Search

Genetics researchers and clinical professionals rely on diversity measures such as race, ethnicity, and ancestry (REA) to stratify study participants and patients for a variety of applications in research and precision medicine. However, there are no comprehensive, widely accepted standards or guidelines for collecting and using such data in clinical genetics practice. Two NIH-funded research consortia, the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) and Clinical Sequencing Evidence-generating Research (CSER), have partnered to address this issue and report how REA are currently collected, conceptualized, and used. Surveying clinical genetics professionals and researchers (n = 448), we found heterogeneity in the way REA are perceived, defined, and measured, with variation in the perceived importance of REA in both clinical and research settings. The majority of respondents (>55%) felt that REA are at least somewhat important for clinical variant interpretation, ordering genetic tests, and communicating results to patients. However, there was no consensus on the relevance of REA, including how each of these measures should be used in different scenarios and what information they can convey in the context of human genetics. A lack of common definitions and applications of REA across the precision medicine pipeline may contribute to inconsistencies in data collection, missing or inaccurate classifications, and misleading or inconclusive results. Thus, our findings support the need for standardization and harmonization of REA data collection and use in clinical genetics and precision health research.

Drug-induced QT prolongation (diLQTS), and subsequent risk of torsade de pointes, is a major concern with use of many medications, including for non-cardiac conditions. The possibility that genetic risk, in the form of polygenic risk scores (PGS), could be integrated into prediction of risk of diLQTS has great potential, although it is unknown how genetic risk is related to clinical risk factors as might be applied in clinical decision-making. In this study, we examined the PGS for QT interval in 2500 subjects exposed to a known QT-prolonging drug on prolongation of the QT interval over 500ms on subsequent ECG using electronic health record data. We found that the normalized QT PGS was higher in cases than controls (0.212±0.954 vs. -0.0270±1.003, P = 0.0002), with an unadjusted odds ratio of 1.34 (95%CI 1.17–1.53, P<0.001) for association with diLQTS. When included with age and clinical predictors of QT prolongation, we found that the PGS for QT interval provided independent risk prediction for diLQTS, in which the interaction for high-risk diagnosis or with certain high-risk medications (amiodarone, sotalol, and dofetilide) was not significant, indicating that genetic risk did not modify the effect of other risk factors on risk of diLQTS. We found that a high-risk cutoff (QT PGS ≥ 2 standard deviations above mean), but not a low-risk cutoff, was associated with risk of diLQTS after adjustment for clinical factors, and provided one method of integration based on the decision-tree framework. In conclusion, we found that PGS for QT interval is an independent predictor of diLQTS, but that in contrast to existing theories about repolarization reserve as a mechanism of increasing risk, the effect is independent of other clinical risk factors. More work is needed for external validation in clinical decision-making, as well as defining the mechanism through which genes that increase QT interval are associated with risk of diLQTS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]