Biomedical subjects

Emily E Brown

Publications and source records attributed to Emily E Brown.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2026

Care Models for the Genetic Evaluation of Dilated Cardiomyopathy at Sites of the DCM Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Clinical genetic evaluation for patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is minimally implemented, and models of care are not well defined. To understand current genetic care for DCM, a systematic needs assessment was conducted. METHODS: Principal investigators of the DCM Consortium convened at the Summer Scientific Symposium in July 2025. An electronic needs assessment was conducted among the 24 principal investigators in advance to define current care models by evaluating which genetic evaluation components recommended by the Heart Failure Society of America were conducted, by whom, and the time required for each component. Descriptive statistics were generated to characterize model features. Focus group discussions explored barriers and facilitators to implementing genetic services. RESULTS: Four care models emerged from the principal investigator responses: model 1: Traditional-Synchronous (25%, n=6, requiring the most time per patient); model 2: Traditional-Asynchronous (33%, n=8); model 3: Externally Sourced (17%, n=4); and model 4: Physician/Advanced Practice Provider Conducted (25%, n=6, requiring the least time per patient). All models used genetic testing, whereas other components were implemented variably or not at all. Models 1 (15.7±4.1) and 2 (15.4±3.0) were rated more acceptable than model 4 (9.8±2.9; model 1 versus model 4; P=0.027; model 2 versus model 4; P=0.023). Notably, 88% of principal investigators used genetic information for treatment decisions, including implantable cardioverter defibrillator placement (83%; n=20) and cardiac transplantation (63%; n=15). Major facilitator themes from focus group discussions included having a genetic counselor as part of the heart failure team and developing authoritative standards directing provision of DCM genetic services. Barrier themes included operational challenges, limited personnel, clinician under-recognition, need for new service delivery models, and billing/reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: DCM genetic care models and components were highly variable across the 24 sites of the DCM Consortium, although all sites discussed similar factors that enable or hinder the implementation of genetic services for DCM. Understanding the basis of practice model variability may provide insight to yield more scalable care approaches.

cardiomyopathy, dilated↗

PubMed2026

RBM20 Truncating Variants and Human Cardiomyopathy.

IMPORTANCE: Genetic diagnosis has become increasingly important to guide clinical decision-making for patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). Pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) missense variants in the gene RBM20 cause a highly penetrant arrhythmogenic DCM, but the role of RBM20 truncating variants (RBM20tvs) is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To assess the contribution of RBM20 variants to arrhythmogenic DCM. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cohort study, participants in the genome-first UK Biobank (UKB) and All of Us populations were evaluated to assess the etiologic fraction, natural history and penetrance of RBM20 variants. Retrospective data were collected from an international cohort of patients with DCM and RBM20 variants identified at centers of excellence for genetic heart disease and compared based on time to event. Study dates are not disclosed because the institutional review board did not authorize the sharing of this information. EXPOSURES: RBM20 variants were compared to known P/LP variants and variants of uncertain significance in RBM20 as well as titin truncating variants (TTNtvs). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Major ventricular arrhythmias, end-stage heart failure, and heart failure hospitalization as measured by medical record review (retrospective cohort) and diagnostic codes (UKB). RESULTS: Two main cohorts were studied for this project. In UK Biobank, a cohort of participants with RBM20tvs, RBM20 synonymous variants, and TTNtvs was studied. Of these 4249 participants, 1869 (44%) were male. The mean (SD) age at enrollment was 56 (8.2) years. In the RBM20 registry, of 179 patients, 105 (58.6%) were male, and the mean (SD) age at enrollment was 43.8 (19.1) years. A validation cohort from the All of Us biobank was also used. This consisted of 7002 participants, 4342 of whom (62.0%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 52.7 (16.7) years. The etiologic fraction of RBM20 variants in arrhythmogenic DCM was 0.53 (95% CI, 0.32-0.67; P < .001). In genome-first biobanks, lifetime incidence of cardiomyopathy, heart failure, or major ventricular arrhythmia diagnosis was lower in participants with RBM20 variants than in those with TTNtvs (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.84; P < .001). Patients with RBM20tvs and DCM presented to referral centers later in life than those with P/LP RBM20 and DCM (mean [SD], 53 [10] vs 34 [18] years; P < .001) and were less likely to have a family history of sudden cardiac arrest (2 of 10 [20%] vs 11 of 17 [65%]; P = .046) or cardiomyopathy (2 of 10 [20%] vs 14 of 18 [78%]; P < .001). There was no significant difference in age- and sex-adjusted incident major heart failure or arrhythmia events between patients with RBM20tv and DCM or those with P/LP RBM20 and DCM, though sex-adjusted lifetime hazard was reduced in those with RBM20tv and DCM (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03-0.56; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study found that RBM20 variants contributed to arrhythmogenic DCM phenotypes but conferred reduced lifetime disease penetrance compared to TTNtvs and milder disease severity alone than P/LP RBM20 variants. Their potential for additive interactions with other damaging variants should be considered in patients with DCM and their families.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Care Models for the Genetic Evaluation of Dilated Cardiomyopathy at Sites of the DCM Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Clinical genetic evaluation for patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is minimally implemented and models of care are not defined. To understand current genetics care for DCM, a systematic needs assessment was conducted. METHODS: Principal Investigators (PIs) of the DCM Consortium convened at the Summer Scientific Symposium in July 2025. An electronic needs assessment was collected from the 24 PIs in advance to define current care models by evaluating which Heart Failure Society of America-recommended genetic evaluation components are conducted, by whom, and time required. Descriptive statistics were generated to characterize model features. Focus group discussions explored barriers and facilitators to implementing genetic services. RESULTS: Four care models emerged from the PI responses: 1 - Traditional-Synchronous (25%, n=6, requiring the most time per patient), 2 - Traditional-Asynchronous (33%, n=8), 3 - Externally Sourced (17%, n=4), and 4 - Physician/Advanced Practice Provider Conducted (25%, n=6, requiring the least time per patient). All models used genetic testing, whereas other components were implemented variably or not at all. Models 1 (15.7±4.1) and 2 (15.4±3.0) were rated more acceptable than Model 4 (9.8±2.9; 1 vs 4: p=0.027; 2 vs 4, p=0.023). Notably, 88% of PIs used genetic information for treatment decisions, including ICD placement (83%; n=20) or cardiac transplant (63%; n=15). Major facilitator themes from focus group discussions included having a genetic counselor on the HF team and developing authoritative standards directing provision of DCM genetic services. Barrier themes included operational challenges, limited personnel, clinician under-recognition, need for new service delivery models, and billing/reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: DCM genetic care models and components were highly variable across the 24 sites of the DCM Consortium, even though all sites discussed similar factors that enable or hinder implementing genetic services for DCM. Understanding the basis of practice model variability may provide insight to yield more scalable care approaches.

clinical genetics↗