Is it time for a paradigm shift? Inclusion of APOE on genetic dyslipidemia panels.

APOE codes for apolipoprotein E (ApoE), which plays an important role in lipid and lipoprotein metabolism and homeostasis of tissue lipid content. Several variants in APOE have been associated with inherited dyslipidemias, and a subsequent increased risk of developing premature coronary artery disease (CAD). However, these variants and their impact on risk can be thought of on a spectrum, with some being more monogenic in nature, and others contributing in a polygenic/multifactorial manner. Despite these known associations, there is often hesitancy around ordering APOE genetic testing due to the association with Alzheimer's disease. This paper aims to catalyze discussion around APOE testing and counseling strategies, highlight the nuances around this topic, and advocate for inclusion of APOE testing on dyslipidemia panels when an inherited dyslipidemia is suspected.

Genetic counselors and congenital heart disease: Clinical roles, genetic testing practices, and perceived genetic testing utility.

Genetic counseling and genetic testing are essential for individuals with congenital heart disease/defects (CHD/CHDs). However, the clinical practices of genetic counselors (GCs) and their preferences for different CHD genetic testing strategies are previously unexplored. To address these gaps, GCs (n = 112) representing diverse specialties completed an online survey regarding their counseling and testing practices for syndromic CHD and apparently isolated/non-syndromic CHDs (iCHD). We found practice variability around family screening recommendations, with prenatal respondents reporting lower prevalence of this practice for iCHDs (p = 0.0004). We found that all specialties considered chromosomal microarray (CMA) the most common prioritized genetic test for syndromic and iCHD, while more prenatal respondents considered FISH and karyotype useful for iCHDs compared to postnatal respondents (p = 0.0002 and p = 0.002, respectively). Among postnatal respondents, a higher proportion considered exome/genome sequencing as useful compared to prenatal respondents (p = 0.0159); specifically, postnatal respondents' preference for exome/genome sequencing for iCHDs was ~2.6-fold higher than prenatal respondents. We estimated participants' assessment of utility for different genetic testing modalities for iCHDs and found that prenatal respondents assigned higher mean utility to FISH (p = 0.0002), karyotype (p = 0.0006), and CMA (p < 0.0001). There were relatively moderate to decreased utility scores for gene panels and exome/genome sequencing for iCHDs compared to cytogenetic testing, across all specialties. Overall, these results provide insight into GC practices and use of various genetic testing strategies for syndromic CHDs and iCHDs. Findings may help inform and/or standardize clinical practices for CHD genetic testing, though additional studies are warranted.

Genetic counseling for congenital heart disease - Practice resource of the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Congenital heart disease (CHD) is an indication which spans multiple specialties across various genetic counseling practices. This practice resource aims to provide guidance on key considerations when approaching counseling for this particular indication while recognizing the rapidly changing landscape of knowledge within this domain. This resource was developed with consensus from a diverse group of certified genetic counselors utilizing literature relevant for CHD genetic counseling practice and is aimed at supporting genetic counselors who encounter this indication in their practice both pre- and postnatally.

Assessing genetic counselors' graduate school education and training in congenital heart defects.

Genetic counselors are one of the many providers involved in caring for patients with congenital heart defects (CHDs); however, little is known about the cardiovascular genetics training they receive by their graduate programs. To explore the recalled education experiences regarding CHDs by practicing genetic counselors, we surveyed graduates of programs primarily accredited by the American Council on Genetic Counseling (ACGC) about their graduate training in this area, the depth of CHD-specific education they received, and whether CHDs are a substantial referral indication in their current practice. Genetic counselors were recruited from the National Society of Genetic Counselors and Twitter (n = 112), and participants reflecting multiple specialties and 35 graduate programs completed an online survey which included questions about fieldwork placements and lectures in cardiovascular genetics, exposure to classification schemes regarding cardiac embryology, and education in counseling strategies for CHDs and CHD-related topics during their graduate training. When asked whether CHDs are a substantial referral indication seen in their current practice, 55% (62/112) responded yes. Most participants (79%, 88/112) recalled receiving some education about CHDs, but 91% (80/88) reported receiving little to no education regarding embryologic classification of CHDs and how to apply classification schemes to their counseling. Both participating prenatal and pediatric GCs reported that CHDs can be a common referral indication, yet they reported receiving limited education on teratogens associated with CHDs, family screening recommendations, and recurrence risk counseling for CHDs. Based on participant responses, the majority of respondents reported receiving sufficient education on syndromes with CHDs which can be beneficial in specialties such as pediatrics. This exploratory study provides insight into opportunities to further support genetic counseling educational opportunities for CHDs. These findings suggest genetic counseling graduate programs could consider implementing education on CHD counseling strategies as a standardized component of the curriculum and that practicing genetic counselors could benefit from educational opportunities and resources with updated information on this topic.

Universal Cholesterol Screening among Pediatric Primary Care Providers within California and Minnesota: A Qualitative Assessment of Barriers and Facilitators.

OBJECTIVE: To assess current pediatric cholesterol screening practices, and attitudes, among pediatric primary care providers (PCPs) via qualitative semistructured interviews designed to identify barriers and facilitators to universal cholesterol screening practices recommended by the National Heart Blood and Lung Institute and the American Academy of Pediatrics. STUDY DESIGN: An online survey and subsequent 30-minute semistructured phone interview were completed with PCPs from regions in Northern California and Minnesota (survey n = 25, interview n = 12). Interviews were qualitatively analyzed using the consolidated framework for implementation research to categorize barriers, facilitators, and strategies to increase pediatric cholesterol screening among PCPs. RESULTS: PCPs from California (n = 8) and Minnesota (n = 4) consistently identified cost of cholesterol screening, particularly the cost of time due to competing visit priorities, as a barrier. A supportive learning environment, feelings of self-efficacy, access to resources, and well-established clinical networks with specialists (eg, cardiologists) were facilitators to screening. The perceived level of endorsement behind cholesterol screening within the clinic, perceived validity of national guidelines, and ability to adapt guidelines to existing clinical workflow were notable differentiators between high vs low self-reported screen rates. CONCLUSIONS: Findings of this study suggest that efforts to increase universal pediatric cholesterol screening will likely require the development of strategies to increase provider education about the long-term benefits of cholesterol screening (knowledge and beliefs), and ensuring providers feel supported and empowered when assessing/acting on the results of this screening (self-efficacy, engaging leaders, networks, and communication).

The impact of cardiovascular genetic counseling on patient empowerment.

Cardiovascular genetic counseling (CVGC) is recommended for a variety of inherited heart conditions; however, its impact on patient empowerment has not been assessed. The Genetic Counseling Outcome Scale (GCOS) is a validated patient reported outcome tool which measures empowerment to capture the impact of clinical genetics services. As a routine clinical practice at our center, adult patients attending a CVGC appointment complete the 24-item GCOS survey and a 5-item survey on knowledge of cardiac surveillance recommendations for relatives prior to the clinic visit. To investigate the effect of CVGC, we contacted participants after the appointment to repeat these surveys prior to genetic test result disclosure. Forty-two participants completed pre- and post-GC surveys. The mean difference between pre- and post-GC empowerment scores was 17.5 points (mean pre-GC score = 118.5, mean post-GC score = 136, p < 0.0001; effect size, d = 0.94). Forty percent of individuals (17/42) were aware of surveillance recommendations for at-risk family members prior to GC; this increased to 76% of individuals (32/42) post-GC (p < 0.01). This is the first study to explore patient empowerment before and after GC in a cardiology setting. The results demonstrate a significant increase in empowerment and awareness of recommendations for at-risk relatives as a result of CVGC. This study demonstrates the utility of CVGC in patient care.