Search

Background: Relatives of probands diagnosed with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) should undergo cascade testing for FH., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate probands' choices of innovative strategies to communicate their FH result with relatives and facilitate cascade testing uptake., Methods: Probands with an FH genetic result from the MyCode Community Health Initiative could choose to share their FH result with adult blood relatives via the Family and Healthcare Professional Packet (packet), family sharing and cascade chatbots (chatbot), and/or FH Outreach and Support Program (direct contact). Cascade testing uptake was measured as reported completion of genetic or cholesterol testing. Generalized estimating equations models were used to identify factors associated with testing., Results: One hundred seventy five probands received an FH result, median age was 58.9 (IQR: 44.9-69.3), and 58.9% were female. Probands shared information about 1,915 adult and 163 minor relatives (11.9 relatives per proband). Seventy percent of probands (121/175) selected at least one strategy for at least one adult relative. An average of 1.2 strategies was selected per adult relative. Cascade testing was completed for 26.6% (144/541) of adults with at least one strategy selected, 2.4% (33/1,374) of adults without a strategy selected, and 25.2% (41/163) of minor relatives. Factors associated with increased cascade testing uptake were selection of at least one strategy (6.32 higher odds), specifically, selection of direct contact (16.78 higher odds)., Conclusions: Strategies implemented improved FH cascade testing uptake compared to previous estimates and in families where no strategy was selected. Overall uptake remains insufficient, which can be attributed to probands reluctance to select a strategy for many relatives., Competing Interests: Dr Jones is a consultant for Novartis. Dr McGowan is on the advisory board for Novartis. Dr Gidding is a consultant for Esperion. Dr Sturm is an employee and stockholder in 23andMe; and on the advisory board for Nest Genomics. Research reported in this publication was supported by the 10.13039/100000050National Heart, Lung, And Blood Institute of the 10.13039/100000002National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01HL148246. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (© 2024 The Authors.)

The IMPACT-FH study implemented strategies (packet, chatbot, direct contact) to promote family member cascade testing for familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). We evaluated the impact of genetic counseling (GC) on medical outcomes, strategy selection, and cascade testing. Probands (i.e., patients with FH) were recommended to complete GC and select sharing strategies. Comparisons were performed for both medical outcomes and strategy selection between probands with or without GC. GEE models for Poisson regression were used to examine the relationship between proband GC completion and first-degree relative (FDR) cascade testing. Overall, 46.3% (81/175) of probands completed GC. Probands with GC had a median LDL-C reduction of -13.0 mg/dL (-61.0, 4.0) versus -1.0 mg/dL (-16.0, 17.0) in probands without GC ( p = 0.0054). Probands with and without GC selected sharing strategies for 65.3% and 40.3% of FDRs, respectively ( p < 0.0001). Similarly, 27.1% of FDRs of probands with GC completed cascade testing, while 12.0% of FDRs of probands without GC completed testing ( p = 0.0043). Direct contact was selected for 47 relatives in total and completed for 39, leading to the detection of 18 relatives with FH. Proband GC was associated with improved medical outcomes and increased FDR cascade testing. Direct contact effectively identified FH cases for the subset who participated.

Background: Cascade testing can be highly effective in identifying individuals with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) and help prevent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The IMPACT-FH cascade testing program offered multiple optimized implementation strategies to improve FH cascade testing uptake., Objective: Guided by the Conceptual Model of Implementation Research, this study assessed the IMPACT-FH cascade testing program's implementation outcomes., Methods: Implementation outcomes were assessed qualitatively and quantitatively. Interviews were conducted with 33 IMPACT-FH program participants including 15 probands, 12 relatives, and 6 healthcare professionals (HCPs). Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis to investigate implementation outcomes. Descriptive statistics were analyzed for scaled implementation outcome measures asked after interviews., Results: Participants described adopting strategies offered in the IMPACT-FH program because they presented an opportunity to pursue low-cost FH cascade testing. Participants identified barriers to feasibility including: the complexity of disclosing an FH result and offering strategies on, inherent limitations of probands choosing strategies, confusion over testing costs, limitations sharing with relatives' clinicians, discomfort with chatbot technology, and concerns about the workload for HCPs. Participants evaluated the program positively regarding its appropriateness (Mean (M) = 4.70, Standard Deviation (SD) = 0.41), acceptability (M = 4.79, SD = 0.40), and feasibility (M = 4.24, SD = 0.53)., Conclusion: The IMPACT-FH cascade testing program and its strategies were evaluated as valuable to adopt and highly appropriate, acceptable, and feasible by participants. Participants identified areas to enhance the program that could improve FH cascade testing uptake., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Consent and Disclosure Recommendation (CADRe) framework proposes that key components of informed consent for genetic testing can be covered with a targeted discussion for many conditions rather than a time-intensive traditional genetic counseling approach. We surveyed US genetics professionals (medical geneticists and genetic counselors) on their response to scenarios that proposed core informed consent concepts for clinical genetic testing developed in a prior expert consensus process. The anonymous online survey included responses to 3 (of 6 possible) different clinical scenarios that summarized the application of the core concepts. There was a binary (yes/no) question asking respondents whether they agreed the scenarios included the minimum necessary and critical educational concepts to allow an informed decision. Respondents then provided open-ended feedback on what concepts were missing or could be removed. At least one scenario was completed by 238 respondents. For all but one scenario, over 65% of respondents agreed that the identified concepts portrayed were sufficient for an informed decision; the exome scenario had the lowest agreement (58%). Qualitative analysis of the open-ended comments showed no consistently mentioned concepts to add or remove. The level of agreement with the example scenarios suggests that the minimum critical educational components for pre-test informed consent proposed in our prior work is a reasonable starting place for targeted pre-test discussions. This may be helpful in providing consistency to the clinical practice of both genetics and non-genetics providers, meeting patients' informational needs, tailoring consent for psychosocial support, and in future guideline development., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Human Genetics.)

Purpose of Review: Genetic testing has proven utility in identifying and diagnosing individuals with FH. Here we outline the current landscape of genetic testing for FH, recommendations for testing practices and the efforts underway to improve access, availability, and uptake., Recent Findings: Alternatives to the traditional genetic testing and counseling paradigm for FH are being explored including expanding screening programs, testing in primary care and/or cardiology clinics, leveraging electronic communication tools like chatbots, and implementing direct contact approaches to facilitate genetic testing of both probands and at-risk relatives. There is no consensus on if, when, and how genetic testing or accompanying genetic counseling should be provided for FH, though traditional genetic counseling and/or testing in specialty lipid clinics is often recommended in expert statements and professional guidelines. More evidence is needed to determine whether alternative approaches to the implementation of genetic testing for FH may be more effective., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: To assess use of two web-based conversational agents, the Family Sharing Chatbot (FSC) and One Month Chatbot (OMC), by individuals with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH)., Methods: FSC and OMC were sent using an opt-out methodology to a cohort of individuals receiving a FH genetic result. Data from 7/1/2021 through 5/12/2022 was obtained from the electronic health record and the chatbots' HIPAA-secure web portal., Results: Of 175 subjects, 21 (12%) opted out of the chatbots. Older individuals were more likely to opt out. Most (91/154, 59%) preferred receiving chatbots via the patient EHR portal. Seventy-five individuals (49%) clicked the FSC link, 62 (40%) interacted, and 36 (23%) shared a chatbot about their FH result with at least one relative. Ninety-two of the subjects received OMC, 22 (23%) clicked the link and 20 (21%) interacted. Individuals who shared were majority female and younger on average than the overall cohort. Reminders tended to increase engagement., Conclusion: Results demonstrate characteristics relevant to chatbot engagement. Individuals may be more inclined to receive chatbots if integrated within the patient EHR portal. Frequent reminders can potentially improve chatbot utilization., Innovation: FSC and OMC employ innovative digital health technology that can facilitate family communication about hereditary conditions., Competing Interests: The following authors have conflicts of interest to report: Tara J. Schmidlen and Sarah K. Savage are employees and shareholders of Invitae. Amy C. Sturm is an employee and shareholder of 23andMe. Laney K. Jones is a consultant for Novartis., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Purpose: Informed consent for genetic testing has historically been acquired during pretest genetic counseling, without specific guidance defining which core concepts are required., Methods: The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Consent and Disclosure Recommendations Workgroup (CADRe) used an expert consensus process to identify the core concepts essential to consent for clinical genetic testing. A literature review identified 77 concepts that are included in informed consent for genetic tests. Twenty-five experts (9 medical geneticists, 8 genetic counselors, and 9 bioethicists) completed two rounds of surveys ranking concepts' importance to informed consent., Results: The most highly ranked concepts included: (1) genetic testing is voluntary; (2) why is the test recommended and what does it test for?; (3) what results will be returned and to whom?; (4) are there other types of potential results, and what choices exist?; (5) how will the prognosis and management be impacted by results?; (6) what is the potential family impact?; (7) what are the test limitations and next steps?; and (8) potential risk of genetic discrimination and legal protections., Conclusion: Defining the core concepts necessary for informed consent for genetic testing provides a foundation for quality patient care across a variety of healthcare providers and clinical indications.

Background: Genetic information is increasingly relevant across healthcare. Traditional genetic counseling (GC) may limit access to genetic information and may be more information and support than some individuals need. We report on the application and clinical implications of a framework to consistently integrate genetics expertise where it is most useful to patients., Methods: The Clinical Genome Resource's (ClinGen) Consent and Disclosure Recommendations (CADRe) workgroup designed rubrics to guide pre- and post-genetic test communication. Using a standard set of testing indications, pre- and post-test rubrics were applied to 40 genetic conditions or testing modalities with diverse features, including variability in levels of penetrance, clinical actionability, and evidence supporting a gene-disease relationship. Final communication recommendations were reached by group consensus., Results: Communication recommendations were determined for 478 unique condition-indication or testing-indication pairs. For half of the conditions and indications (238/478), targeted discussions (moderate communication depth) were the recommended starting communication level for pre- and post-test conversations. Traditional GC was recommended pre-test for adult-onset neurodegenerative conditions for individuals with no personal history and post-test for most conditions when genetic testing revealed a molecular diagnosis as these situations are likely higher in complexity and uncertainty. A brief communication approach was recommended for more straightforward conditions and indications (e.g., familial hypercholesterolemia; familial variant testing)., Conclusions: The CADRe recommendations provide guidance for clinicians in determining the depth of pre- and post-test communication, strategically aligning the anticipated needs of patients with the starting communication approach. Shorter targeted discussions or brief communications are suggested for many tests and indications. Longer traditional GC consultations would be reserved for patients with more complex and uncertain situations where detailed information, education, and psychological support can be most beneficial. Future studies of the CADRe communication framework will be essential for determining if CADRe-informed care supports quality patient experience while improving access to genetic information across healthcare.

Purpose: Cancer genetics clinics have seen increasing demand, challenging genetic counselors (GCs) to increase efficiency and prompting some clinics to implement genetic counseling assistants (GCAs). To evaluate the impact of GCAs on Geisinger's cancer genetics clinic, we tracked GC time utilization, new patient volume, and clinic cost per patient before and after implementing a GCA program., Methods: GCs used time-tracking software while completing preappointment activities. Electronic health records were reviewed for appointment length and number of patients per week. Internal salary data for GCs and GCAs were used to calculate clinic costs per patient., Results: Time spent by GCs completing each preappointment activity (21.8 vs. 15.1 minutes) and appointment length (51.6 vs. 44.5 minutes) significantly decreased after GCA program implementation (p values < 0.001). New patients per week per GC significantly increased (7.9 vs. 11.4, p < 0.001). Weekly clinic cost per patient significantly decreased ($233 vs. $176, p = 0.03)., Conclusion: Implementing a GCA program increased GC efficiency in preappointment activities and clinic appointments, increased patient volume, and decreased clinic cost per patient. Such a program can improve access to GC services and assist GCs in focusing on the direct patient care for which they are specially trained.

This study addresses replication in candidate gene × environment interaction (cG×E) research by investigating if the key findings from Brody, Beach, Philibert, Chen, and Murry (2009) can be detected using data (N = 1,809) from the PROSPER substance use preventive intervention delivery system. Parallel to Brody et al., this study tested the hypotheses that substance misuse initiation would increase faster from age 11 to age 14 and be higher at age 14 among: (a) 5-HTTLPR short carrier adolescents versus long homozygotes, (b) control versus intervention adolescents, and (c) 5-HTTLPR short carriers in the control condition versus all other participants. The hypotheses were generally supported and results were consistent with Brody et al.'s cG×I finding. Results are discussed in light of replication issues in cG×E research and implications for intervention., (© 2016 The Authors. Child Development © 2016 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.)