that can help address this.

At the Research-Clinical Interface: Returning Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants

Whether individual results of genetic research studies ought to be disclosed to study participants has been debated in recent decades. Previously, the prevailing expert view discouraged the return of individual research results to participants because of the potential lack of analytic validity, questionable clinical validity and medical actionability, and questions about whether it is the role of research to provide participants with their data. With additional knowledge of participant perspectives and shifting views about the benefits of research and respect for participants, current expert consensus is moving toward support of returning such results. Significant ethical controversies remain, and there are many practical questions left to address, including appropriate procedures for returning results and the potential burden to clinicians when patients seek guidance about the clinical implications of research results. In this review, we describe current views regarding the return of genetic research results, including controversies and practical challenges, and consider the application of these issues to research on apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1), a gene recently associated with health disparities in kidney disease. Although this case is unique, it illustrates the complexities involved in returning results and highlights remaining questions.

Delivering genome sequencing in clinical practice: an interview study with healthcare professionals involved in the 100 000 Genomes Project

OBJECTIVES

Genome sequencing is poised to be incorporated into clinical care for diagnoses of rare diseases and some cancers in many parts of the world. Healthcare professionals are key stakeholders in the clinical delivery of genome sequencing-based services. Our aim was to explore views of healthcare professionals with experience of offering genome sequencing via the 100 000 Genomes Project.

DESIGN

Interview study using thematic analysis.

SETTING

Four National Health Service hospitals in London.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-three healthcare professionals (five genetic clinicians and eight non-genetic clinicians (all consultants), and 10 'consenters' from a range of backgrounds) involved in identifying or consenting patients for the 100 000 Genomes Project.

RESULTS

Most participants expressed positive attitudes towards genome sequencing in terms of improved ability to diagnose rare diseases, but many also expressed concerns, with some believing its superiority over exome sequencing had not yet been demonstrated, or worrying that non-genetic clinicians are inadequately prepared to discuss genome sequencing results with patients. Several emphasised additional evidence about utility of genome sequencing in terms of both main and secondary findings is needed. Most felt non-genetic clinicians could support patients during consent, as long as they have appropriate training and support from genetic teams. Many stated genetics experts will play a vital role in training and supporting non-genetic clinicians in variant interpretation and results delivery, particularly for more complex cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare professionals responsible for delivering clinical genome sequencing have largely positive views about the potential for genome sequencing to improve diagnostic yield, but also significant concerns about practical aspects of offering these tests. Non-genetic clinicians delivering genome sequencing require guidance and support. Additional empirical evidence is needed to inform policy and practice, including how genome compares to exome sequencing; utility of secondary findings; training, in particular of non-genetic health professionals; and mechanisms whereby genetics teams can offer appropriate support to their non-genetics colleagues.

Genomic Information for Clinicians in the Electronic Health Record: Lessons Learned From the Clinical Genome Resource Project and the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network

Genomic knowledge is being translated into clinical care. To fully realize the value, it is critical to place credible information in the hands of clinicians in time to support clinical decision making. The electronic health record is an essential component of clinician workflow. Utilizing the electronic health record to present information to support the use of genomic medicine in clinical care to improve outcomes represents a tremendous opportunity. However, there are numerous barriers that prevent the effective use of the electronic health record for this purpose. The electronic health record working groups of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network and the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) project, along with other groups, have been defining these barriers, to allow the development of solutions that can be tested using implementation pilots. In this paper, we present “lessons learned” from these efforts to inform future efforts leading to the development of effective and sustainable solutions that will support the realization of genomic medicine.

First Responder to Genomic Information: A Guide for Primary Care Providers

With rapid advances in genetics and genomics, the commercialization and access to new applications has become more widespread and omnipresent throughout biomedical research. Thus, increasingly, more patients will have personal genomic information they may share with primary care providers (PCPs) to better understand the clinical significance of the data. To be able to respond to patient inquiries about genomic data, variant interpretation, disease risk, and other issues, PCPs will need to be able to increase or refresh their awareness about genetics and genomics, and identify reliable resources to use or refer patients. While provider educational efforts have increased, with the rapid advances in the field, ongoing efforts will be needed to prepare PCPs to manage patient needs, integrate results into care, and refer as indicated.

GP attitudes to and expectations for providing personal genomic risk information to the public: a qualitative study

Background

As part of a pilot randomised controlled trial examining the impact of personal melanoma genomic risk information on behavioural and psychosocial outcomes, GPs were sent a booklet containing their patient’s genomic risk of melanoma.

Aim

Using this booklet as an example of genomic risk information that might be offered on a population-level in the future, this study explored GP attitudes towards communicating genomic risk information and resources needed to support this process.

Design & setting

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 Australian GPs.

Method

The interviews were recorded and transcribed, and data were analysed thematically.

Results

GPs in this sample believed that communicating genomic risk may become a responsibility within primary care and they recommended a shared decisionmaking approach to guide the testing process. Factors were identified that may influence how and when GPs communicate genomic risk information. GPs view genomics-based risk as one of many disease risk factors and feel that this type of information could be applied in practice in the context of overall risk assessment for diseases for which prevention and early detection strategies are available. They believe it is important to ensure that patients understand their genomic risk and do not experience long-term adverse psychological responses. GPs desire clinical practice guidelines that specify recommendations for genomic risk assessment and patient management, point-of-care resources, and risk prediction tools that include genomic and traditional risk factors.

Conclusion

These findings will inform the development of resources for preparing GPs to manage and implement genomic risk information in practice.