Search

Background: As a mega-biobank linked to a national healthcare system, the Million Veteran Program (MVP) can directly improve the health care of participants. To determine the feasibility and outcomes of returning medically actionable genetic results to MVP participants, the program launched the MVP Return of Actionable Results (MVP-ROAR) Study, with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) as an exemplar actionable condition., Methods: The MVP-ROAR Study consists of a completed single-arm pilot phase and an ongoing randomized clinical trial (RCT), in which MVP participants are recontacted and invited to receive clinical confirmatory gene sequencing testing and a telegenetic counseling intervention. The primary outcome of the RCT is 6-month change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) between participants receiving results at baseline and those receiving results after 6 months., Results: The pilot developed processes to identify and recontact participants nationally with probable pathogenic variants in low-density lipoprotein receptor (LDLR) on the MVP genotype array, invite them to clinical confirmatory gene sequencing, and deliver a telegenetic counseling intervention. Among participants in the pilot phase, 8 (100%) had active statin prescriptions after 6 months. Results were shared with 16 first-degree family members. Six-month ΔLDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol) after the genetic counseling intervention was -37 mg/dL (95% CI: -12 to -61; P = .03). The ongoing RCT will determine between-arm differences in this primary outcome., Conclusion: While underscoring the importance of clinical confirmation of research results, the pilot phase of the MVP-ROAR Study marks a turning point in MVP and demonstrates the feasibility of returning genetic results to participants and their providers. The ongoing RCT will contribute to understanding how such a program might improve patient health care and outcomes., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT04178122., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

One of the justifiable criticisms of human genetic studies is the underrepresentation of participants from diverse populations. Lack of inclusion must be addressed at-scale to identify causal disease factors and understand the genetic causes of health disparities. We present genome-wide associations for 2068 traits from 635,969 participants in the Department of Veterans Affairs Million Veteran Program, a longitudinal study of diverse United States Veterans. Systematic analysis revealed 13,672 genomic risk loci; 1608 were only significant after including non-European populations. Fine-mapping identified causal variants at 6318 signals across 613 traits. One-third ( n = 2069) were identified in participants from non-European populations. This reveals a broadly similar genetic architecture across populations, highlights genetic insights gained from underrepresented groups, and presents an extensive atlas of genetic associations.

Objective: The development of clinical research informatics tools and workflow processes associated with re-engaging biobank participants has become necessary as genomic repositories increasingly consider the return of actionable research results., Materials and Methods: Here we describe the development and utility of an informatics application for participant recruitment and enrollment management for the Veterans Affairs Million Veteran Program Return Of Actionable Results Study, a randomized controlled pilot trial returning individual genetic results associated with familial hypercholesterolemia., Results: The application is developed in Python-Flask and was placed into production in November 2021. The application includes modules for chart review, medication reconciliation, participant contact and biospecimen logging, survey recording, randomization, and documentation of genetic counseling and result disclosure. Three primary users, a genetic counselor and two research coordinators, and 326 Veteran participants have been integrated into the system as of February 23, 2023. The application has successfully handled 3367 task requests involving greater than 95 000 structured data points. Specifically, application users have recorded 326 chart reviews, 867 recruitment telephone calls, 158 telephone-based surveys, and 61 return of results genetic counseling sessions, among other available study tasks., Conclusion: The development of usable, customizable, and secure informatics tools will become increasingly important as large genomic repositories begin to return research results at scale. Our work provides a proof-of-concept for developing and using such tools to aid in managing the return of results process within a national biobank., Competing Interests: J.G. reports a relationship with Novartis that includes grant funding. All other authors report no competing interests., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association 2024.)

Genetic risk scores (GRS) are an emerging and rapidly evolving genomic medicine innovation that may contribute to more precise risk stratification for disease prevention. Inclusion of GRS in routine medical care is imminent, and understanding how physicians perceive and intend to utilize GRS in practice is an important first step in facilitating uptake. This dataset was derived from an electronic survey and comprises one of the first, largest, and broadest samples of United States primary care physician perceptions on the clinical decision-making, benefits, barriers, and utility of GRS to date. The dataset is nearly complete (<1% missing data) and contains responses from 369 PCPs spanning 58 column variables. The public repository includes minimally filtered, de-identified data, all underlying survey versions and items, a data dictionary, and associated analytic files., (© 2023 Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) hold promise for disease risk assessment and prevention. The Genomic Medicine at Veterans Affairs (GenoVA) Study is addressing three main challenges to the clinical implementation of PRSs in preventive care: defining and determining their clinical utility, implementing them in time-constrained primary care settings, and countering their potential to exacerbate healthcare disparities. The study processes used to test patients, report their PRS results to them and their primary care providers (PCPs), and promote the use of those results in clinical decision-making are modeled on common practices in primary care. The following diseases were chosen for their prevalence and familiarity to PCPs: coronary artery disease; type 2 diabetes; atrial fibrillation; and breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers. A randomized clinical trial (RCT) design and primary outcome of time-to-new-diagnosis of a target disease bring methodological rigor to the question of the clinical utility of PRS implementation. The study's pragmatic RCT design enhances its relevance to how PRS might reasonably be implemented in primary care. Steps the study has taken to promote health equity include the thoughtful handling of genetic ancestry in PRS construction and reporting and enhanced recruitment strategies to address underrepresentation in research participation. To date, enhanced recruitment efforts have been both necessary and successful: participants of underrepresented race and ethnicity groups have been less likely to enroll in the study than expected but ultimately achieved proportional representation through targeted efforts. The GenoVA Study experience to date offers insights for evaluating the clinical utility of equitable PRS implementation in adult primary care., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests P.N. reports research grants from Allelica, Apple, Amgen, Boston Scientific, Genentech/Roche, and Novartis; and personal fees from Allelica, Apple, AstraZeneca, Blackstone Life Sciences, Eli Lilly & Co, Foresite Labs, Genentech/Roche, GV, HeartFlow, Magnet Biomedicine, and Novartis; scientific advisory board membership of Esperion Therapeutics, Preciseli, and TenSixteen Bio; status as a scientific co-founder of TenSixteen Bio; equity in MyOme, Preciseli, and TenSixteen Bio; and spousal employment at Vertex Pharmaceuticals, all unrelated to the present work. S.A.L. is an employee of Novartis as of July 18, 2022, has previously received sponsored research support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Fitbit, Medtronic, Premier, and IBM, and has consulted for Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Blackstone Life Sciences, and Invitae. A.C.F.L. reports owning stock in Fabric Genomics. R.C.G. has received compensation for advising Allelica, Atria, Fabric, Genome Web, Genomic Life, and Juniper Genomics and is co-founder of Genome Medical and Nurture Genomics. The other authors declare no competing interests., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) may improve risk-stratification in preventive care. Their clinical implementation will depend on primary care physicians' (PCPs) uptake. We surveyed PCPs in a national physician database about the perceived clinical utility, benefits, and barriers to the use of PRS in preventive care. Among 367 respondents (participation rate 96.3%), mean (SD) age was 54.9 (12.9) years, 137 (37.3%) were female, and mean (SD) time since medical school graduation was 27.2 (13.3) years. Respondents reported greater perceived utility for more clinical action (e.g., earlier or more intensive screening, preventive medications, or lifestyle modification) for patients with high-risk PRS than for delayed or discontinued prevention actions for low-risk patients (p < 0.001). Respondents most often chose out-of-pocket costs (48%), lack of clinical guidelines (24%), and insurance discrimination concerns (22%) as extreme barriers. Latent class analysis identified 3 subclasses of respondents. Skeptics (n = 83, 22.6%) endorsed less agreement with individual clinical utilities, saw patient anxiety and insurance discrimination as significant barriers, and agreed less often that PRS could help patients make better health decisions. Learners (n = 134, 36.5%) and enthusiasts (n = 150, 40.9%) expressed similar levels of agreement that PRS had utility for preventive actions and that PRS could be useful for patient decision-making. Compared with enthusiasts, however, learners perceived greater barriers to the clinical use of PRS. Overall results suggest that PCPs generally endorse using PRS to guide medical decision-making about preventive care, and barriers identified suggest interventions to address their needs and concerns., (© 2023. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Purpose: The use of patient race in medicine is controversial for its potential either to exacerbate or address health disparities. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have emerged as a tool for risk stratification models used in preventive medicine. We examined whether PRS results affect primary care physician (PCP) medical decision-making and whether that effect varies by patient race., Methods: Using an online survey with a randomized experimental design among PCPs in a national database, we ascertained decision-making around atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prevention and prostate cancer screening for case scenario patients who were clinically identical except for randomized reported race., Results: Across 369 PCPs (email open rate = 10.8%, partial completion rate = 93.7%), recommendations varied with PRS results in expected directions (low-risk results, no available PRS results, and high-risk results). Still, physicians randomized to scenarios with Black patients were more likely to recommend statin therapy than those randomized to scenarios with White patients (odds ratio = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.16-2.59, P = .007) despite otherwise identical clinical profiles and independent of PRS results. Similarly, physicians were more likely to recommend prostate cancer screening for Black patients than for White patients (odds ratio = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.06-2.35, P = .025) despite otherwise identical clinical and genetic profiles., Conclusion: Despite advances in precision risk stratification, physicians will likely continue to use patient race implicitly or explicitly in medical decision-making., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest C.A.B., A.A.A., and J.L.V. are employees of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. The views expressed in this manuscript do not represent those of the US government or United States Department of Veterans Affairs. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Validated computable eligibility criteria use real-world data and facilitate the conduct of clinical trials. The Genomic Medicine at VA (GenoVA) Study is a pragmatic trial of polygenic risk score testing enrolling patients without known diagnoses of 6 common diseases: atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, type 2 diabetes, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and prostate cancer. We describe the validation of computable disease classifiers as eligibility criteria and their performance in the first 16 months of trial enrollment., Methods: We identified well-performing published computable classifiers for the 6 target diseases and validated these in the target population using blinded physician review. If needed, classifiers were refined and then underwent a subsequent round of blinded review until true positive and true negative rates ≥80% were achieved. The optimized classifiers were then implemented as pre-screening exclusion criteria; telephone screens enabled an assessment of their real-world negative predictive value (NPV-RW)., Results: Published classifiers for type 2 diabetes and breast and prostate cancer achieved desired performance in blinded chart review without modification; the classifier for atrial fibrillation required two rounds of refinement before achieving desired performance. Among the 1077 potential participants screened in the first 16 months of enrollment, NPV-RW of the classifiers ranged from 98.4% for coronary artery disease to 99.9% for colorectal cancer. Performance did not differ by gender or race/ethnicity., Conclusions: Computable disease classifiers can serve as efficient and accurate pre-screening classifiers for clinical trials, although performance will depend on the trial objectives and diseases under study., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare they have no competing interests., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Implementation of polygenic risk scores (PRS) may improve disease prevention and management but poses several challenges: the construction of clinically valid assays, interpretation for individual patients, and the development of clinical workflows and resources to support their use in patient care. For the ongoing Veterans Affairs Genomic Medicine at Veterans Affairs (GenoVA) Study we developed a clinical genotype array-based assay for six published PRS. We used data from 36,423 Mass General Brigham Biobank participants and adjustment for population structure to replicate known PRS-disease associations and published PRS thresholds for a disease odds ratio (OR) of 2 (ranging from 1.75 (95% CI: 1.57-1.95) for type 2 diabetes to 2.38 (95% CI: 2.07-2.73) for breast cancer). After confirming the high performance and robustness of the pipeline for use as a clinical assay for individual patients, we analyzed the first 227 prospective samples from the GenoVA Study and found that the frequency of PRS corresponding to published OR > 2 ranged from 13/227 (5.7%) for colorectal cancer to 23/150 (15.3%) for prostate cancer. In addition to the PRS laboratory report, we developed physician- and patient-oriented informational materials to support decision-making about PRS results. Our work illustrates the generalizable development of a clinical PRS assay for multiple conditions and the technical, reporting and clinical workflow challenges for implementing PRS information in the clinic., (© 2022. This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply.)