Web platform vs in-person genetic counselor for return of carrier results from exome sequencing a randomized clinical trial

© 2018 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. IMPORTANCE A critical bottleneck in clinical genomics is the mismatch between large volumes of results and the availability of knowledgeable professionals to return them. OBJECTIVE To test whether a web-based platform is noninferior to a genetic counselor for educating patients about their carrier results from exome sequencing. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A randomized noninferiority trial conducted in a longitudinal sequencing cohort at the National Institutes of Health from February 5, 2014, to December 16, 2016, was used to compare the web-based platform with a genetic counselor. Among the 571 eligible participants, 1 to 7 heterozygous variants were identified in genes that cause a phenotype that is recessively inherited. Surveys were administered after cohort enrollment, immediately following trial education, and 1 month and 6 months later to primarily healthy postreproductive participants who expressed interest in learning their carrier results. Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were applied. INTERVENTIONS A web-based platform that integrated education on carrier results with personal test results was designed to directly parallel disclosure education by a genetic counselor. The sessions took a mean (SD) time of 21 (10.6), and 27 (9.3) minutes, respectively. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcomes and noninferiority margins (dNI) were knowledge (0 to 8, dNI = -1), test-specific distress (0 to 30, dNI = +1), and decisional conflict (15 to 75, dNI = +6). RESULTS After 462 participants (80.9%) provided consent and were randomized, all but 3 participants (n = 459) completed surveys following education and counseling; 398 (86.1%) completed 1-month surveys and 392 (84.8%) completed 6-month surveys. Participants were predominantly well-educated, non-Hispanic white, married parents; mean (SD) age was 63 (63.1) years and 246 (53.6%) were men. The web platform was noninferior to the genetic counselor on outcomes assessed at 1 and 6 months: knowledge (mean group difference, -0.18; lower limit of 97.5% CI, -0.63; dNI = -1), test-specific distress (median group difference, 0; upper limit of 97.5% CI, 0; dNI = +1), and decisional conflict about choosing to learn results (mean group difference, 1.18; upper limit of 97.5% CI, 2.66; dNI = +6). There were no significant differences between the genetic counselors and web-based platform detected between modes of education delivery in disclosure rates to spouses (151 vs 159; relative risk [RR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.64-1.69; P > .99), children (103 vs 117; RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.85-1.36; P = .59), or siblings (91 vs 78; RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.94-1.46; P = .18). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This trial demonstrates noninferiority of web-based return of carrier results among postreproductive, mostly healthy adults. Replication studies among younger and more diverse populations are needed to establish generalizability. Yet return of results via a web-based platform may be sufficient for subsets of test results, reserving genetic counselors for return of results with a greater health threat

A randomized controlled study of a consent intervention for participating in an NIH genome sequencing study

© 2018 European Society of Human Genetics. To make an informed choice to participate in a genome sequencing study that may yield primary and secondary findings, one understands relevant information in the context of personal values. Consent forms to enroll in a sequencing study can be long and complex. The efficacy of the professional encounter to consider the information contained in the consent form and make an informed choice is unknown. Women diagnosed with primary ovarian insufficiency and eligible for a sequencing study were randomized to participate in one of two encounters with a genetic counselor: a consent intervention using a lower literacy, less dense form or a standard consent encounter. Data were complete for 188 of 225 participants. The average time was 32 min for the intervention and 34 min for the standard, with the intervention encounter generating more questions from participants. At six weeks following consent, no differences were found between the two groups in primary outcomes: 'sequencing benefits' knowledge (d = 0.12, 95%CI: -0.03,0.27), 'sequencing limitations' knowledge (d = 0.04, 95%CI: -0.13,0.21), expected personal benefits (d = -0.01, 95%CI: -0.26,0.23), and decisional conflict (d = 0.04, 95%CI: -0.14,0.21). Although intentions to learn secondary variants were high, only 60% (113) of participants made an informed choice as defined by the multi-dimensional model of informed choice. We found that a modified consent intervention was as effective as a standard encounter and led to more interaction. Our data suggest that making decisions to receive secondary findings may be particularly challenging and in need of further investigation to achieve informed choice

Evaluation of Recipients of Positive and Negative Secondary Findings Evaluations in a Hybrid CLIA-Research Sequencing Pilot

© 2018 While consensus regarding the return of secondary genomic findings in the clinical setting has been reached, debate about such findings in the research setting remains. We developed a hybrid, research-clinical translational genomics process for research exome data coupled with a CLIA-validated secondary findings analysis. Eleven intramural investigators from ten institutes at the National Institutes of Health piloted this process. Nearly 1,200 individuals were sequenced and 14 secondary findings were identified in 18 participants. Positive secondary findings were returned by a genetic counselor following a standardized protocol, including referrals for specialty follow-up care for the secondary finding local to the participants. Interviews were undertaken with 13 participants 4 months after receipt of a positive report. These participants reported minimal psychologic distress within a process to assimilate their results. Of the 13, 9 reported accessing the recommended health care services. A sample of 107 participants who received a negative findings report were surveyed 4 months after receiving it. They demonstrated good understanding of the negative secondary findings result and most expressed reassurance (64%) from that report. However, a notable minority (up to 17%) expressed confusion regarding the distinction of primary from secondary findings. This pilot shows it is feasible to couple CLIA-compliant secondary findings to research sequencing with minimal harms. Participants managed the surprise of a secondary finding with most following recommended follow up, yet some with negative findings conflated secondary and primary findings. Additional work is needed to understand barriers to follow-up care and help participants distinguish secondary from primary findings