Toward Broader Genetic Contextualism: Genetic Testing Enters the Age of Evidence-Based Medicine

The ethics of using COVID-19 host genomic information for clinical and public health decision-making: A survey of US health professionals

Several genetic variants linked to COVID-19 have been identified by host genomics researchers. Further advances in this research will likely play a role in the clinical management and public health control of future infectious disease outbreaks. The implementation of genetic testing to identify host genomic risk factors associated with infectious diseases raises several ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSIs). As an important stakeholder group, health professionals can provide key insights into these ELSI issues. In 2021, a cross-sectional online survey was fielded to US health professionals. The survey explored how they view the value and ethical acceptability of using COVID-19 host genomic information in three main decision-making settings: (1) clinical, (2) public health, and (3) workforce. The survey also assessed participants' personal and professional experience with genomics and infectious diseases and collected key demographic data. A total of 603 participants completed the survey. A majority (84%) of participants agreed that it is ethically acceptable to use host genomics to make decisions about clinical care and 73% agreed that genetic screening has an important role to play in the public health control of COVID-19. However, more than 90% disagreed that it is ethically acceptable to use host genomics to deny resources or admission to individuals when hospital resources are scarce. Understanding stakeholder perspectives and anticipating ELSI issues will help inform policies for hospitals and public health departments to evaluate and perhaps adopt host genomic technologies in an ethically and socially responsible manner during future infectious disease outbreaks.

Multisystem Proteinopathy Due to VCP Mutations: A Review of Clinical Heterogeneity and Genetic Diagnosis

In this work, we review clinical features and genetic diagnosis of diseases caused by mutations in the gene encoding valosin-containing protein (VCP/p97), the functionally diverse AAA-ATPase. VCP is crucial to a multitude of cellular functions including protein quality control, stress granule formation and clearance, and genomic integrity functions, among others. Pathogenic mutations in VCP cause multisystem proteinopathy (VCP-MSP), an autosomal dominant, adult-onset disorder causing dysfunction in several tissue types. It can result in complex neurodegenerative conditions including inclusion body myopathy, frontotemporal dementia, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or combinations of these. There is also an association with other neurodegenerative phenotypes such as Alzheimer-type dementia and Parkinsonism. Non-neurological presentations include Paget disease of bone and may also include cardiac dysfunction. We provide a detailed discussion of genotype-phenotype correlations, recommendations for genetic diagnosis, and genetic counselling implications of VCP-MSP.

Returning genomic results in a Federally Qualified Health Center: the intersection of precision medicine and social determinants of health

Purpose:

This report describes the return of sequencing results to low-income Latino participants recruited through a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC). We describe challenges in returning research results secondary to social determinants of health and present lessons learned to guide future genomic medicine implementation studies in low resource settings.

Methods:

500 Latino adults (76% women) consented to research sequencing for a predetermined panel of actionable genes. Providers and staff from the FQHC were engaged to align processes with the practice and a Community Advisory Board grounded the project in the local community.

Results:

A pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant was present in 10 participants (2%). Challenges in return of results included the time lag (582±53 days) between enrollment and returning actionable results, difficulty reaching participants, missed appointments, low health literacy, lack of health insurance, and reconciling results with limited information on family history. Return of one actionable result was deferred due to acute emotional distress secondary to recent traumatic life events.

Conclusion:

The social determinants of health influence the implementation of genomic medicine in low-income populations in low-resource settings. Considering non-biological factors that contribute to disparities will be necessary to better appreciate how genomic medicine may fit within the context of health equity.