The role of genetic testing in diagnosis and care of inherited cardiac conditions in a specialised multidisciplinary clinic.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic yield of genetic testing for inherited cardiac diseases is up to 40% and is primarily indicated for screening of at-risk relatives. Here, we evaluate the role of genomics in diagnosis and management among consecutive individuals attending a specialised clinic and identify those with the highest likelihood of having a monogenic disease. METHODS: A retrospective audit of 1697 consecutive, unrelated probands referred to a specialised, multidisciplinary clinic between 2002 and 2020 was performed. A concordant clinical and genetic diagnosis was considered solved. Cases were classified as likely monogenic based on a score comprising a positive family history, young age at onset, and severe phenotype, whereas low-scoring cases were considered to have a likely complex aetiology. The impact of a genetic diagnosis was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 888 probands fulfilled the inclusion criteria, and genetic testing identified likely pathogenic or pathogenic (LP/P) variants in 330 individuals (37%) and suspicious variants of uncertain significance (VUS) in 73 (8%). Research-focused efforts identified 46 (5%) variants, missed by conventional genetic testing. Where a variant was identified, this changed or clarified the final diagnosis in a clinically useful way for 51 (13%). The yield of suspicious VUS across ancestry groups ranged from 15 to 20%, compared to only 10% among Europeans. Even when the clinical diagnosis was uncertain, those with the most monogenic disease features had the greatest diagnostic yield from genetic testing. CONCLUSIONS: Research-focused efforts can increase the diagnostic yield by up to 5%. Where a variant is identified, this will have clinical utility beyond family screening in 13%. We demonstrate the value of genomics in reaching an overall diagnosis and highlight inequities based on ancestry. Acknowledging our incomplete understanding of disease phenotypes, we propose a framework for prioritising likely monogenic cases to solve their underlying cause of disease.

Clinical Profile and Health Disparities in a Multiethnic Cohort of Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Clinical studies of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy are over-represented by individuals of European ethnicity, with less known about other ethnic groups. We investigated differences between patients in a multiethnic Australian hypertrophic cardiomyopathy population. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 836 unrelated hypertrophic cardiomyopathy probands attending a specialized clinic between 2002 and 2020. Major ethnic groups were European (n=611), East Asian (n=75), South Asian (n=58), and Middle Eastern and North African (n=68). The minor ethnicity groups were Oceanian (n=9), People of the Americas (n=7), and African (n=8). One-way ANOVA with Dunnett post hoc test and Bonferroni adjustment were performed. RESULTS: Mean age of the major ethnic groups was 54.9±16.9 years, and 527 (65%) were male. Using the European group as the control, East Asian patients had a lower body mass index (29 versus 25 kg/m2, P<0.0001). South Asians had a lower prevalence of atrial fibrillation (10% versus 31%, P=0.024). East Asians were more likely to have apical hypertrophy (23% versus 6%, P<0.0001) and Middle Eastern and North African patients more likely to present with left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (46% versus 34%, P=0.0003). East Asians were less likely to undergo genetic testing (55% versus 85%, P<0.0001) or have an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implanted (19% versus 36%, P=0.037). East Asians were more likely to have a causative variant in a gene other than MYBPC3 or MYH7, whereas Middle Eastern and North African and South Asians had the highest rates of variants of uncertain significance (27% and 21%, P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: There are few clinical differences based on ethnicity, but importantly, we identify health disparities relating to access to genetic testing and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator use. Unless addressed, these gaps will likely widen as we move towards precision-medicine-based care of individuals with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: Genetic Testing and Risk Stratification.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Our knowledge of the genetic basis and molecular pathogenesis of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) continues to evolve. We describe the genetic basis of HCM, recent advances in genetic testing and the role of genetics in guiding risk stratification and management, both now and in the future. RECENT FINDINGS: While initially thought to be an exclusively Mendelian disease, we now know there are important HCM sub-groups. A proportion will have sarcomere variants as the cause of their disease, while others will have genetic variants in genes that can give rise to conditions that can mimic HCM. The role of genetics is primarily for cascade genetic testing, though there is emerging evidence of a role for prognosis and patient management. Genetic testing is a useful addition to management. Genotype may play a greater role in risk stratification, management, treatment and prognosis in future, offering improved outcomes for patients and their families with HCM.