Challenges of variant reinterpretation: Opinions of stakeholders and need for guidelines.

PURPOSE: The knowledge used to classify genetic variants is continually evolving, and the classification can change on the basis of newly available data. Although up-to-date variant classification is essential for clinical management, reproductive planning, and identifying at-risk family members, there is no consistent practice across laboratories or clinicians on how or under what circumstances to perform variant reinterpretation. METHODS: We conducted exploratory focus groups (N = 142) and surveys (N = 1753) with stakeholders involved in the process of variant reinterpretation (laboratory directors, clinical geneticists, genetic counselors, nongenetic providers, and patients/parents) to assess opinions on key issues, including initiation of reinterpretation, variants to report, termination of the responsibility to reinterpret, and concerns about consent, cost, and liability. RESULTS: Stakeholders widely agreed that there should be no fixed termination point to the responsibility to reinterpret a previously reported genetic variant. There were significant concerns about liability and lack of agreement about many logistical aspects of variant reinterpretation. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest a need to (1) develop consensus and (2) create transparency and awareness about the roles and responsibilities of parties involved in variant reinterpretation. These data provide a foundation for developing guidelines on variant reinterpretation that can aid in the development of a low-cost, scalable, and accessible approach.

Improving Recruitment for a Newborn Screening Pilot Study with Adaptations in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Seven months after the launch of a pilot study to screen newborns for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) in New York State, New York City became an epicenter of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. All in-person research activities were suspended at the study enrollment institutions of Northwell Health and NewYork-Presbyterian Hospitals, and study recruitment was transitioned to 100% remote. Pre-pandemic, all recruitment was in-person with research staff visiting the postpartum patients 1-2 days after delivery to obtain consent. With the onset of pandemic, the multilingual research staff shifted to calling new mothers while they were in the hospital or shortly after discharge, and consent was collected via emailed e-consent links. With return of study staff to the hospitals, a hybrid approach was implemented with in-person recruitment for babies delivered during the weekdays and remote recruitment for babies delivered on weekends and holidays, a cohort not recruited pre-pandemic. There was a drop in the proportion of eligible babies enrolled with the transition to fully remote recruitment from 64% to 38%. In addition, the proportion of babies enrolled after being approached dropped from 91% to 55%. With hybrid recruitment, the proportion of eligible babies enrolled (70%) and approached babies enrolled (84%) returned to pre-pandemic levels. Our experience adapting our study during the COVID-19 pandemic led us to develop new recruitment strategies that we continue to utilize. The lessons learned from this pilot study can serve to help other research studies adapt novel and effective recruitment methods.

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.