Characteristics and utilisation of the Mayo Clinic Biobank, a clinic-based prospective collection in the USA: cohort profile

PURPOSE

The Mayo Clinic Biobank was established to provide a large group of patients from which comparison groups (ie, controls) could be selected for case-control studies, to create a prospective cohort with sufficient power for common outcomes and to support electronic health record (EHR) studies.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 56 862 participants enrolled (21% response rate) into the Mayo Clinic Biobank from Rochester, Minnesota (77%, n=43 836), Jacksonville, Florida (18%, n=10 368) and La Crosse, Wisconsin (5%, n=2658). Participants were all Mayo Clinic patients, 18 years of age or older and US residents.

FINDINGS TO DATE

Overall, 43% of participants were 65 years of age or older and female participants were more frequent (59%) than males at all sites. Most participants resided in the Upper Midwest regions of the USA (Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois or Wisconsin), Florida or Georgia. Self-reported race among Biobank participants was 90% white. Here we provide examples of the types of studies that have successfully utilised the resource, including (1) investigations of the population itself, (2) provision of controls for case-control studies, (3) genotype-driven research, (4) EHR-based research and (5) prospective recruitment to other studies. Over 270 projects have been approved to date to access Biobank data and/or samples; over 200 000 sample aliquots have been approved for distribution.

FUTURE PLANS

The data and samples in the Mayo Clinic Biobank can be used for various types of epidemiological and clinical studies, especially in the setting of case-control studies for which the Biobank samples serve as control samples. We are planning cohort studies with additional follow-up and acquisition of genetic information on a large scale.

Ethical priority of the most actionable system of biomolecules: the metabolome

The metabolome is a system of small biomolecules (metabolites) and a direct result of human bioculture. Consequently, metabolomics is well poised to impact anthropological and biomedical research for the foreseeable future. Overall, we provide a perspective on the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of metabolomics, which we argue are often more alarming than those of genomics. Given the current mechanisms to fund research, ELSI beyond human DNA is stifled and in need of considerable attention.

Where Will We Draw the Line? Public Opinions of Human Gene Editing

The application of gene editing technologies to prevent or mitigate genetic disease in humans is considered one of its most promising applications. However, as the technology advances, it is imperative to understand the views of the broader public on how it should be used. We conducted focus groups to understand public views on the ethical permissibility and governance of gene editing technologies in humans. A total of 50 urban and semirural residents in the upper Midwest took part in six focus groups. Participants expressed multiple concerns about nonmedical uses of gene editing and its potential for unknown harms to human health, and were divided as to whether the individual patient or "medical experts" should be charged with overseeing the scope of its application. As potential stakeholders, the perspectives from the general public are critical to assess as genome editing technologies advance toward the clinic.

Harmonizing Clinical Sequencing and Interpretation for the eMERGE III Network

The advancement of precision medicine requires new methods to coordinate and deliver genetic data from heterogeneous sources to physicians and patients. The eMERGE III Network enrolled >25,000 participants from biobank and prospective cohorts of predominantly healthy individuals for clinical genetic testing to determine clinically actionable findings. The network developed protocols linking together the 11 participant collection sites and 2 clinical genetic testing laboratories. DNA capture panels targeting 109 genes were used for testing of DNA and sample collection, data generation, interpretation, reporting, delivery, and storage were each harmonized. A compliant and secure network enabled ongoing review and reconciliation of clinical interpretations, while maintaining communication and data sharing between clinicians and investigators. A total of 202 individuals had positive diagnostic findings relevant to the indication for testing and 1,294 had additional/secondary findings of medical significance deemed to be returnable, establishing data return rates for other testing endeavors. This study accomplished integration of structured genomic results into multiple electronic health record (EHR) systems, setting the stage for clinical decision support to enable genomic medicine. Further, the established processes enable different sequencing sites to harmonize technical and interpretive aspects of sequencing tests, a critical achievement toward global standardization of genomic testing. The eMERGE protocols and tools are available for widespread dissemination.

Examining Physician Interactions with Disease Advocacy Organizations

Disease advocacy organizations (DAOs) have traditionally focused on raising awareness of rare diseases, providing educational resources to patients, and supporting patients and families. Previous research has described how scientists collaborate with DAOs, but few empirical data are available regarding the extent to which physicians interact with DAOs and how those interactions impact patient care. We conducted a national survey of 230 board-certified pediatric neurologists to assess their engagement with DAOs and their beliefs about the impact of DAOs on patient care. In that context, we evaluated a set of 24 items describing interactions between physicians and DAOs. Exploratory factor analysis produced a 19-item model capturing four types of physician-DAO engagement: (1) accessing or distributing DAO-produced materials (6 items, alpha = 0.80); (2) consulting on DAO activities (5 items, alpha = 0.81); (3) collaborating with DAOs on research activities (6 items, alpha = 0.80); and (4) co-producing scholarly materials with DAOs (2 items, alpha = 0.80). Our data indicate that physicians engage with DAOs in more frequent and diverse ways than has been previously reported. Almost all physicians in our sample had interacted directly with a DAO in some way, from low-effort activities such as visiting a DAO's website to deeper forms of engagement including coauthoring journal articles. These findings may provide a framework for bioethicists to characterize the nature and extent of physician interactions with advocacy organizations, which is critical for evaluating the ethical implications of physician-DAO relationships.

A Focus Group Study on African American Living Donors’ Treatment Preferences, Sociocultural Factors, and Health Beliefs About Apolipoprotein L1 Genetic Testing

Introduction:

Because apolipoprotein L1 ( APOL1) risk variants may contribute to live donors’ kidney failure postdonation, professional guidelines suggest informing potential donors with African ancestry about the availability of APOL1 genotyping. This study assessed African American (AA) donors’ perceptions of APOL1 genetic testing and how APOL1 may affect ethnic identity.

Methods/Approach:

Four focus groups were conducted with AA donors about their decision-making for and perceptions of APOL1 genetic testing and donation to inform a new culturally targeted educational brochure on APOL1 genetic testing. Qualitative data were analyzed by thematic analysis.

Findings:

Seventeen donors participated (47% participation rate). Four major themes emerged. (1) In hypothetical scenarios, most participants would have undergone APOL1 testing during donor evaluation to make a more informed decision, but many would have still donated. (2) Participants desired information about how having 2 APOL1 risk variants affects the donor’s and the recipient’s health. (3) Participants referred to diversity of genetic ancestry and cultural constructions of racial/ethnic identity to question the population at risk for APOL1 risk variants and recommended that all potential donors undergo genetic testing and receive education about APOL1. (4) Participants worried that out-of-pocket costs would deter APOL1 testing and that APOL1 could become a preexisting condition and discriminate against AAs.

Discussion:

Our findings suggest that AA donors desire APOL1 testing to foster informed consent. Transplant clinicians should be aware of these responses to APOL1 testing and be sensitive to historical issues of distrust and discrimination.

Managing the Unimaginable: Biobank Participant Views on Reconsent for Whole Genome Sequencing of Stored Biospecimens

Background: DNA biobanks frequently obtain broad permissions from sample donors, who agree to allow their biospecimens to be used for a variety of future purposes. A limitation of this approach is that it may not be possible to discuss or anticipate all potential uses of biospecimens at the time patient consent is obtained. We surveyed biobank participants to clarify their views regarding the need to be informed about research involving whole genome sequencing (WGS). Methods: We invited 1200 participants in the Mayo Clinic Biobank to complete a survey inquiring about their support for WGS; their interest in being recontacted before WGS of their biospecimens; whether they would consent to WGS if asked; and the acceptability of proceeding with WGS if sample donors could not be reached. Results: Six hundred eighty-seven biobank participants returned completed surveys (57% response). More than 96% of biobank participants were supportive of WGS and would give permission for WGS of their sample, if asked. Nonetheless, 61% of biobank participants felt they should be recontacted before WGS was done. Participants were divided regarding the permissibility of conducting WGS if efforts to recontact sample donors were unsuccessful. Discussion: Our findings highlight a potential discrepancy between the broad permissions granted by biobank participants at the time they donated biospecimens and their views about the application of WGS to their samples. Biobank participants appear to value the ability to confirm their commitment to genetic research when the studies in question involve WGS, a technological capacity they may not have anticipated at the time they donated their biospecimens. Efforts to reevaluate biobank participants' views about the acceptability of new technologies may help to ensure alignment of participants' current beliefs and research applications that would have been difficult to anticipate at the time biospecimens were collected.

Physician and patient determinants of prognostic counseling in idiopathic REM sleep-behavior disorder

OBJECTIVES/BACKGROUND

Prognostic counseling about the risk for developing overt neurodegenerative disorders for patients with idiopathic REM sleep-behavior disorder (iRBD) and isolated REM sleep without atonia (iRSWA) is difficult, given lack of disease-modifying interventions and uncertainty in accurate prognostication for individuals. We aimed to analyze patient and physician characteristics associated with documented prognostic discussions for patients with iRBD and iRSWA.

PATIENTS/METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records for 138 (112 iRBD and 26 iRSWA) patients seen at the Mayo Clinic between 2012 and 2015. We analyzed physician and patient demographics, initial complaint, and other information discussed during office visits. We then comparatively analyzed the impact of physician and patient characteristics on documented prognostic discussions using Chi Square or Fischer's exact test.

RESULTS

Mean iRBD patient age was 65.0 ± 13.0, and mean iRSWA age was 58 ± 15 years. Seventy-eight (69.6%) iRBD and 22 (84.6%) iRSWA patients were men. Sixty-two (55%) iRBD and three (12%) iRSWA patients received prognostic counseling about phenoconversion risk. iRBD was a secondary complaint in 67 (59.8%). Patients over age 60 years and those having iRBD as a chief complaint more frequently received prognostic discussions than those with opposite characteristics (all p < 0.05). Patient sex and antidepressant use were not associated with counseling. Sleep neurologists disclosed prognostic information most frequently, with male more likely than female clinicians to disclose prognoses.

CONCLUSIONS

Several patient and physician characteristics appear to influence documented prognostic counseling for iRBD/RSWA patients. Future studies of iRBD/RSWA patients' preferences are needed to clarify ethically appropriate physician-patient communication concerning prognosis.

Should pretest genetic counselling be required for patients pursuing genomic sequencing? Results from a survey of participants in a large genomic implementation study

PURPOSE

We assessed the decision-making of individuals pursuing genomic sequencing without a requirement for pretest genetic counselling. We sought to describe the extent to which individuals who decline genetic counselling reported decisional conflict or struggled to make a decision to pursue genomic testing.

METHODS

We administered a 100-item survey to 3037 individuals who consented to the Return of Actionable Variants Empirical study, a genomic medicine implementation study supported by the National Institutes of Health (USA) eMERGE consortium. The primary outcomes of interest were self-reported decisional conflict about the decision to participate in the study and time required to reach a decision.

RESULTS

We received 2895 completed surveys (response rate=95.3%), and of these respondents 97.8% completed the decisional conflict scale in its entirety. A majority of individuals (63%) had minimal or no decisional conflict about the pursuit of genomic sequencing and were able to reach a decision quickly (78%). Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified several characteristics associated with decisional conflict, including lower education, lower health literacy, lower self-efficacy in coping, lack of prior experience with genetic testing, not discussing study participation with a family member or friend, and being male.

CONCLUSION

As genomic sequencing is used more widely, genetic counselling resources may not be sufficient to meet demand. Our results challenge the notion that all individuals need genetic counselling in order to make an informed decision about genomic sequencing.

A National Survey of Transplant Surgeons and Nephrologists on Implementing Apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) Genetic Testing Into Clinical Practice

Introduction:

There is debate over whether Apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) gene risk variants contribute to African American (AA) live donors’ (LD) increased risk of kidney failure. Little is known about factors influencing physicians’ integration of APOL1 genetic testing of AA LDs into donor evaluation.

Design:

We conducted a cross-sectional survey, informed by Roger’s Diffusion of Innovations theory, among nephrology and surgeon members of the American Society of Nephrology, American Society of Transplantation, and American Society of Transplant Surgeons about their practices of and attitudes about APOL1 genetic testing of AA potential LDs. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were performed.

Results:

Of 383 completed surveys, most physicians believed that APOL1 testing can help AA LDs make more informed donation decisions (87%), and the addition of APOL1 testing offers better clinical information about AA LD’s eligibility for donation than existing evaluation approaches (74%). Among respondents who evaluate LDs (n = 345), 63% would definitely or probably begin or continue using APOL1 testing in the next year, however, few use APOL1 testing routinely (4%) or on a case-by-case basis (14%). Most did not know the right clinical scenario to order APOL1 testing (59%), but would use educational materials to counsel AA LDs about APOL1 testing (97%).

Discussion:

Although physicians were highly supportive of APOL1 genetic testing for AA LDs, few physicians use APOL1 testing. As more physicians intend to use APOL1 testing, an ethical framework and clinical decision support are needed presently to assist clinicians in clarifying the proper indication of APOL1 genetic testing.

Developing a Process for Returning Medically Actionable Genomic Variants to Latino Patients in a Federally Qualified Health Center

AIM

To develop a process for returning medically actionable genomic variants to Latino patients receiving care in a Federally Qualified Health Center.

METHODS

Prior to recruitment, researchers met with primary care providers to (1) orient clinicians to the project, (2) establish a process for returning actionable and nonactionable results to participants and providers through the electronic health record, and (3) develop a process for offering clinical decision support for follow-up education and care. A Community Advisory Board was engaged to provide input on recruitment strategies and materials for conveying results to participants. Participants in the Sangre Por Salud (Blood for Health) Biobank with hyperlipidemia or colon polyps represented the pool of potentially eligible participants.

RESULTS

A total of 1,621 individuals were invited to participate and 710 agreed to an in- person consenting visit (194 no-showed and 16 declined). Over 12-months, 500 participants were enrolled. Participants were primarily Spanish-speaking (81.6%), female (74.2%), and enrolled because of hyperlipidemia (95.4%). All but 2 participants opted to receive primary (i.e., related to enrollment phenotypes) as well as secondary actionable results.

CONCLUSION

Efforts to bring precision medicine to community-based health centers serving minority patients may require multilevel engagement activities to include individuals, providers, health systems, and the community.

African American Living Donors' Attitudes About APOL1 Genetic Testing: A Mixed Methods Study

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

African American live kidney donors ("donors") have a greater risk for kidney failure than European American donors. Apolipoprotein L1 gene (APOL1) variants in African Americans may be associated with this disparity.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional mixed-methods design.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

African American donors at 1 transplantation center.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Semistructured interviews assessed attitudes about APOL1 genetic testing, willingness to undergo APOL1 testing, hypothetical decisions about donating with 2 APOL1 variants, and demographics. Surveys assessed perceptions of ethnic identity and genetics knowledge. Interview transcriptions were analyzed using thematic analysis. Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

23 donors participated in semistructured interviews. Most (96%) reported that transplantation centers should routinely offer APOL1 genetic testing to all African American potential donors. Most (87%) would have been willing to undergo APOL1 testing before donating. Although study participants noted that APOL1 testing may deter African American potential donors from donating, most (61%) would have donated even if they had 2 high-risk APOL1 variants. Several themes emerged. Study participants believed that APOL1 testing was beneficial for providing information to help donors make informed donation decisions. Participants expressed concern about APOL1 variants placing donors at harm for kidney failure, and therefore valued taking preventive health measures. Participants believed that potential donors would experience psychological distress from learning that they have 2 gene variants and could harm their recipients. Participants were apprehensive about insurance coverage and costs of APOL1 testing and feared that APOL1 genetic test results could discriminate against African Americans.

LIMITATIONS

Findings may not be generalizable to African American potential donors.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that African American donors support APOL1 genetic testing yet fear that APOL1 variants and genetic testing could adversely affect donors' health and ethnic identity. Transplantation centers using APOL1 genetic testing should address African American donors' concerns about APOL1 genetic testing to optimize future donors' informed consent practices.

Ethical Considerations Related to Return of Results from Genomic Medicine Projects: The eMERGE Network (Phase III) Experience

We examined the Institutional Review Board (IRB) process at 9 academic institutions in the electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network, for proposed electronic health record-based genomic medicine studies, to identify common questions and concerns. Sequencing of 109 disease related genes and genotyping of 14 actionable variants is being performed in ~28,100 participants from the 9 sites. Pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in actionable genes are being returned to study participants. We examined each site’s research protocols, informed-consent materials, and interactions with IRB staff. Research staff at each site completed questionnaires regarding their IRB interactions. The time to prepare protocols for IRB submission, number of revisions and time to approval ranged from 10–261 days, 0–11, and 11–90 days, respectively. IRB recommendations related to the readability of informed consent materials, specifying the full range of potential risks, providing options for receiving limited results or withdrawal, sharing of information with family members, and establishing the mechanisms to answer participant questions. IRBs reviewing studies that involve the return of results from genomic sequencing have a diverse array of concerns, and anticipating these concerns can help investigators to more effectively engage IRBs.

Direct-to-Consumer Testing 2.0: Emerging Models of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing emerged in the early 2000s as a means of allowing consumers to access information on their genetics without the involvement of a physician. Although early models of DTC were popular with consumers, they were controversial in medical and regulatory circles. In this article, we trace the history of DTC genetic testing, discuss its regulatory implications, and describe the emergence of a new hybrid model we call DTC 2.0.