Although awareness of familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is increasing, this common, potentially fatal, treatable condition remains underdiagnosed. Despite FH being a genetic disorder, genetic testing is rarely used. The Familial Hypercholesterolemia Foundation convened an international expert panel to assess the utility of FH genetic testing. The rationale includes the following: 1) facilitation of definitive diagnosis; 2) pathogenic variants indicate higher cardiovascular risk, which indicates the potential need for more aggressive lipid lowering; 3) increase in initiation of and adherence to therapy; and 4) cascade testing of at-risk relatives. The Expert Consensus Panel recommends that FH genetic testing become the standard of care for patients with definite or probable FH, as well as for their at-risk relatives. Testing should include the genes encoding the low-density lipoprotein receptor (LDLR), apolipoprotein B (APOB), and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9); other genes may also need to be considered for analysis based on patient phenotype. Expected outcomes include greater diagnoses, more effective cascade testing, initiation of therapies at earlier ages, and more accurate risk stratification.

Background: Long QT syndrome (LQTS) is the first described and most common inherited arrhythmia. Over the last 25 years, multiple genes have been reported to cause this condition and are routinely tested in patients. Because of dramatic changes in our understanding of human genetic variation, reappraisal of reported genetic causes for LQTS is required. Methods: Utilizing an evidence-based framework, 3 gene curation teams blinded to each other’s work scored the level of evidence for 17 genes reported to cause LQTS. A Clinical Domain Channelopathy Working Group provided a final classification of these genes for causation of LQTS after assessment of the evidence scored by the independent curation teams. Results: Of 17 genes reported as being causative for LQTS, 9 ( AKAP9, ANK2, CAV3, KCNE1, KCNE2, KCNJ2, KCNJ5, SCN4B, SNTA1 ) were classified as having limited or disputed evidence as LQTS-causative genes. Only 3 genes ( KCNQ1, KCNH2, SCN5A ) were curated as definitive genes for typical LQTS. Another 4 genes ( CALM1, CALM2, CALM3, TRDN ) were found to have strong or definitive evidence for causality in LQTS with atypical features, including neonatal atrioventricular block. The remaining gene ( CACNA1C ) had moderate level evidence for causing LQTS. Conclusions: More than half of the genes reported as causing LQTS have limited or disputed evidence to support their disease causation. Genetic variants in these genes should not be used for clinical decision-making, unless accompanied by new and sufficient genetic evidence. The findings of insufficient evidence to support gene-disease associations may extend to other disciplines of medicine and warrants a contemporary evidence-based evaluation for previously reported disease-causing genes to ensure their appropriate use in precision medicine.

Advances in human genetics are improving the understanding of a variety of inherited cardiovascular diseases, including cardiomyopathies, arrhythmic disorders, vascular disorders, and lipid disorders such as familial hypercholesterolemia. However, not all cardiovascular practitioners are fully aware of the utility and potential pitfalls of incorporating genetic test results into the care of patients and their families. This statement summarizes current best practices with respect to genetic testing and its implications for the management of inherited cardiovascular diseases.

Key Points Question Can population-level genomic screening identify those at risk for disease? Findings In this cross-sectional study of an unselected population cohort of 50 726 adults who underwent exome sequencing, pathogenic and likely pathogenic BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants were found in a higher proportion of patients than was previously reported. Meaning Current methods to identify BRCA1/2 variant carriers may not be sufficient as a screening tool; population genomic screening for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer may better identify patients at high risk and provide an intervention opportunity to reduce mortality and morbidity.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

No abstract

Cascade screening is the process of contacting relatives of people who have been diagnosed with certain hereditary conditions. Its purpose is to identify, inform, and manage those who are also at risk. We conducted a scoping review to obtain a broad overview of cascade screening interventions, facilitators and barriers to their use, relevant policy considerations, and future research needs. We searched for relevant peer-reviewed literature in the period 1990-2017 and reviewed 122 studies. Finally, we described 45 statutes and regulations related to the use and release of genetic information across the fifty states. We sought standardized best practices for optimizing cascade screening across various geographic and policy contexts, but we found none. Studies in which trained providers contacted relatives directly, rather than through probands (index patients), showed greater cascade screening uptake; however, policies in some states might limit this approach. Major barriers to cascade screening delivery include suboptimal communication between the proband and family and geographic barriers to obtaining genetic services. Few US studies examined interventions for cascade screening or used rigorous study designs such as randomized controlled trials. Moving forward, there remains an urgent need to conduct rigorous intervention studies on cascade screening in diverse US populations, while accounting for state policy considerations.

A barrier to incorporating genomics more broadly is limited access to providers with genomics expertise. Chatbots are a technology‐based simulated conversation used in scaling communications. Geisinger and Clear Genetics, Inc. have developed chatbots to facilitate communication with participants receiving clinically actionable genetic variants from the MyCode® Community Health Initiative (MyCode®). The consent chatbot walks patients through the consent allowing them to opt to receive more or less detail on key topics (goals, benefits, risks, etc.). The follow‐up chatbot reminds participants of suggested actions following result receipt and the cascade chatbot can be sent to at‐risk relatives by participants to share their genetic test results and facilitate cascade testing. To explore the acceptability, usability, and understanding of the study consent, post‐result follow‐up and cascade testing chatbots, we conducted six focus groups with MyCode® participants. Sixty‐two individuals participated in a focus group (n = 33 consent chatbot, n = 29 follow‐up and cascade chatbot). Participants were mostly female (n = 42, 68%), Caucasian (n = 58, 94%), college‐educated (n = 33,53%), retirees (n = 38, 61%), and of age 56 years or older (n = 52, 84%). Few participants reported that they knew what a chatbot was (n = 10, 16%), and a small number reported that they had used a chatbot (n = 5, 8%). Qualitative analysis of transcripts and notes from focus groups revealed four main themes: (a) overall impressions, (b) suggested improvements, (c) concerns and limitations, and (d) implementation. Participants supported using chatbots to consent for genomics research and to interact with healthcare providers for care coordination following receipt of genomic results. Most expressed willingness to use a chatbot to share genetic information with relatives. The consent chatbot presents an engaging alternative to deliver content challenging to comprehend in traditional paper or in‐person consent. The cascade and follow‐up chatbots may be acceptable, user‐friendly, scalable approaches to manage ancillary genetic counseling tasks.