Literature DB >> 28654958

The Impact of Whole-Genome Sequencing on the Primary Care and Outcomes of Healthy Adult Patients: A Pilot Randomized Trial.

Jason L Vassy1, Kurt D Christensen1, Erica F Schonman1, Carrie L Blout1, Jill O Robinson1, Joel B Krier1, Pamela M Diamond1, Matthew Lebo1, Kalotina Machini1, Danielle R Azzariti1, Dmitry Dukhovny1, David W Bates1, Calum A MacRae1, Michael F Murray1, Heidi L Rehm1, Amy L McGuire1, Robert C Green1.   

Abstract

Background: Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) in asymptomatic adults might prevent disease but increase health care use without clinical value. Objective: To describe the effect on clinical care and outcomes of adding WGS to standardized family history assessment in primary care. Design: Pilot randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01736566). Setting: Academic primary care practices. Participants: 9 primary care physicians (PCPs) and 100 generally healthy patients recruited at ages 40 to 65 years. Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned to receive a family history report alone (FH group) or in combination with an interpreted WGS report (FH + WGS group), which included monogenic disease risk (MDR) results (associated with Mendelian disorders), carrier variants, pharmacogenomic associations, and polygenic risk estimates for cardiometabolic traits. Each patient met with his or her PCP to discuss the report. Measurements: Clinical outcomes and health care use through 6 months were obtained from medical records and audio-recorded discussions between PCPs and patients. Patients' health behavior changes were surveyed 6 months after receiving results. A panel of clinician-geneticists rated the appropriateness of how PCPs managed MDR results.
Results: Mean age was 55 years; 58% of patients were female. Eleven FH + WGS patients (22% [95% CI, 12% to 36%]) had new MDR results. Only 2 (4% [CI, 0.01% to 15%]) had evidence of the phenotypes predicted by an MDR result (fundus albipunctatus due to RDH5 and variegate porphyria due to PPOX). Primary care physicians recommended new clinical actions for 16% (CI, 8% to 30%) of FH patients and 34% (CI, 22% to 49%) of FH + WGS patients. Thirty percent (CI, 17% to 45%) and 41% (CI, 27% to 56%) of FH and FH + WGS patients, respectively, reported making a health behavior change after 6 months. Geneticists rated PCP management of 8 MDR results (73% [CI, 39% to 99%]) as appropriate and 2 results (18% [CI, 3% to 52%]) as inappropriate. Limitation: Limited sample size and ancestral and socioeconomic diversity.
Conclusion: Adding WGS to primary care reveals new molecular findings of uncertain clinical utility. Nongeneticist providers may be able to manage WGS results appropriately, but WGS may prompt additional clinical actions of unclear value. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28654958      PMCID: PMC5856654          DOI: 10.7326/M17-0188

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  39 in total

Review 1.  Diagnostic clinical genome and exome sequencing.

Authors:  Leslie G Biesecker; Robert C Green
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-06-19       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Actionable, pathogenic incidental findings in 1,000 participants' exomes.

Authors:  Michael O Dorschner; Laura M Amendola; Emily H Turner; Peggy D Robertson; Brian H Shirts; Carlos J Gallego; Robin L Bennett; Kelly L Jones; Mari J Tokita; James T Bennett; Jerry H Kim; Elisabeth A Rosenthal; Daniel S Kim; Holly K Tabor; Michael J Bamshad; Arno G Motulsky; C Ronald Scott; Colin C Pritchard; Tom Walsh; Wylie Burke; Wendy H Raskind; Peter Byers; Fuki M Hisama; Deborah A Nickerson; Gail P Jarvik
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-09-19       Impact factor: 11.025

Review 3.  Pharmacogenomics in the clinic.

Authors:  Mary V Relling; William E Evans
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2015-10-15       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Health behavior changes after genetic risk assessment for Alzheimer disease: The REVEAL Study.

Authors:  Serena Chao; J Scott Roberts; Theresa M Marteau; Rebecca Silliman; L Adrienne Cupples; Robert C Green
Journal:  Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord       Date:  2008 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.703

5.  Taxonomizing, sizing, and overcoming the incidentalome.

Authors:  Isaac S Kohane; Michael Hsing; Sek Won Kong
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-02-09       Impact factor: 8.822

6.  Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.

Authors:  Sarah S Kalia; Kathy Adelman; Sherri J Bale; Wendy K Chung; Christine Eng; James P Evans; Gail E Herman; Sophia B Hufnagel; Teri E Klein; Bruce R Korf; Kent D McKelvey; Kelly E Ormond; C Sue Richards; Christopher N Vlangos; Michael Watson; Christa L Martin; David T Miller
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-11-17       Impact factor: 8.822

7.  Clinical utility of genetic and genomic services: a position statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.

Authors: 
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2015-03-12       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  A semiquantitative metric for evaluating clinical actionability of incidental or secondary findings from genome-scale sequencing.

Authors:  Jonathan S Berg; Ann Katherine M Foreman; Julianne M O'Daniel; Jessica K Booker; Lacey Boshe; Timothy Carey; Kristy R Crooks; Brian C Jensen; Eric T Juengst; Kristy Lee; Daniel K Nelson; Bradford C Powell; Cynthia M Powell; Myra I Roche; Cecile Skrzynia; Natasha T Strande; Karen E Weck; Kirk C Wilhelmsen; James P Evans
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2015-08-13       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Translational research is a key to nongeneticist physicians' genomics education.

Authors:  W Gregory Feero; Teri A Manolio; Muin J Khoury
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2014-05-29       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 10.  Next-generation sequencing to guide cancer therapy.

Authors:  Jeffrey Gagan; Eliezer M Van Allen
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2015-07-29       Impact factor: 11.117

View more
  58 in total

1.  Analyzing and Reanalyzing the Genome: Findings from the MedSeq Project.

Authors:  Kalotina Machini; Ozge Ceyhan-Birsoy; Danielle R Azzariti; Himanshu Sharma; Peter Rossetti; Lisa Mahanta; Laura Hutchinson; Heather McLaughlin; Robert C Green; Matthew Lebo; Heidi L Rehm
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2019-06-27       Impact factor: 11.025

2.  A theory-informed systematic review of clinicians' genetic testing practices.

Authors:  Jean L Paul; Hanna Leslie; Alison H Trainer; Clara Gaff
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-06-11       Impact factor: 4.246

3.  Much ado about nothing: A qualitative study of the experiences of an average-risk population receiving results of exome sequencing.

Authors:  Shannon Rego; Orit Dagan-Rosenfeld; Stephanie A Bivona; Michael P Snyder; Kelly E Ormond
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2019-03-05       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Sequencing Newborns: A Call for Nuanced Use of Genomic Technologies.

Authors:  Josephine Johnston; John D Lantos; Aaron Goldenberg; Flavia Chen; Erik Parens; Barbara A Koenig
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 2.683

5.  Impact of SLCO1B1 Pharmacogenetic Testing on Patient and Healthcare Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Jason L Vassy; Sojeong Chun; Sanjay Advani; Sophie A Ludin; Jason G Smith; Elaine C Alligood
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2018-10-18       Impact factor: 6.875

6.  Whole-Exome Sequencing in Adults With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Sneh Lata; Maddalena Marasa; Yifu Li; David A Fasel; Emily Groopman; Vaidehi Jobanputra; Hila Rasouly; Adele Mitrotti; Rik Westland; Miguel Verbitsky; Jordan Nestor; Lindsey M Slater; Vivette D'Agati; Marcin Zaniew; Anna Materna-Kiryluk; Francesca Lugani; Gianluca Caridi; Luca Rampoldi; Aditya Mattoo; Chad A Newton; Maya K Rao; Jai Radhakrishnan; Wooin Ahn; Pietro A Canetta; Andrew S Bomback; Gerald B Appel; Corinne Antignac; Glen S Markowitz; Christine K Garcia; Krzysztof Kiryluk; Simone Sanna-Cherchi; Ali G Gharavi
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Primary care providers' role in newborn screening result notification for cystic fibrosis.

Authors:  Robin Z Hayeems; Fiona A Miller; Carolyn J Barg; Yvonne Bombard; Pranesh Chakraborty; Beth K Potter; Sarah Patton; Jessica Peace Bytautas; Karen Tam; Louise Taylor; Elizabeth Kerr; Christine Davies; Jennifer Milburn; Felix Ratjen; Astrid Guttmann; June C Carroll
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2021-06       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 8.  Biomedical informatics and machine learning for clinical genomics.

Authors:  James A Diao; Isaac S Kohane; Arjun K Manrai
Journal:  Hum Mol Genet       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 6.150

9.  How Primary Care Providers Talk to Patients about Genome Sequencing Results: Risk, Rationale, and Recommendation.

Authors:  Jason L Vassy; J Kelly Davis; Christine Kirby; Ian J Richardson; Robert C Green; Amy L McGuire; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-01-26       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 10.  Challenging the Current Recommendations for Carrier Testing in Children.

Authors:  Grace E VanNoy; Casie A Genetti; Amy L McGuire; Robert C Green; Alan H Beggs; Ingrid A Holm
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 7.124

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.