Sharp, Richard R.

Background: Polygenic risk testing examines variation across multiple genes to estimate a risk score for a particular disease, including risk scores for many common, chronic health conditions. Although polygenic risk information (PRI) may be a promising tool for enhancing preventive counseling and facilitating early identification of disease, its potential impact on primary-care encounters and disease prevention efforts has not been well characterized. Methods: We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients to assess their understandings of PRI and their beliefs about its relevance to disease prevention. Results: We completed interviews with 19 participants. Participants described enthusiasm for the generation of PRI and recognized its utility for disease prevention. Participants also described the value of PRI as limited if not corroborated by non-genetic risk factors. Finally, participants noted that PRI, by itself, would be insufficient as a trigger for initiating many preventive interventions. Conclusion: PRI has the potential to become an important tool in primary care. However, patient views about PRI as well as the complexities of disease prevention in the primary care context may limit the impact of PRI on disease prevention.

AbstractAlpha-synucleinopathies can be identified in their prodromal phase, raising several ethical issues. In this review, we first provide definitions of prodromal α-synucleinopathies and discuss the importance of distinguishing between prodromes and risk factors. Next, we discuss the implications of a diagnosis of prodromal α-synucleinopathy and considerations regarding prognostic counseling in both clinical and research settings. We review available data on patient preferences regarding disclosure as well as providers' perspectives. We examine the pros and cons of disclosing a diagnosis of prodromal α-synucleinopathy, taking into consideration the differences between clinical and research settings. Asking about willingness to know in clinical and research settings and the shared decision-making process applied to prognostic counseling is discussed. Concerning research settings, ethical aspects regarding clinical trials are addressed. Availability of direct-to-consumer technologies will likely lead to novel contexts requiring prognostic counseling, and future neuroprotective or neuromodulating treatments may require further considerations on the timing, role, and importance of prognostic counseling. Recommendations on how to address ethical gaps should be a priority for patients, medical professional societies, and research workgroups. Ethical issues must be considered as an integral part of the overall clinical and research approach to prodromal synucleinopathies.

Abstract Study Objectives Isolated REM sleep behavior disorder (iRBD) carries a high lifetime risk for phenoconversion to a defined neurodegenerative disease (NDD) including Parkinson disease, dementia with Lewy bodies, and multiple system atrophy. We aimed to examine iRBD patient values and preferences regarding prognostic counseling. Methods One hundred thirteen iRBD patient participants enrolled in the Mayo Clinic iRBD Patient Registry were sent an email survey concerning their values and preferences concerning NDD prognostic counseling and their experiences following diagnosis with iRBD. Results Of 81 respondents (71.7% response rate), the majority were men (74.0%) with an average age of 65.7 (±9.7) years. Responses indicated a strong preference toward receiving prognostic information about possible future NDD development. 92.5% of respondents felt knowledge concerning personal NDD risk was important, while 87.6% indicated prognostic discussions were important to maintaining trust in their physician. 95.7% indicated a desire for more information, while only 4.3% desired less information regarding their NDD prognostic risk. Most respondents strongly agreed that prognostic information was important to discuss with their family and friends and inform future life planning, and most expressed interest in learning more about future neuroprotective therapies and symptomatic treatments for parkinsonism and dementia. Conclusions Most iRBD patients indicated strong preferences for disclosure of NDD prognostic risk and indicated that prognostic information was important for family discussions and future life planning. Future broader surveys and qualitative studies of clinic-based and ultimately community dwelling iRBD patients’ values and preferences are needed to guide appropriately tailored and individualized prognostic counseling approaches following iRBD diagnosis.

Abstract Objective Artificial intelligence (AI) models may propagate harmful biases in performance and hence negatively affect the underserved. We aimed to assess the degree to which data quality of electronic health records (EHRs) affected by inequities related to low socioeconomic status (SES), results in differential performance of AI models across SES. Materials and Methods This study utilized existing machine learning models for predicting asthma exacerbation in children with asthma. We compared balanced error rate (BER) against different SES levels measured by HOUsing-based SocioEconomic Status measure (HOUSES) index. As a possible mechanism for differential performance, we also compared incompleteness of EHR information relevant to asthma care by SES. Results Asthmatic children with lower SES had larger BER than those with higher SES (eg, ratio = 1.35 for HOUSES Q1 vs Q2–Q4) and had a higher proportion of missing information relevant to asthma care (eg, 41% vs 24% for missing asthma severity and 12% vs 9.8% for undiagnosed asthma despite meeting asthma criteria). Discussion Our study suggests that lower SES is associated with worse predictive model performance. It also highlights the potential role of incomplete EHR data in this differential performance and suggests a way to mitigate this bias. Conclusion The HOUSES index allows AI researchers to assess bias in predictive model performance by SES. Although our case study was based on a small sample size and a single-site study, the study results highlight a potential strategy for identifying bias by using an innovative SES measure.

Background While use of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is increasing, little is known about how patients view healthcare AI. Characterizing patient attitudes and beliefs about healthcare AI and the factors that lead to these attitudes can help ensure patient values are in close alignment with the implementation of these new technologies. Methods We conducted 15 focus groups with adult patients who had a recent primary care visit at a large academic health center. Using modified grounded theory, focus-group data was analyzed for themes related to the formation of attitudes and beliefs about healthcare AI. Results When evaluating AI in healthcare, we found that patients draw on a variety of factors to contextualize these new technologies including previous experiences of illness, interactions with health systems and established health technologies, comfort with other information technology, and other personal experiences. We found that these experiences informed normative and cultural beliefs about the values and goals of healthcare technologies that patients applied when engaging with AI. The results of this study form the basis for a theoretical framework for understanding patient orientation to applications of AI in healthcare, highlighting a number of specific social, health, and technological experiences that will likely shape patient opinions about future healthcare AI applications. Conclusions Understanding the basis of patient attitudes and beliefs about healthcare AI is a crucial first step in effective patient engagement and education. The theoretical framework we present provides a foundation for future studies examining patient opinions about applications of AI in healthcare.

AbstractAs pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing increases in popularity, lay concepts of drug‐gene interactions set the stage for shared decision making in precision medicine. Few studies explore what recipients of PGx results think is happening in their bodies when a drug‐gene interaction is discovered. To characterize biobank participants’ understanding of PGx research results, we conducted a focus group study, which took place after PGx variants conferring increased risk of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency were disclosed to biobank contributors. DPD deficiency confers an increased risk of adverse reaction to commonly used cancer chemotherapeutics. Ten focus groups were conducted, ranging from two to eight participants. Fifty‐four individuals participated in focus groups. A framework approach was used for descriptive and explanatory analysis. Descriptive themes included participants’ efforts to make sense of PGx findings as they related to: (1) health implications, (2) drugs, and (3) genetics. Explanatory analysis supplied a functional framework of how participant word choices can perform different purposes in PGx communication. Results bear three main implications for PGx research‐related disclosure. First, participants’ use of various terms suggest participants generally understanding their PGx results, including how positive PGx results differ from positive disease susceptibility genetic results. Second, PGx disclosure in biobanking can involve participant conflation of drug‐gene interactions with allergies or other types of medical reactions. Third, the functional framework suggests a need to move beyond a deficit model of genetic literacy in PGx communication. Together, findings provide an initial evidence base for supporting bidirectional expert‐recipient PGx results communication.

Abstract The public health impact of genomic screening can be enhanced by cascade testing. However, cascade testing depends on communication of results to family members. While the barriers and facilitators of family communication have been researched following clinical genetic testing, the factors impacting the dissemination of genomic screening results are unknown. Using the pragmatic Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network‐3 (eMERGE‐3) study, we explored the reported sharing practices of participants who underwent genomic screening across the United States. Six eMERGE‐3 sites returned genomic screening results for mostly dominant medically actionable disorders and surveyed adult participants regarding communication of results with first‐degree relatives. Across the sites, 279 participants completed a 1‐month and/or 6‐month post‐results survey. By 6 months, only 34% of the 156 respondents shared their results with all first‐degree relatives and 4% did not share with any. Over a third (39%) first‐degree relatives were not notified of the results. Half (53%) of participants who received their results from a genetics provider shared them with all first‐degree relatives compared with 11% of participants who received their results from a non‐genetics provider. The most frequent reasons for sharing were a feeling of obligation (72%) and that the information could help family members make medical decisions (72%). The most common reasons indicated for not sharing were that the family members were too young (38%), or they were not in contact (25%) or not close to them (25%). These data indicate that the professional returning the results may impact sharing patterns, suggesting that there is a need to continue to educate healthcare providers regarding approaches to facilitate sharing of genetic results within families. Finally, these data suggest that interventions to increase sharing may be universally effective regardless of the origin of the genetic result.