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.
RCT Entities:
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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