Patient Perspectives on the Learning Health System: The Importance of Trust and Shared Decision Making

We conducted focus groups to assess patient attitudes toward research on medical practices in the context of usual care. We found that patients focus on the implications of this research for their relationship with and trust in their physicians. Patients view research on medical practices as separate from usual care, demanding dissemination of information and in most cases, individual consent. Patients expect information about this research to come through their physician, whom they rely on to identify and filter associated risks. In general, patients support this research, but worry that participation in research involving randomization may undermine individualized care that acknowledges their unique medical histories. These findings suggest the need for public education on variation in practice among physicians and the need for a collaborative approach to the governance of research on medical practices that addresses core values of trust, transparency, and partnership.

Parental permission for pilot newborn screening research: guidelines from the NBSTRN

There is broad recognition of the need for population-based research to assess the safety and efficacy of newborn screening (NBS) for conditions that are not on current panels. However, prospective population-based research poses significant ethical, regulatory, and logistical challenges. In the context of NBS, there have been a variety of approaches that address parental decision-making in pilot studies of new screening tests or conditions. This article presents an ethical and legal analysis of the role of parental permission by the Bioethics and Legal Work Group of the Newborn Screening Translational Research Network created under a contract from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Circumstances are outlined in which a waiver of documentation of permission or a waiver of permission may be ethically and legally appropriate in the NBS context. These guidelines do not constitute American Academy of Pediatrics policy.

Li-Fraumeni syndrome: report of a clinical research workshop and creation of a research consortium

Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) is a rare dominantly inherited cancer predisposition syndrome that was first described in 1969. In most families, it is caused by germline mutations in the TP53 gene and is characterized by early onset of multiple specific cancers and very high lifetime cumulative cancer risk. Despite significant progress in understanding the molecular biology of TP53, the optimal clinical management of this syndrome is poorly defined. We convened a workshop on November 2, 2010, at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, bringing together clinicians and scientists, as well as individuals from families with LFS, to review the state of the science, address clinical management issues, stimulate collaborative research, and engage the LFS family community. This workshop also led to the creation of the Li-Fraumeni Exploration (LiFE) Research Consortium.

Comment on "Multidimensional results reporting to participants in genomic studies: getting it right"

Bookman et al. write to correct the impression given in the Commentary by Kohane and Taylor that the recommendations of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Working Group "Reporting Genetic Results in Research Studies" included advice to return genetic information to research subjects only in cases where there is a proven or preventative intervention for the identified disorder. In fact, the report does recommend that genetic information be returned to subjects when there is an intervention available, but it does not recommend against giving this kind of information to subjects if there is no available intervention.

From genetics to genomics: ethics, policy, and parental decision-making

OBJECTIVE

Ethical evaluation of genetic testing in children is traditionally based on balancing clinical benefits and risks. However, this focus can be inconsistent with the general practice of respecting parental decision-making about their children's health care. We argue that respect for parental decision-making should play a larger role in shaping pediatric genetic testing practices, and play a similar role regarding decisions to use emerging genomic technologies.

METHODS

Genomic testing involves the examination of thousands of DNA markers spanning genes throughout the genome and their interrelationships, yielding virtually limitless interpretations. We presume that parents and providers should proceed cautiously in applying genomic testing in children, as we explore how genomic testing will stress the fault lines of the traditional ethical analysis.

RESULTS

Empirical data about the psychosocial risks and benefits of genetic testing of children do not reveal serious harms, yet virtually no such data exist yet about genomic testing. Unless empirical social and behavioral data indicate that genomic testing is highly likely to cause serious harms to the children, parental decisions to obtain comprehensive genomic testing in their children should be respected. Once comprehensive genomic testing of children becomes routine, resultant information may be more easily integrated by families than anticipated.

CONCLUSIONS

Research on the social and behavioral impact of comprehensive genomic testing on children and their families is needed to further inform parents, clinicians, and policy makers.

Genetic and environmental risk assessment for colorectal cancer risk in primary care practice settings: a pilot study

PURPOSE

The assessment of genetic variants and environmental exposures (i.e., genetic and environmental risk assessment) may permit individualized risk stratification for common diseases as part of routine care. A pilot study was conducted to assess the uptake of, and response to, testing for colorectal cancer risk among average risk patients in primary care practice settings.

METHODS

Physicians in primary care practices identified patients eligible for colorectal cancer screening and referred them to the study. Research staff administered a baseline survey to consenting patients. At a scheduled office visit, participants underwent decision counseling with a trained nurse educator to facilitate informed decision making about being tested for methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase status and red blood cell folate level. Combined assessment can stratify colorectal cancer risk. Test results were disclosed within 2 weeks after the visit. Postvisit and 1-month endpoint surveys were administered. Univariable analyses of survey data were performed to assess changes from baseline in genetic and environmental risk assessment and colorectal cancer screening-related knowledge and perceptions.

RESULTS

Of the 57 patients who were referred to the study, 25 (44%) consented to participate, and all but one were tested. Participant knowledge about genetic and environmental risk assessment and colorectal cancer screening, perceived colorectal cancer screening response efficacy, and perceived social support for colorectal cancer screening increased significantly from baseline. Participants reported low levels of intrusive thoughts about CRC.

CONCLUSION

Knowledge and favorable perceptions of colorectal cancer screening increased, as did knowledge about genetic and environmental risk assessment, after exposure to the study intervention. Further research is needed to assess genetic and environmental risk assessment uptake and impact at the population level.

Reporting genetic results in research studies: summary and recommendations of an NHLBI working group

Prospective epidemiologic studies aid in identifying genetic variants associated with diseases, health risks, and physiologic traits. These genetic variants may eventually be measured clinically for purposes of diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. As evidence of the potential clinical value of such information accrues, research studies face growing pressure to report these results to study participants or their physicians, even before sufficient evidence is available to support widespread screening of asymptomatic persons. There is thus a need to begin to develop consensus on whether and when genetic findings should be reported to participants in research studies. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) convened a Working Group on Reporting Genetic Results in Research Studies to discuss if, when, and how genetic information should be reported to study participants. The Working Group concluded that genetic test results should be reported to study participants when the associated risk for the disease is significant; the disease has important health implications such as premature death or substantial morbidity or has significant reproductive implications; and proven therapeutic or preventive interventions are available. Finally, the Working Group recommended procedures for reporting genetic research results and encouraged increased efforts to create uniform guidelines for this activity.

Institutional review board practices regarding assent in pediatric research

OBJECTIVE

To assess how Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) implement the assent requirement for research with children.

METHODS

Telephone interviews were conducted with 188 chairpersons of IRBs from a range of institutions nationwide. Respondents were queried on 4 topics: 1) which children are considered capable of assent, 2) which information investigators must provide pediatric research subjects, 3) whether IRBs favor the enrollment of children who are capable of assent, and 4) how chairpersons view payment for children's research participation.

RESULTS

Half of IRBs have a method that they require investigators to follow when determining which children are capable of assent, most commonly an age cutoff. Half of IRBs do not have a method, and the majority rely on investigators' clinical judgment. IRBs largely follow the adult research regulations when determining which information should be provided to an assenting child. A total of 58% of IRBs would enroll a child who is incapable of assent in a nonbeneficial study, even if children who are capable of assent could be enrolled instead. Almost half (46%) of chairpersons believe that it sometimes or always acceptable to offer incentive payments to children, and more than one third (35%) thought it acceptable to offer payment to the parents.

CONCLUSION

When possible, IRBs follow the federal regulations for research with adults when implementing the assent requirement. For considerations that do not have analogs in the adult regulations, IRB practices vary widely. These data suggest that IRBs need guidance on how to implement the assent requirement in a way that provides appropriate protections for pediatric research subjects.

How do institutional review boards apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric research?

CONTEXT

Federal regulations allow children in the United States to be enrolled in clinical research only when the institutional review board (IRB) determines that the risks are minimal or a minor increase over minimal, or that the research offers a prospect of direct benefit. Despite this reliance on IRBs, no data exist on how IRBs apply the risk and benefit categories for pediatric research.

OBJECTIVE

To determine how IRB chairpersons apply the federal risk and benefit categories for pediatric research.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Telephone survey, conducted between May and August 2002 of 188 randomly selected chairpersons of IRBs in the Unites States. The survey consisted of 21 questions to assess the application of federal risk standards to research procedures, whether certain interventions offer a prospect of direct benefit to participating children, and the extent to which IRBs use the federal definition of minimal risk when categorizing the risks of research procedures in children.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Responses regarding categorization of the risk level and direct benefits of pediatric research procedures.

RESULTS

A single blood draw was the only procedure categorized as minimal risk by a majority (152 or 81%) of the 188 respondents. An electromyogram was categorized as minimal or a minor increase over minimal risk by 100 (53%) and as more than a minor increase over minimal risk by 77 (41%). Allergy skin testing was categorized as minimal risk by 43 IRB chairpersons (23%), a minor increase over minimal risk by 81 (43%), and more than a minor increase over minimal risk by 51 (27%). Regarding benefits, 113 chairpersons (60%) considered added psychological counseling to be a direct benefit, while participant payment was considered a direct benefit by 10% (n = 19).

CONCLUSIONS

Application of the federal risk and benefit categories for pediatric research by IRB chairpersons is variable and sometimes contradicted by the available data on risks and the regulations themselves. To protect children from excessive risks while allowing appropriate research, IRB chairpersons need guidance on applying the federal risk and benefit categories and also need data on the risks children face in daily life and during routine physical or psychological tests.

Ethical assessment of clinical asthma trials including children subjects

BACKGROUND

The inclusion of children with asthma in clinical asthma trials is increasing, including their participation in placebo-controlled trials (PCTs). The objectives of this study are to assess whether children with asthma have been harmed by their participation in PCTs.

METHODS

Seventy clinical asthma trials involving children published between January 1998 and December 2001 that involved distinct US research populations were identified. Studies were reviewed to determine whether all subjects with more than mild asthma received daily antiinflammatory medication as recommended by national guidelines. Sixty-two clinical asthma trials included data about subject withdrawal and were analyzed for the frequency of asthma exacerbations.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies were designed as PCTs and did not require that all subjects with more than mild asthma receive antiinflammatory medications. Of 24,953 subjects, 4653 (19%) for whom data are available withdrew from research, and 1247 subjects (9.4%) withdrew from PCTs due to asthma exacerbations compared with 358 subjects (3.1%) in other trials. In PCTs, subjects withdrew more frequently from the placebo arms than the active-treatment arms and did so more frequently because of an asthma exacerbation (667 or 15% vs 580 or 6.5%). Fifty-two studies enrolled both children and adults, although only 1 performed subset analysis of the children.

CONCLUSIONS

Subjects enrolled in PCTs of asthma have been exposed to unnecessary risks and harms. Clinical asthma trials involving children and adults do not benefit children as a class because they rarely provide subset analysis of children subjects.

Descriptions of benefits and risks in consent forms for phase 1 oncology trials

BACKGROUND

Ethicists have suggested that written consent forms encourage participants in phase 1 cancer trials to expect benefit from the experimental agent and to overlook serious risks.

METHODS

To evaluate the written description of direct benefit as well as risk, all consent forms for 1999 phase 1 cancer trials were compiled from 80 percent of the National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers and from six of eight large pharmaceutical developers of anticancer drugs. In each case, we evaluated the characteristics of the trial, the descriptions of the purpose and procedures of the research, the promise of benefit, the description of risks, and the description of alternatives.

RESULTS

Of 272 forms, 268 explicitly mentioned that the trial was research, and 249 stated that the purpose of the trial was testing for safety. Nearly all forms (269) mentioned the right to withdraw from the trial. Almost all forms (260) referred to the experimental agent as "treatment" or "therapy." Only one consent form promised direct benefit to subjects. Most forms (181) mentioned death as a risk, and very few (14) mentioned cure as even a possible benefit. Most (229) stated that there was unknown risk involved and indicated that severe or permanent harms were possible (224).

CONCLUSIONS

Consent forms for phase 1 oncology studies almost never promise direct benefit to subjects, rarely mention cure, and usually communicate the seriousness and unpredictability of risk. Although there is room for improvement, the substance of these forms is unlikely to be the primary source of misunderstanding by subjects in phase 1 oncology trials.

Does the current consent process minimize the risks of genetics research?

Completion of the human genome project is expected to lead to an increase in the number of individuals who participate in genetics research. The current informed consent process-developed prior to widespread genetics research-may not be sufficient to minimize the research risks that these individuals face. The current consent process focuses on informing individuals of the risks of research participation prior to their research enrollment. However, the risks of genetics research often are influenced by what subjects disclose to others after their research participation has ended. To assess whether the current consent process helps subjects remember the risks of future disclosures and, thereby, minimize the risks of genetics research, we interviewed 130 individuals who had previously participated in genetics research. Nineteen percent recalled that their samples would undergo genetic testing; 16% recalled that samples might be used for future research; 15% recalled that release of research records could affect their insurance status. These data suggest that current consent practices may not minimize the risks of genetics research. To address this concern, Institutional Review Boards and investigators should consider implementing supplemental mechanisms to help subjects remember when forgetting aspects of their research participation could place them at increased risk.

Ethical issues in cystic fibrosis newborn screening: from data to public health policy

Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis (CF) remains controversial largely because its implementation is less a scientific decision than a resolution of different and often conflicting normative values that underlie the policy issues framing the debate. This article summarizes the literature published between May 2001 and April 2002 (and relevant earlier literature) regarding the screening and treatment goals, clinical benefits and harms, and programmatic and ethical issues. Finally, we will present an analysis to argue for one set of ethical considerations that point to very specific policy recommendations that would justify CF newborn screening in certain circumstances and make its implementation more ethically appropriate.

Unintended messages: the ethics of teaching genetic dilemmas

Bioethicists teaching and writing about the uses of prenatal genetic testing sometimes use "difficult cases" in which people with a disability want to test and select for the presence of their disability. Such cases challenge our stereotypes but also play into them.

Gene-expression profiles in hereditary breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Many cases of hereditary breast cancer are due to mutations in either the BRCA1 or the BRCA2 gene. The histopathological changes in these cancers are often characteristic of the mutant gene. We hypothesized that the genes expressed by these two types of tumors are also distinctive, perhaps allowing us to identify cases of hereditary breast cancer on the basis of gene-expression profiles.

METHODS

RNA from samples of primary tumor from seven carriers of the BRCA1 mutation, seven carriers of the BRCA2 mutation, and seven patients with sporadic cases of breast cancer was compared with a microarray of 6512 complementary DNA clones of 5361 genes. Statistical analyses were used to identify a set of genes that could distinguish the BRCA1 genotype from the BRCA2 genotype.

RESULTS

Permutation analysis of multivariate classification functions established that the gene-expression profiles of tumors with BRCA1 mutations, tumors with BRCA2 mutations, and sporadic tumors differed significantly from each other. An analysis of variance between the levels of gene expression and the genotype of the samples identified 176 genes that were differentially expressed in tumors with BRCA1 mutations and tumors with BRCA2 mutations. Given the known properties of some of the genes in this panel, our findings indicate that there are functional differences between breast tumors with BRCA1 mutations and those with BRCA2 mutations.

CONCLUSIONS

Significantly different groups of genes are expressed by breast cancers with BRCA1 mutations and breast cancers with BRCA2 mutations. Our results suggest that a heritable mutation influences the gene-expression profile of the cancer.

Genetic testing for susceptibility to adult-onset cancer. The process and content of informed consent

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidance on informed consent to clinicians offering cancer susceptibility testing.

PARTICIPANTS

The Task Force on Informed Consent is part of the Cancer Genetics Studies Consortium (CGSC), whose members were recipients of National Institutes of Health grants to assess the implications of cancer susceptibility testing. The 10 task force members represent a range of relevant backgrounds, including various medical specialties, social science, genetic counseling, and consumer advocacy.

EVIDENCE

The CGSC held 3 public meetings from 1994 to 1996. At its first meeting, the task force jointly established a list of topics. The cochairs (G.G. and J.R.B) then developed an outline and assigned each topic to an appropriate writer and reviewer. Writers summarized the literature on their topics and drafted recommendations, which were then revised by the reviewers. The cochairs compiled and edited the entire manuscript. All members were involved in writing this report.

CONSENSUS PROCESS

The first draft was distributed to task force members, after which a meeting was held to discuss its content and organization. Consensus was reached by voting. A subsequent draft was presented to the entire CGSC at its third meeting, and comments were incorporated.

CONCLUSIONS

The task force recommends that informed consent for cancer susceptibility testing be an ongoing process of education and counseling in which (1) providers elicit participant, family, and community values and disclose their own, (2) decision making is shared, (3) the style of information disclosure is individualized, and (4) specific content areas are discussed.

Incorporating biomarkers of exposure and genetic susceptibility into smoking cessation treatment: effects on smoking-related cognitions, emotions, and behavior change

In this article the authors report on the short-term impact of incorporating biomarker feedback about exposure and genetic susceptibility into minimal-contact quit-smoking counseling (QSC). Four hundred and twenty-seven smokers were randomized to 1 of 3 treatments: (a) QSC, (b) QSC + exposure biomarker feedback (EBF) about carbon monoxide in exhaled breath, or (b) QSC + EBF + biomarker feedback about genetic susceptibility to lung cancer (SBF). We observed significant immediate positive effects of SBF, compared with EBF and QSC on perceived risk, perceived quitting benefits, and fear arousal. However, at the 2-month follow-up, there were no group differences in quit rates. SBF did lead to significant reductions in the number of cigarettes smoked for smokers who were in the preparation stage. Smokers in the EBF and QSC conditions showed reductions in depressive symptoms by 2 months, but smokers in the SBF condition did not. In the context of QSC, genetic feedback may heighten vulnerability and possibly promote distress, but may not immediately enhance quitting in most smokers.