Use of genetic risks in pediatric organ transplantation listing decisions: A national survey

There is a limited supply of organs for all those who need them for survival. Thus, careful decisions must be made about who is listed for transplant. Studies show that manifesting genetic disease can impact listing eligibility. What has not yet been studied is the impact genetic risks for future disease have on a patient's chance to be listed. Surveys were emailed to 163 pediatric liver, heart, and kidney transplant programs across the United States to elicit views and experiences of key clinicians regarding each program's use of genetic risks (ie, predispositions, positive predictive testing) in listing decisions. Response rate was 42%. Sixty-four percent of programs have required genetic testing for specific indications prior to listing decisions. Sixteen percent have required it without specific indications, suggesting that genetic testing may be used to screen candidates. Six percent have chosen not to list patients with secondary findings or family histories of genetic conditions. In hypothetical scenarios, programs consider cancer predispositions and adult-onset neurological conditions to be relative contraindications to listing (61%, 17%, and 8% depending on scenario), and some consider them absolute contraindications (5% and 3% depending on scenario). Only 3% of programs have formal policies for these scenarios, but all consult genetic specialists at least "sometimes" for results interpretation. Our study reveals that pediatric transplant programs are using future onset genetic risks in listing decisions. As genetic testing is increasingly adopted into pediatric medicine, further study is needed to prevent possible inappropriate use of genetic information from impacting listing eligibility.

Privacy and ethical challenges in next-generation sequencing

INTRODUCTION

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is expected to revolutionize health care. NGS allows for sequencing of the whole genome more cheaply and quickly than previous techniques. NGS offers opportunities to advance medical diagnostics and treatments, but also raises complicated ethical questions that need to be addressed.

AREAS CONSIDERED

This article draws from the literature on research and clinical ethics, as well as next-generation sequencing, in order to provide an overview of the ethical challenges involved in next-generation sequencing. This article includes a discussion of the ethics of NGS in research and clinical contexts.

EXPERT OPINION

The use of NGS in clinical and research contexts has features that pose challenges for traditional ethical frameworks for protecting research participants and patients. NGS generates massive amounts of data and results that vary in terms of known clinical relevance. It is important to determine appropriate processes for protecting, managing and communicating the data. The use of machine learning for sequencing and interpretation of genomic data also raises concerns in terms of the potential for bias and potential implications for fiduciary obligations. NGS poses particular challenges in three main ethical areas: privacy, informed consent, and return of results.

"I don't want to be Henrietta Lacks": diverse patient perspectives on donating biospecimens for precision medicine research

Purpose

To determine whether patients distinguish between biospecimens and electronic health records (EHRs) when considering research participation to inform research protections.

Methods

We conducted 20 focus groups with individuals who identified as African American, Hispanic, Chinese, South Asian and non-Hispanic White on the collection of biospecimens and EHR data for research.

Results

Our study found that many participants did not distinguish between biospecimens and EHR data. However, some participants identified specific concerns about biospecimens. These included the need for special care and respect for biospecimens due to enduring connections between the body and identity; the potential for unacceptable future research, specifically the prospect of human cloning; heightened privacy risks; and the potential for unjust corporate profiteering. Among those who distinguished biospecimens from EHR data, many supported separate consent processes and would limit their own participation to EHR data.

Conclusion

Considering that the potential misuse of EHR data is as great, if not greater than for biospecimens, more research is needed to understand how attitudes differ between biospecimens and EHR data across diverse populations. Such research should explore mechanisms beyond consent that can address diverse values, perspectives and misconceptions about sources of patient information to build trust in research relationships.

Ethical Challenges Confronted When Providing Nusinersen Treatment for Spinal Muscular Atrophy

The US Food and Drug Administration's December 2016 approval of nusinersen for the treatment of patients with all subtypes of spinal muscular atrophy ushered in a new era for patients with spinal muscular atrophy, their families, and all those involved in their care. The extreme cost of the medication and the complicated logistical requirements for administering nusinersen via lumbar puncture have created practical challenges that raise important ethical considerations. We discuss 6 challenges faced at the institutional level in the United States: cost, limited evidence, informed consent, treatment allocation, fair distribution of responsibilities, and transparency with stakeholders. These challenges must be understood to ensure that patients with spinal muscular atrophy benefit from treatment, are protected from harm, and are treated fairly.

Challenges to code status discussions for pediatric patients

Objectives

In the context of serious or life-limiting illness, pediatric patients and their families are faced with difficult decisions surrounding appropriate resuscitation efforts in the event of a cardiopulmonary arrest. Code status orders are one way to inform end-of-life medical decision making. The objectives of this study are to evaluate the extent to which pediatric providers have knowledge of code status options and explore the association of provider role with (1) knowledge of code status options, (2) perception of timing of code status discussions, (3) perception of family receptivity to code status discussions, and (4) comfort carrying out code status discussions.

Design

Nurses, trainees (residents and fellows), and attending physicians from pediatric units where code status discussions typically occur completed a short survey questionnaire regarding their knowledge of code status options and perceptions surrounding code status discussions.

Setting

Single center, quaternary care children’s hospital.

Measurements and main results

203 nurses, 31 trainees, and 29 attending physicians in 4 high-acuity pediatric units responded to the survey (N = 263, 90% response rate). Based on an objective knowledge measure, providers demonstrate poor understanding of available code status options, with only 22% of providers able to enumerate more than two of four available code status options. In contrast, provider groups self-report high levels of familiarity with available code status options, with attending physicians reporting significantly higher levels than nurses and trainees (p = 0.0125). Nurses and attending physicians show significantly different perception of code status discussion timing, with majority of nurses (63.4%) perceiving discussions as occurring “too late” or “much too late” and majority of attending physicians (55.6%) perceiving the timing as “about right” (p<0.0001). Attending physicians report significantly higher comfort having code status discussions with families than do nurses or trainees (p≤0.0001). Attending physicians and trainees perceive families as more receptive to code status discussions than nurses (p<0.0001 and p = 0.0018, respectively).

Conclusions

Providers have poor understanding of code status options and differ significantly in their comfort having code status discussions and their perceptions of these discussions. These findings may reflect inherent differences among providers, but may also reflect discordant visions of appropriate care and function as a potential source of moral distress. Lack of knowledge of code status options and differences in provider perceptions are likely barriers to quality communication surrounding end-of-life options.

Research on Medical Practices: Why Patients Consider Participating and the Investigational Misconception

Understanding how patients decide whether to enroll in research can help improve educational materials, protocols, and recruitment rates. However, little is known about patients' willingness to participate in research on medical practices (ROMP), or studies comparing interventions within usual care. We assessed willingness to consider participating in ROMP by surveying 1095 adults in the United States, of whom 834 answered at least one open-ended question about their reasons for being willing or unwilling to consider participating in two scenarios involving ROMP. Most respondents were willing to consider participating in the research scenarios. The most commonly cited reasons for being willing to consider participating included benefit to others and oneself; the top reasons for being unwilling to consider participating included belief that the research was unsafe and an unfavorable view of experimentation. Responses also revealed misconceptions about ROMP among both those who were willing and unwilling to consider participating. Because these misconceptions may present an obstacle to recruiting participants in ROMP, there may be a need for educational initiatives to clarify the nature of these types of studies.

Genomic Contraindications for Heart Transplantation

Genome sequencing raises new ethical challenges. Decoding the genome produces new forms of diagnostic and prognostic information; however, the information is often difficult to interpret. The connection between most genetic variants and their phenotypic manifestations is not understood. This scenario is particularly true for disorders that are not associated with an autosomal genetic variant. The analytic uncertainty is compounded by moral uncertainty about how, exactly, the results of genomic testing should influence clinical decisions. In this Ethics Rounds, we present a case in which genomic findings seemed to play a role in deciding whether a patient was to be listed as a transplant candidate. We then asked experts in bioethics and cardiology to discuss the implications of such decisions.

A randomized study of multimedia informational aids for research on medical practices: Implications for informed consent

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Participant understanding is a key element of informed consent for enrollment in research. However, participants often do not understand the nature, risks, benefits, or design of the studies in which they take part. Research on medical practices, which studies standard interventions rather than new treatments, has the potential to be especially confusing to participants because it is embedded within usual clinical care. Our objective in this randomized study was to compare the ability of a range of multimedia informational aids to improve participant understanding in the context of research on medical practices.

METHODS

We administered a web-based survey to members of a proprietary online panel sample selected to match national US demographics. Respondents were randomized to one of five arms: four content-equivalent informational aids (animated videos, slideshows with voice-over, comics, and text) and one no-intervention control. We measured knowledge of research on medical practices using a summary knowledge score from 10 questions based on the content of the informational aids. We used analysis of variance and paired t-tests to compare knowledge scores between arms.

RESULTS

There were 1500 completed surveys (300 in each arm). Mean knowledge scores were highest for the slideshows with voice-over (65.7%), followed by the animated videos (62.7%), comics (60.7%), text (57.2%), and control (50.3%). Differences between arms were statistically significant except between the slideshows with voice-over and animated videos and between the animated videos and comics. Informational aids that included an audio component (animated videos and slideshows with voice-over) had higher knowledge scores than those without an audio component (64.2% vs 59.0%, p < .0001). There was no difference between informational aids with a character-driven story component (animated videos and comics) and those without.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that simple multimedia aids that use a dual-channel approach, such as voice-over with visual reinforcement, can improve participant knowledge more effectively than text alone. However, the relatively low knowledge scores suggest that targeted informational aids may be needed to teach some particularly challenging concepts. Nonetheless, our results demonstrate the potential to improve informed consent for research on medical practices using multimedia aids that include simplified language and visual metaphors.

A comparison of institutional review board professionals' and patients' views on consent for research on medical practices

BACKGROUND/AIMS

In the context of research on medical practices, which includes comparative effectiveness research and pragmatic clinical trials, empirical studies have begun to raise questions about the extent to which institutional review boards' interpretations and applications of research regulations align with patients' values. To better understand the similarities and differences between these stakeholder groups, we compare and contrast two surveys: one of institutional review board professionals and one of patients, which examine views on consent for research on medical practices.

METHODS

We conducted online surveys of two target populations between July 2014 and March 2015. We surveyed 601 human subjects research professionals out of 1500 randomly selected from the Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research membership list (40.1% response rate), limiting analysis to 537 respondents who reported having had institutional review board experience. We also surveyed 120 adult patients out of 225 approached at subspecialty clinics in Spokane, Washington (53.3% response rate). Our survey questions probed attitudes about consent in the context of research on medical practices using medical record review and randomization. The patient survey included three embedded animated videos to explain these concepts.

RESULTS

A majority of institutional review board professionals distinguished between consent preferences for medical record review and randomization, ranked clinicians as the least preferred person to obtain participant consent (54.6%), and viewed written or verbal permission as the minimum acceptable consent approach for research on medical practices using randomization (87.3%). In contrast, most patients had similar consent preferences for research on medical practices using randomization and medical record review, most preferred to have consent conversations with their doctors rather than with researchers for studies using randomization (72.6%) and medical record review (67.0%), and only a few preferred to see research involving randomization (16.8%) or medical record review (13.8%) not take place if obtaining written or verbal permission would make the research too difficult to conduct. Limitations of our post hoc analysis include differences in framing, structure, and language between the two surveys and possible response bias.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight a need to identify appropriate ways to integrate patient preferences into prevailing regulatory interpretations as institutional review boards increasingly apply research regulations in the context of research on medical practices. Dialogue between institutional review boards and research participants will be an important part of this process and should inform future regulatory guidance.

Can Destination Therapy be implemented in children with heart failure? A study of provider perceptions

DT is an established final therapeutic choice in adult patients with severe heart failure who do not meet criteria for cardiac transplantation. Patients are given VADs, without the prospect of care escalation to transplantation. VADs are now established therapy for children and are currently used as a bridge until transplantation can be performed or heart failure improves. For children who present in severe heart failure but do not meet transplantation criteria, the question has emerged whether DT can be offered. This qualitative study aimed to elicit the perspectives of early adopters of DT at one of the few institutions where DT has been provided for children. Responses were recorded and coded and themes extracted using grounded theory. Interviewees discussed: envisioning of the DT candidate; approach to evaluation for DT; contraindications to choosing DT; and concerns about choosing DT. Providers articulated two frameworks for conceptualizing DT: as a long bridge through resolution of problems that would initially contraindicate transplantation or, alternatively, as a true destination instead of transplantation. True destination, however, may not be the lasting concept for long-term VAD use in children given improvement in prognosis for current medical contraindications and improving VAD technology.

Randomized n-of-1 Trials: Quality Improvement, Research, or Both?

The regulatory demarcations between clinical research and quality improvement (QI) are ambiguous and controversial. Some projects that were undertaken as a form of QI were deemed by regulatory agencies to be research and thus to require institutional review board approval. In the era of personalized medicine, some physicians may ask some patients to participate in n-of-1 trials in an effort to personalize and optimize each patient's medical treatment. Should such activities be considered research, QI, or just excellent personalized medicine? Experts in research, research regulation, and bioethics analyze these issues.