DNA-based screening and personal health: a points to consider statement for individuals and health-care providers from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)

Genetics Visit Uptake Among Individuals Receiving Clinically Actionable Genomic Screening Results

Importance

Screening unselected populations for clinically actionable genetic disease risk can improve ascertainment and facilitate risk management. Genetics visits may encourage at-risk individuals to perform recommended management, but little has been reported on genetics visit completion or factors associated with completion in genomic screening programs.

Objective

To identify factors associated with postdisclosure genetics visits in a genomic screening cohort.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a cohort study of biobank data in a health care system in central Pennsylvania. Participants' exome sequence data were reviewed for pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) results in all genes on the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Secondary Findings list. Clinically confirmed results were disclosed by phone and letter. Participants included adult MyCode biobank participants who received P/LP results between July 2015 and November 2019. Data were analyzed from May 2021 to March 2022.

Exposure

Clinically confirmed P/LP result disclosed by phone or letter.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Completion of genetics visit in which the result was discussed and variables associated with completion were assessed by electronic health record (EHR) review.

Results

Among a total of 1160 participants (703 [60.6%] female; median [IQR] age, 57.0 [42.1-68.5] years), fewer than half of participants (551 of 1160 [47.5%]) completed a genetics visit. Younger age (odds ratio [OR] for age 18-40 years, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.40-6.53; OR for age 41-65 years, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.22-4.74; OR for age 66-80 years, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.41-4.98 vs age ≥81 years); female sex (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.14-1.96); being married (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.23-2.47) or divorced (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.11-2.91); lower Charlson comorbidity index (OR for score of 0-2, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.16-2.68; OR for score of 3-4, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.18-2.54 vs score of ≥5); EHR patient portal use (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.06-1.89); living closer to a genetics clinic (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.14-2.36 for <8.9 miles vs >20.1 miles); successful results disclosure (OR for disclosure by genetic counselor, 16.32; 95% CI, 8.16-37.45; OR for disclosure by research assistant, 20.30; 95% CI, 10.25-46.31 vs unsuccessful phone disclosure); and having a hereditary cancer result (OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.28-3.58 vs other disease risk) were significantly associated with higher rates of genetics visit completion. Preference to follow up with primary care was the most common reported reason for declining a genetics visit (68 of 152 patients [44.7%]).

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study of a biobank-based population genomic screening program suggests that targeted patient engagement, improving multidisciplinary coordination, and reducing barriers to follow-up care may be necessary for enhancing genetics visit uptake.

Combined population genomic screening for three high-risk conditions in Australia: a modelling study

Background

No previous health-economic evaluation has assessed the impact and cost-effectiveness of offering combined adult population genomic screening for mutliple high-risk conditions in a national public healthcare system.

Methods

This modeling study assessed the impact of offering combined genomic screening for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, Lynch syndrome and familial hypercholesterolaemia to all young adults in Australia, compared with the current practice of clinical criteria-based testing for each condition separately. The intervention of genomic screening, assumed as an up-front single cost in the first annual model cycle, would detect pathogenic variants in seven high-risk genes. The simulated population was 18-40 year-olds (8,324,242 individuals), modelling per-sample test costs ranging AU$100-$1200 (base-case AU$200) from the year 2023 onwards with testing uptake of 50%. Interventions for identified high-risk variant carriers follow current Australian guidelines, modelling imperfect uptake and adherence. Outcome measures were morbidity and mortality due to cancer (breast, ovarian, colorectal and endometrial) and coronary heart disease (CHD) over a lifetime horizon, from healthcare-system and societal perspectives. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), discounted 5% annually (with 3% discounting in scenario analysis).

Findings

Over the population lifetime (to age 80 years), the model estimated that genomic screening per-100,000 individuals would lead to 747 QALYs gained by preventing 63 cancers, 31 CHD cases and 97 deaths. In the total model population, this would translate to 31,094 QALYs gained by preventing 2612 cancers, 542 non-fatal CHD events and 4047 total deaths. At AU$200 per-test, genomic screening would require an investment of AU$832 million for screening of 50% of the population. Our findings suggest that this intervention would be cost-effective from a healthcare-system perspective, yielding an ICER of AU$23,926 (∼£12,050/€14,110/US$15,345) per QALY gained over the status quo. In scenario analysis with 3% discounting, an ICER of AU$4758/QALY was obtained. Sensitivity analysis for the base case indicated that combined genomic screening would be cost-effective under 70% of simulations, cost-saving under 25% and not cost-effective under 5%. Threshold analysis showed that genomic screening would be cost-effective under the AU$50,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold at per-test costs up to AU$325 (∼£164/€192/US$208).

Interpretation

Our findings suggest that offering combined genomic screening for high-risk conditions to young adults would be cost-effective in the Australian public healthcare system, at currently realistic testing costs. Other matters, including psychosocial impacts, ethical and societal issues, and implementation challenges, also need consideration.

Funding

Australian Government, Department of Health, Medical Research Future Fund, Genomics Health Futures Mission (APP2009024). National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship (102604).

International Atherosclerosis Society guidance for implementing best practice in the care of familial hypercholesterolaemia

This contemporary, international, evidence-informed guidance aims to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people with familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) across different countries. FH, a family of monogenic defects in the hepatic LDL clearance pathway, is a preventable cause of premature coronary artery disease and death. Worldwide, 35 million people have FH, but most remain undiagnosed or undertreated. Current FH care is guided by a useful and diverse group of evidence-based guidelines, with some primarily directed at cholesterol management and some that are country-specific. However, none of these guidelines provides a comprehensive overview of FH care that includes both the lifelong components of clinical practice and strategies for implementation. Therefore, a group of international experts systematically developed this guidance to compile clinical strategies from existing evidence-based guidelines for the detection (screening, diagnosis, genetic testing and counselling) and management (risk stratification, treatment of adults or children with heterozygous or homozygous FH, therapy during pregnancy and use of apheresis) of patients with FH, update evidence-informed clinical recommendations, and develop and integrate consensus-based implementation strategies at the patient, provider and health-care system levels, with the aim of maximizing the potential benefit for at-risk patients and their families worldwide.

A pilot retrospective study of a physician-directed and genomics-based model for precision lifestyle medicine

Precision lifestyle medicine is a relatively new field in primary care, based on the hypothesis that genetic predispositions influence an individual's response to specific interventions such as diet, exercise, and prescription medications. Despite the increase in commercially available genomic testing, few studies have investigated effects of a physician-directed program to optimize chronic disease using genomics-based precision medicine. We performed an pilot, observational cohort study to evaluate effects of the Wild Health program, a physician and health coach service offering genomics-based lifestyle and medical interventions, on biomarkers indicative of chronic disease. 871 patients underwent genomic testing, biomarker testing, and ongoing health coaching after initial medical consultation by a physician. Improvements in several clinically relevant out-of-range biomarkers at baseline were identified in a large proportion of patients treated through lifestyle intervention without the use of prescription medication. Notably, normalization of several biomarkers associated with chronic disease occurred in 47.5% (hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c]), 33.3% (low density lipoprotein particle number [LDL-P]), and 33.2% (C-reactive protein [CRP]). However, due to the inherent limitations of our observational study design and use of retrospective data, ongoing work will be crucial for continuing to shed light on the effectiveness of physician-led, genomics-based lifestyle coaching programs. Future studies would benefit from implementing a randomized controlled study design, tracking specific interventions, and evaluating physiological data, such as BMI.

Public Interest in Population Genetic Screening for Cancer Risk

An emerging role for DNA sequencing is to identify people at risk for an inherited cancer syndrome in order to prevent or ameliorate the manifestation of symptoms. Two cancer syndromes, Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Lynch Syndrome meet the “Tier 1” evidence threshold established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for routine testing of patients with a personal or family history of cancer. Advancements in genomic medicine have accelerated public health pilot programs for these highly medically actionable conditions. In this brief report, we provide descriptive statistics from a survey of 746 US respondents from a Qualtrics panel about the public’s awareness of genetic testing, interest in learning about their cancer risk, and likelihood of participating in a population genetic screening (PGS) test. Approximately of half the respondents were aware of genetic testing for inherited cancer risk (n = 377/745, 50.6%) and would choose to learn about their cancer risk (n-309/635, 48.7%). Characteristics of those interested in learning about their cancer risk differed by educational attainment, age, income, insurance status, having a primary care doctor, being aware of genetic testing, and likelihood of sharing information with family (p < 0.05). A sizeable majority of the respondents who were interested in about learning their cancer risk also said that they were likely to participate in a PGS test that involved a clinical appointment and blood draw, but no out-of-pocket cost (n = 255/309, 82.5%). Reasons for not wanting to participate included not finding test results interesting or important, concerns about costs, and feeling afraid to know the results. Overall, our results suggest that engaging and educating the general population about the benefits of learning about an inherited cancer predisposition may be an important strategy to address recruitment barriers to PGS.

Primary Care Implementation of Genomic Population Health Screening Using a Large Gene Sequencing Panel

To realize the promise of genomic medicine, harness the power of genomic technologies, and capitalize on the extraordinary pace of research linking genomic variation to disease risks, healthcare systems must embrace and integrate genomics into routine healthcare. We have implemented an innovative pilot program for genomic population health screening for any-health-status adults within the largest health system in Vermont, United States. This program draws on key research and technological advances to safely extract clinical value for genomics in routine health care. The program offers no-cost, non-research DNA sequencing to patients by their primary care providers as a preventive health tool. We partnered with a commercial clinical testing company for two next generation sequencing gene panels comprising 431 genes related to both high and low-penetrance common health risks and carrier status for recessive disorders. Only pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants are reported. Routine written clinical consultation is provided with a concise, clinical “action plan” that presents core messages for primary care provider and patient use and supports clinical management and health education beyond the testing laboratory’s reports. Access to genetic counseling is free in most cases. Predefined care pathways and access to genetics experts facilitates the appropriate use of results. This pilot tests the feasibility of routine, ethical, and scalable use of population genomic screening in healthcare despite generally imperfect genomic competency among both the public and health care providers. This article describes the program design, implementation process, guiding philosophies, and insights from 2 years of experience offering testing and returning results in primary care settings. To aid others planning similar programs, we review our barriers, solutions, and perceived gaps in the context of an implementation research framework.

The Rise of Population Genomic Screening: Characteristics of Current Programs and the Need for Evidence Regarding Optimal Implementation

Purpose: Advances in clinical genomic sequencing capabilities, including reduced costs and knowledge gains, have bolstered the consideration of genomic screening in healthy adult populations. Yet, little is known about the existing landscape of genomic screening programs in the United States. It can be difficult to find information on current implementation efforts and best practices, particularly in light of critical questions about equity, cost, and benefit. Methods: In 2020, we searched publicly available information on the Internet and the scientific literature to identify programs and collect information, including: setting, program funding, targeted population, test offered, and patient cost. Program representatives were contacted throughout 2020 and 2021 to clarify, update, and supplement the publicly available information. Results: Twelve programs were identified. Information was available on key program features, such as setting, genes tested, and target populations. Data on costs, outcomes, or long-term sustainability plans were not always available. Most programs offered testing at no or significantly reduced cost due to generous pilot funding, although the sustainability of these programs remains unknown. Gene testing lists were diverse, ranging from 11 genes (CDC tier 1 genes) to 59 genes (ACMG secondary findings list v.2) to broad exome and genome sequencing. This diversity presents challenges for harmonized data collection and assessment of program outcomes. Conclusions: Early programs are exploring the logistics and utility of population genomic screening in various settings. Coordinated efforts are needed to take advantage of data collected about uptake, infrastructure, and intervention outcomes to inform future research, evaluation, and program development.

Interest in Cancer Predisposition Testing and Carrier Screening Offered as Part of Routine Healthcare Among an Ethnically Diverse Sample of Young Women

Sequencing technologies can inform individuals’ risks for multiple conditions, supporting population-level screening approaches. Prior research examining interest in genetic testing has not generally examined the context of population-based approaches offered in routine healthcare or among ethnically diverse populations. Cancer predisposition testing and carrier screening could be offered broadly to women of reproductive age. This study therefore examined interest in these tests when offered as part of routine care, and predictors of interest, among an ethnically diverse sample of women aged 20–35. We conducted an online English-language survey of 450 women; 39% identified as Latina. We examined predictors of interest for two outcomes, interest in testing in the next year and level of interest, in multivariable logistic regression models and stratified analyses by Latina ethnicity. More than half of respondents reported being interested in cancer predisposition testing (55%) and carrier screening (56%) in the next year; this did not differ by ethnicity. About 26% reported being very interested in cancer predisposition testing and 27% in carrier screening. Latina respondents (32%) were more likely to be very interested in cancer predisposition testing than non-Latina respondents (22%; p < 0.03). In multivariable models, having higher worry about genetic risks, higher genetic knowledge, and higher perceived importance of genetic information were associated with higher interest across multiple models. Predictors of interest were generally similar by ethnicity. Our findings show substantial interest in both cancer predisposition testing and carrier screening among young women as part of routine healthcare with similar interest between Latina and non-Latina women. Efforts to broadly offer such testing could be important in improving access to genetic information. It will be critical to develop tools to help healthcare providers communicate about genetic testing and to address the needs of those who have less prior knowledge about genetics to support informed decision making.