IMPORTANCE Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is the most common inherited cardiovascular disease and carries significant morbidity and mortality risks. Genetic testing can identify affected individuals, but some array-based assays screen only a small subset of known pathogenic variants.OBJECTIVE To identify the number of clinically significant variants associated with FH that would be missed by an array-based, limited-variant screen when compared with next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based comprehensive testing. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis cross-sectional study compared comprehensive genetic test results for clinically significant variants associated with FH with results for a subset of 24 variants screened by a limited-variant array. Data were deidentified next-generation sequencing results from indication-based or proactive gene panels. Individuals receiving next-generation sequencing-based genetic testing, either for an FH indication between November 2015 and June 2020 or as proactive health screening between February 2016 and June 2020 were included. Ancestry was reported by clinicians who could select from preset options or enter free text on the test requisition form. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESNumber of pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants identified. RESULTSThis study included 4563 individuals who were referred for FH diagnostic testing and 6482 individuals who received next-generation sequencing of FH-associated genes as part of a proactive genetic test. Among individuals in the indication cohort, the median (interquartile range) age at testing was 49 (32-61) years, 55.4% (2528 of 4563) were female, and 63.6% (2902 of 4563) were self-reported White/Caucasian. In the indication cohort, the positive detection rate would have been 8.4% (382 of 4563) for a limited-variant screen compared with the 27.0% (1230 of 4563) observed with the next-generation sequencing-based comprehensive test. As a result, 68.9% (848 of 1230) of individuals with a P/LP finding in an FH-associated gene would have been missed by the limited screen. The potential for missed findings in the indication cohort varied by ancestry; among individuals with a P/LP finding, 93.7% (59 of 63) of self-reported Black/African American individuals and 84.7% (122 of 144) of Hispanic individuals would have been missed by the limited-variant screen, compared with 33.3% (4 of 12) of Ashkenazi Jewish individuals. In the proactive cohort, the prevalence of clinically significant FH variants was approximately 1:191 per the comprehensive test, and 61.8% (21 of 34) of individuals with an FH-associated P/LP finding would have been missed by a limited-variant screen.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Limited-variant screens may falsely reassure the majority of individuals at risk for FH that they do not carry a disease-causing variant, especially individuals of self-reported Black/African American and Hispanic ancestry.

Background The use of proactive genetic screening for disease prevention and early detection is not yet widespread. Professional practice guidelines from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) have encouraged reporting pathogenic variants that confer personal risk for actionable monogenic hereditary disorders, but only as secondary findings from exome or genome sequencing. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recognizes the potential public health impact of three Tier 1 actionable disorders. Here, we report results of a large multi-center cohort study to determine the yield and potential value of screening healthy individuals for variants associated with a broad range of actionable monogenic disorders, outside the context of secondary findings. Methods Eligible adults were offered a proactive genetic screening test by health care providers in a variety of clinical settings. The screening panel based on next-generation sequencing contained up to 147 genes associated with monogenic disorders within cancer, cardiovascular, and other important clinical areas. Sequence and intragenic copy number variants classified as pathogenic, likely pathogenic, pathogenic (low penetrance), or increased risk allele were considered clinically significant and reported. Results were analyzed by clinical area and severity/burden of disease using chi-square tests without Yates’ correction. Results Among 10,478 unrelated adults screened, 1619 (15.5%) had results indicating personal risk for an actionable monogenic disorder. In contrast, only 3.1 to 5.2% had clinically reportable variants in genes suggested by the ACMG version 2 secondary findings list to be examined during exome or genome sequencing, and 2% had reportable variants related to CDC Tier 1 conditions. Among patients, 649 (6.2%) were positive for a genotype associated with a disease of high severity/burden, including hereditary cancer syndromes, cardiovascular disorders, or malignant hyperthermia susceptibility. Conclusions This is one of the first real-world examples of specialists and primary care providers using genetic screening with a multi-gene panel to identify health risks in their patients. Nearly one in six individuals screened for variants associated with actionable monogenic disorders had clinically significant results. These findings provide a foundation for further studies to assess the role of genetic screening as part of regular medical care.

Advances in DNA sequencing have made large, diagnostic gene panels affordable and efficient. Broad adoption of such panels has begun to deliver on the promises of personalized medicine, but has also brought new challenges such as the presence of unexpected results, or results of uncertain clinical significance. Genetic analysis of inherited cardiac conditions is particularly challenging due to the extensive genetic heterogeneity underlying cardiac phenotypes, and the overlapping, variable, and incompletely penetrant nature of their clinical presentations. The design of effective diagnostic tests and the effective use of the results depend on a clear understanding of the relationship between each gene and each considered condition. To address these issues, we developed simple, systematic approaches to three fundamental challenges: (1) evaluating the strength of the evidence suggesting that a particular condition is caused by pathogenic variants in a particular gene, (2) evaluating whether unusual genotype/phenotype observations represent a plausible expansion of clinical phenotype associated with a gene, and (3) establishing a molecular diagnostic strategy to capture overlapping clinical presentations. These approaches focus on the systematic evaluation of the pathogenicity of variants identified in clinically affected individuals, and the natural history of disease in those individuals. Here, we applied these approaches to the evaluation of more than 100 genes reported to be associated with inherited cardiomyopathies and arrhythmias including hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, dilated cardiomyopathy, arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia or cardiomyopathy, long QT syndrome, short QT syndrome, Brugada, and catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia, and to a set of related syndromes such as Noonan Syndrome and Fabry disease. These approaches provide a framework for delivering meaningful and accurate genetic test results to individuals with hereditary cardiac conditions.

No abstract

No abstract