Objective: We aimed to characterize seasonal variation in US population-based blood pressure (BP) control and BP-related metrics and evaluate the association between outdoor temperature and BP control variation. Methods: We queried electronic health records (EHRs) from 26 health systems, representing 21 states, to summarize BP metrics by quarters of 12-month periods from January 2017 to March 2020. Patients with at least one ambulatory visit during the measurement period and a hypertension diagnosis during the first 6 months or prior to the measurement period were included. Changes in BP control, BP improvement, medication intensification, average SBP reduction after medication intensification across quarters and association with outdoor temperature were analyzed using weighted generalized linear models with repeated measures. Results: Among 1 818 041 people with hypertension, the majority were more than 65 years of age (52.2%), female (52.1%), white non-Hispanic (69.8%) and had stage 1/2 hypertension (64.8%). Overall, BP control and process metrics were highest in quarters 2 and 3, and lowest in quarters 1 and 4. Quarter 2 had the highest percentage of improved BP (31.95 ± 0.90%) and average SBP reduction after medication intensification (16 ± 0.23 mmHg). Quarter 3 had the highest percentage of BP controlled (62.25 ± 2.55%) and lowest with medication intensification (9.73 ± 0.60%). Results were largely consistent in adjusted models. Average temperature was associated with BP control metrics in unadjusted models, but associations were attenuated following adjustment. Conclusion: In this large, national, EHR-based study, BP control and BP-related process metrics improved during spring/summer months, but outdoor temperature was not associated with performance following adjustment for potential confounders.
Arrhythmia Variant Associations and Reclassifications in the eMERGE-III Sequencing Study
Background: Sequencing Mendelian arrhythmia genes in individuals without an indication for arrhythmia genetic testing can identify carriers of pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants. However, the extent to which these variants are associated with clinically meaningful phenotypes before or after return of variant results is unclear. In addition, the majority of discovered variants are currently classified as variants of uncertain significance, limiting clinical actionability. Methods: The eMERGE-III study (Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Phase III) is a multicenter prospective cohort that included 21 846 participants without previous indication for cardiac genetic testing. Participants were sequenced for 109 Mendelian disease genes, including 10 linked to arrhythmia syndromes. Variant carriers were assessed with electronic health record–derived phenotypes and follow-up clinical examination. Selected variants of uncertain significance (n=50) were characterized in vitro with automated electrophysiology experiments in HEK293 cells. Results: As previously reported, 3.0% of participants had P/LP variants in the 109 genes. Herein, we report 120 participants (0.6%) with P/LP arrhythmia variants. Compared with noncarriers, arrhythmia P/LP carriers had a significantly higher burden of arrhythmia phenotypes in their electronic health records. Fifty-four participants had variant results returned. Nineteen of these 54 participants had inherited arrhythmia syndrome diagnoses (primarily long-QT syndrome), and 12 of these 19 diagnoses were made only after variant results were returned (0.05%). After in vitro functional evaluation of 50 variants of uncertain significance, we reclassified 11 variants: 3 to likely benign and 8 to P/LP. Conclusions: Genome sequencing in a large population without indication for arrhythmia genetic testing identified phenotype-positive carriers of variants in congenital arrhythmia syndrome disease genes. As the genomes of large numbers of people are sequenced, the disease risk from rare variants in arrhythmia genes can be assessed by integrating genomic screening, electronic health record phenotypes, and in vitro functional studies. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier; NCT03394859.
Abstract 14663: High Rate of Arrhythmia Diagnoses Following Return of Pathogenic/likely Pathogenic Variants in an Unselected Population
Background: Return of incidental genetic findings is recommended for pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in Mendelian arrhythmia genes. The extent to which these variants are associated with arrhythmia phenotypes in unselected populations is unknown. Objective: Assess the impact of return of results (RoR) of P/LP variants in 4 arrhythmia genes in research participants not selected for cardiovascular disease. Methods: The cohort included 24,410 participants from the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network. Rare variants (minor allele frequency <1%) in KCNE1 , KCNH2 , KCNQ1 , and SCN5A were identified and classified according to ACMG guidelines. Arrhythmia phenotypes extracted from electronic health records (EHRs) included atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF/AFL), conduction system disease, long QT syndrome (LQTS), ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF), and premature ventricular contractions (PVCs). P/LP carriers’ phenotypes were compared to non-carriers using logistic regression adjusted for demographic covariates and site. Participants with P/LP variants were informed of their results and the impact of this RoR was assessed after 1 year of follow-up clinical care. Results: The participants included 53.7% females and 72.5% white individuals, with a median age of 57 years. 71 participants had a heterozygous P/LP variant in one of the 4 genes. LQTS diagnoses were associated with P/LP carrier status for all 4 genes ( KCNE1 OR 22.8, p=1.0e-4; KCNH2 OR 35.1, p=1.8e-7; KCNQ1 OR 27.3, p=3.6e-18; SCN5A OR 5.6, p=0.02). Carriers of SCN5A P/LP variants were also more likely to have PVCs (OR 4.3, p=0.003). Sensitivity analyses showed the associations predated the RoR. EHRs included a diagnosis of LQTS or Brugada Syndrome in 11/71 (16%) pre-RoR, and 16 more were diagnosed after RoR (27/71, 38%). A total of 47/71 (66%) participants had a documented arrhythmia phenotype 1 year after RoR, although 20 of these participants were not diagnosed with an inherited arrhythmia syndrome. Conclusion: Inherited arrhythmia diagnoses could be established in nearly half of participants with P/LP variants. These data indicate that return of incidental P/LP variants in these genes may facilitate the early diagnosis of arrhythmias.
Returning negative results from large‐scale genomic screening: Experiences from the eMERGE III network
AbstractPopulation‐based genomic screening has the potential to improve health outcomes by identifying genetic causes of disease before they occur. While much attention has been paid to supporting the needs of the small percentage of patients who will receive a life‐altering positive genomic screening result that requires medical attention, little attention has been given to the communication of negative screening results. As there are currently no best practices for returning negative genomic screening results, we drew on experiences across the electronic medical records and genomics (eMERGE) III Network to highlight the diversity of reporting methods employed, challenges encountered in reporting negative test results, and “lessons learned” across institutions. A 60‐item survey that consisted of both multiple choice and open‐ended questions was created to gather data across institutions. Even though institutions independently developed procedures for reporting negative results, and had very different study populations, we identified several similarities of approach, including but not limited to: returning results by mail, placing results in the electronic health record via an automated process, reporting results to participants' primary care provider, and providing genetic counseling to interested patients at no cost. Differences in procedures for reporting negative results included: differences in terminology used to describe negative results, definitions of negative results, guidance regarding the meaning of negative results for participants and their family members, and recommendations for clinical follow up. Our findings highlight emerging practices for reporting negative genomic screening results and highlight the need to create patient education and clinical support tools for reporting negative screening results.