Search

OBJECTIVE: High BMI is associated with many comorbidities and mortality. This study aimed to elucidate the overall clinical risk of obesity using a genome- and phenome-wide approach. METHODS: This study performed a phenome-wide association study of BMI using a clinical cohort of 736,726 adults. This was followed by genetic association studies using two separate cohorts: one consisting of 65,174 adults in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network and another with 405,432 participants in the UK Biobank. RESULTS: Class 3 obesity was associated with 433 phenotypes, representing 59.3% of all billing codes in individuals with severe obesity. A genome-wide polygenic risk score for BMI, accounting for 7.5% of variance in BMI, was associated with 296 clinical diseases, including strong associations with type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea, hypertension, and chronic liver disease. In all three cohorts, 199 phenotypes were associated with class 3 obesity and polygenic risk for obesity, including novel associations such as increased risk of renal failure, venous insufficiency, and gastroesophageal reflux. CONCLUSIONS: This combined genomic and phenomic systematic approach demonstrated that obesity has a strong genetic predisposition and is associated with a considerable burden of disease across all disease classes.

ObjectivesThe study aimed to understand potential barriers to the adoption of health information technology projects that are released as free and open source software (FOSS).MethodsWe conducted a survey of research consortia participants engaged in genomic medicine implementation to assess perceived institutional barriers to the adoption of three systems: ClinGen electronic health record (EHR) Toolkit, DocUBuild, and MyResults.org. The survey included eight barriers from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), with additional barriers identified from a qualitative analysis of open-ended responses.ResultsWe analyzed responses from 24 research consortia participants from 18 institutions. In total, 14 categories of perceived barriers were evaluated, which were consistent with other observed barriers to FOSS adoption. The most frequent perceived barriers included lack of adaptability of the system, lack of institutional priority to implement, lack of trialability, lack of advantage of alternative systems, and complexity.ConclusionIn addition to understanding potential barriers, we recommend some strategies to address them (where possible), including considerations for genomic medicine. Overall, FOSS developers need to ensure systems are easy to trial and implement and need to clearly articulate benefits of their systems, especially when alternatives exist. Institutional champions will remain a critical component to prioritizing genomic medicine projects.

BACKGROUND:Precision medicine is set to deliver a rich new data set of genomic information. However, the number of certified specialists in the United States is small, with only 4244 genetic counselors and 1302 clinical geneticists. We conducted a national survey of 264 medical professionals to evaluate how they interpret genetic test results, determine their confidence and self-efficacy of interpreting genetic test results with patients, and capture their opinions and experiences with direct-to-consumer genetic tests (DTC-GT). METHODS:Participants were grouped into two categories, genetic specialists (genetic counselors and clinical geneticists) and medical providers (primary care, internists, physicians assistants, advanced nurse practitioners, etc.). The survey (full instrument can be found in the Additional file 1) presented three genetic test report scenarios for interpretation: a genetic risk for diabetes, genomic sequencing for symptoms report implicating a potential HMN7B: distal hereditary motor neuropathy VIIB diagnosis, and a statin-induced myopathy risk. Participants were also asked about their opinions on DTC-GT results and rank their own perceived level of preparedness to review genetic test results with patients. RESULTS:The rates of correctly interpreting results were relatively high (74.4% for the providers compared to the specialist's 83.4%) and age, prior genetic test consultation experience, and level of trust assigned to the reports were associated with higher correct interpretation rates. The self-selected efficacy and the level of preparedness to consult on a patient's genetic results were higher for the specialists than the provider group. CONCLUSION:Specialists remain the best group to assist patients with DTC-GT, however, primary care providers may still provide accurate interpretation of test results when specialists are unavailable.

BACKGROUND: Precision medicine is set to deliver a rich new data set of genomic information. However, the number of certified specialists in the United States is small, with only 4244 genetic counselors and 1302 clinical geneticists. We conducted a national survey of 264 medical professionals to evaluate how they interpret genetic test results, determine their confidence and self-efficacy of interpreting genetic test results with patients, and capture their opinions and experiences with direct-to-consumer genetic tests (DTC-GT). METHODS: Participants were grouped into two categories, genetic specialists (genetic counselors and clinical geneticists) and medical providers (primary care, internists, physicians assistants, advanced nurse practitioners, etc.). The survey (full instrument can be found in the Additional file 1) presented three genetic test report scenarios for interpretation: a genetic risk for diabetes, genomic sequencing for symptoms report implicating a potential HMN7B: distal hereditary motor neuropathy VIIB diagnosis, and a statin-induced myopathy risk. Participants were also asked about their opinions on DTC-GT results and rank their own perceived level of preparedness to review genetic test results with patients. RESULTS: The rates of correctly interpreting results were relatively high (74.4% for the providers compared to the specialists 83.4%) and age, prior genetic test consultation experience, and level of trust assigned to the reports were associated with higher correct interpretation rates. The self-selected efficacy and the level of preparedness to consult on a patients genetic results were higher for the specialists than the provider group. CONCLUSION: Specialists remain the best group to assist patients with DTC-GT, however, primary care providers may still provide accurate interpretation of test results when specialists are unavailable.

BACKGROUND:Precision medicine is set to deliver a rich new data set of genomic information. However, the number of certified specialists in the United States is small, with only 4244 genetic counselors and 1302 clinical geneticists. We conducted a national survey of 264 medical professionals to evaluate how they interpret genetic test results, determine their confidence and self-efficacy of interpreting genetic test results with patients, and capture their opinions and experiences with direct-to-consumer genetic tests (DTC-GT). METHODS:Participants were grouped into two categories, genetic specialists (genetic counselors and clinical geneticists) and medical providers (primary care, internists, physicians assistants, advanced nurse practitioners, etc.). The survey (full instrument can be found in the Additional file 1) presented three genetic test report scenarios for interpretation: a genetic risk for diabetes, genomic sequencing for symptoms report implicating a potential HMN7B: distal hereditary motor neuropathy VIIB diagnosis, and a statin-induced myopathy risk. Participants were also asked about their opinions on DTC-GT results and rank their own perceived level of preparedness to review genetic test results with patients. RESULTS:The rates of correctly interpreting results were relatively high (74.4% for the providers compared to the specialist's 83.4%) and age, prior genetic test consultation experience, and level of trust assigned to the reports were associated with higher correct interpretation rates. The self-selected efficacy and the level of preparedness to consult on a patient's genetic results were higher for the specialists than the provider group. CONCLUSION:Specialists remain the best group to assist patients with DTC-GT, however, primary care providers may still provide accurate interpretation of test results when specialists are unavailable.