Familial Hypercholesterolemia in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network: Prevalence, Penetrance, Cardiovascular Risk, and Outcomes After Return of Results.

BACKGROUND: The implications of secondary findings detected in large-scale sequencing projects remain uncertain. We assessed prevalence and penetrance of pathogenic familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) variants, their association with coronary heart disease (CHD), and 1-year outcomes following return of results in phase III of the electronic medical records and genomics network. METHODS: Adult participants (n=18 544) at 7 sites were enrolled in a prospective cohort study to assess the clinical impact of returning results from targeted sequencing of 68 actionable genes, including LDLR, APOB, and PCSK9. FH variant prevalence and penetrance (defined as low-density lipoprotein cholesterol >155 mg/dL) were estimated after excluding participants enrolled on the basis of hypercholesterolemia. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of CHD compared to age- and sex-matched controls without FH-associated variants. Process (eg, referral to a specialist or ordering new tests), intermediate (eg, new diagnosis of FH), and clinical (eg, treatment modification) outcomes within 1 year after return of results were ascertained by electronic health record review. RESULTS: The prevalence of FH-associated pathogenic variants was 1 in 188 (69 of 13,019 unselected participants). Penetrance was 87.5%. The presence of an FH variant was associated with CHD (odds ratio, 3.02 [2.00-4.53]) and premature CHD (odds ratio, 3.68 [2.34-5.78]). At least 1 outcome occurred in 92% of participants; 44% received a new diagnosis of FH and 26% had treatment modified following return of results. CONCLUSIONS: In a multisite cohort of electronic health record-linked biobanks, monogenic FH was prevalent, penetrant, and associated with presence of CHD. Nearly half of participants with an FH-associated variant received a new diagnosis of FH and a quarter had treatment modified after return of results. These results highlight the potential utility of sequencing electronic health record-linked biobanks to detect FH.

Patient and provider perspectives on polygenic risk scores: implications for clinical reporting and utilization.

BACKGROUND: Polygenic risk scores (PRS), which offer information about genomic risk for common diseases, have been proposed for clinical implementation. The ways in which PRS information may influence a patient's health trajectory depend on how both the patient and their primary care provider (PCP) interpret and act on PRS information. We aimed to probe patient and PCP responses to PRS clinical reporting choices METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews of both patients (N=25) and PCPs (N=21) exploring responses to mock PRS clinical reports of two different designs: binary and continuous representations of PRS. RESULTS: Many patients did not understand the numbers representing risk, with high numeracy patients being the exception. However, all the patients still understood a key takeaway that they should ask their PCP about actions to lower their disease risk. PCPs described a diverse range of heuristics they would use to interpret and act on PRS information. Three separate use cases for PRS emerged: to aid in gray-area clinical decision-making, to encourage patients to do what PCPs think patients should be doing anyway (such as exercising regularly), and to identify previously unrecognized high-risk patients. PCPs indicated that receiving "below average risk" information could be both beneficial and potentially harmful, depending on the use case. For "increased risk" patients, PCPs were favorable towards integrating PRS information into their practice, though some would only act in the presence of evidence-based guidelines. PCPs describe the report as more than a way to convey information, viewing it as something to structure the whole interaction with the patient. Both patients and PCPs preferred the continuous over the binary representation of PRS (23/25 and 17/21, respectively). We offer recommendations for the developers of PRS to consider for PRS clinical report design in the light of these patient and PCP viewpoints. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs saw PRS information as a natural extension of their current practice. The most pressing gap for PRS implementation is evidence for clinical utility. Careful clinical report design can help ensure that benefits are realized and harms are minimized.

Pathogenic variants in arteriopathy genes detected in a targeted sequencing study: Penetrance and 1-year outcomes after return of results.

PURPOSE: We estimated the penetrance of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in arteriopathy-related genes and assessed near-term outcomes following return of results. METHODS: Participants (N = 24,520) in phase III of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics network underwent targeted sequencing of 68 actionable genes, including 9 genes associated with arterial aneurysmal diseases. Penetrance was estimated on the basis of the presence of relevant clinical traits. Outcomes occurring within 1 year of return of results included new diagnoses, referral to a specialist, new tests ordered, surveillance initiated, and new medications started. RESULTS: P/LP variants were present in 34 participants. The average penetrance across genes was 59%, ranging from 86% for FBN1 variants to 25% for SMAD3. Of 16 participants in whom results were returned, 1-year outcomes occurred in 63%. A new diagnosis was made in 44% of the participants, 56% were referred to a specialist, a new test was ordered in 44%, surveillance was initiated in 31%, and a new medication was started in 31%. CONCLUSION: Penetrance of P/LP variants in arteriopathy-related genes, identified in a large, targeted sequencing study, was variable and overall lower than that reported in clinical cohorts. Meaningful outcomes within the first year were noted in 63% of participants who received results.

The Evolution of a Large Biobank at Mass General Brigham.

The Mass General Brigham Biobank (formerly Partners HealthCare Biobank) is a large repository of biospecimens and data linked to extensive electronic health record data and survey data. Its objective is to support and enable translational research focused on genomic, environmental, biomarker and family history associations with disease phenotypes. The Biobank has enrolled more than 135,000 participants, generated genomic data on more than 65,000 of its participants, distributed approximately 153,000 biospecimens, and served close to 450 institutional studies with biospecimens or data. Although the Biobank has been successful, based on some measures of output, this has required substantial institutional investment. In addition, several challenges are ongoing, including: (1) developing a sustainable cost model that doesn't rely as heavily on institutional funding; (2) integrating Biobank operations into clinical workflows; and (3) building a research resource that is diverse and promotes equity in research. Here, we describe the evolution of the Biobank and highlight key lessons learned that may inform other efforts to build biobanking efforts in health system contexts.

Do research participants share genomic screening results with family members?

The public health impact of genomic screening can be enhanced by cascade testing. However, cascade testing depends on communication of results to family members. While the barriers and facilitators of family communication have been researched following clinical genetic testing, the factors impacting the dissemination of genomic screening results are unknown. Using the pragmatic Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network-3 (eMERGE-3) study, we explored the reported sharing practices of participants who underwent genomic screening across the United States. Six eMERGE-3 sites returned genomic screening results for mostly dominant medically actionable disorders and surveyed adult participants regarding communication of results with first-degree relatives. Across the sites, 279 participants completed a 1-month and/or 6-month post-results survey. By 6 months, only 34% of the 156 respondents shared their results with all first-degree relatives and 4% did not share with any. Over a third (39%) first-degree relatives were not notified of the results. Half (53%) of participants who received their results from a genetics provider shared them with all first-degree relatives compared with 11% of participants who received their results from a non-genetics provider. The most frequent reasons for sharing were a feeling of obligation (72%) and that the information could help family members make medical decisions (72%). The most common reasons indicated for not sharing were that the family members were too young (38%), or they were not in contact (25%) or not close to them (25%). These data indicate that the professional returning the results may impact sharing patterns, suggesting that there is a need to continue to educate healthcare providers regarding approaches to facilitate sharing of genetic results within families. Finally, these data suggest that interventions to increase sharing may be universally effective regardless of the origin of the genetic result.