Can Parents Refuse a Potentially Lifesaving Transplant for Severe Combined Immunodeficiency?

If untreated, most children with severe combined immunodeficiency disorder (SCID) will die of complications of infection within the first 2 years of life. Early hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) is the current standard of care for this disease. Although potentially lifesaving, prognosis of HSCT in SCID is variable depending on a number of host and donor factors. Of the survivors, many develop secondary problems such as chronic graft-versus-host disease or even second malignancies. Posttransplant care is complex and requires great effort from parents to adhere to difficult treatment regimens. In this article, we address the difficult ethical question of what to do if parents choose not to have their child with SCID undergo HSCT but prefer palliative care.

Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium: Accelerating Evidence-Based Practice of Genomic Medicine

Despite rapid technical progress and demonstrable effectiveness for some types of diagnosis and therapy, much remains to be learned about clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) and its role within the practice of medicine. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium includes 18 extramural research projects, one National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) intramural project, and a coordinating center funded by the NHGRI and National Cancer Institute. The consortium is exploring analytic and clinical validity and utility, as well as the ethical, legal, and social implications of sequencing via multidisciplinary approaches; it has thus far recruited 5,577 participants across a spectrum of symptomatic and healthy children and adults by utilizing both germline and cancer sequencing. The CSER consortium is analyzing data and creating publically available procedures and tools related to participant preferences and consent, variant classification, disclosure and management of primary and secondary findings, health outcomes, and integration with electronic health records. Future research directions will refine measures of clinical utility of CGES in both germline and somatic testing, evaluate the use of CGES for screening in healthy individuals, explore the penetrance of pathogenic variants through extensive phenotyping, reduce discordances in public databases of genes and variants, examine social and ethnic disparities in the provision of genomics services, explore regulatory issues, and estimate the value and downstream costs of sequencing. The CSER consortium has established a shared community of research sites by using diverse approaches to pursue the evidence-based development of best practices in genomic medicine.

Research ethics consultation: ethical and professional practice challenges and recommendations

The complexity of biomedical research has increased considerably in the last decade, as has the pace of translational research. This complexity has generated a number of novel ethical issues for clinical investigators, institutional review boards (IRBs), and other oversight committees. In response, many academic medical centers have created formal research ethics consultation (REC) services to help clinical investigators and IRBs navigate ethical issues in biomedical research. Key functions of a REC service include assisting with research design and implementation, providing a forum for deliberative exploration of ethical issues, and supplementing regulatory oversight. As increasing numbers of academic research institutions establish REC services, there is a pressing need for consensus about the primary aims and policies that should guide these activities. Establishing clear expectations about the aims and policies of REC services is important if REC programs are to achieve their full potential. Drawing on the experiences of a Clinical and Translational Science Award Research Ethics Consultation Working Group, this article describes three major ethical and professional practice challenges associated with the provision of REC: (1) managing multiple institutional roles and responsibilities, (2) managing sensitive information, and (3) communicating with consultation requestors about how these issues are managed. The paper also presents several practical strategies for addressing these challenges and enhancing the quality of REC services.

Building a Central Repository for Research Ethics Consultation Data: A Proposal for a Standard Data Collection Tool

Clinical research ethics consultation services have been established across academic health centers over the past decade. This paper presents the results of collaboration within the CTSA consortium to develop a standard approach to the collection of research ethics consultation information to serve as a foundation for quality improvement, education, and research efforts. This approach includes categorizing and documenting descriptive information about the requestor, research project, the ethical question, the consult process, and describing the basic structure for a consult note. This paper also explores challenges in determining how to share some of this information between collaborating institutions related to concerns about confidentially, data quality, and informatics. While there is much still to be learned to improve the process of clinical research ethics consultation, these tools can advance these efforts, which, in turn, can facilitate the ethical conduct of research.

Patients' views on incidental findings from clinical exome sequencing

This article characterizes the opinions of patients and family members of patients undergoing clinical genomic-based testing regarding the return of incidental findings from these tests. Over sixteen months, we conducted 55 in-depth interviews with individuals to explore their preferences regarding which types of results they would like returned to them. Responses indicate a diversity of attitudes toward the return of incidental findings and a diversity of justifications for those attitudes. The majority of participants also described an imperative to include the patient in deciding which results to return rather than having universal, predetermined rules governing results disclosure. The results demonstrate the importance of a patient centered-approach to returning incidental findings.

Communicating with biobank participants: preferences for receiving and providing updates to researchers

BACKGROUND

Research biobanks collect biologic samples and health information. Previous work shows that biobank participants desire general study updates, but preferences about the method or frequency of these communications have not been explored. Thus, we surveyed participants in a long-standing research biobank.

METHODS

Eligible participants were drawn from a study of patients with personal/family history suggestive of Cowden syndrome, a poorly recognized inherited cancer syndrome. Participants gave blood samples and access to medical records and received individual results but had no other study interactions. The biobank had 3,618 participants at sampling. Survey eligibility included age ≥18 years, enrollment within the biobank's first 5 years, normal PTEN analysis, and contiguous U.S. address. Multivariate logistic regression analyses identified predictors of participant interest in Internet-based versus offline methods and methods allowing participant-researcher interaction versus one-way communication. Independent variables were narrowed by independent Pearson correlations by cutoff P < 0.2, with P < 0.02 considered significant.

RESULTS

Surveys were returned from 840 of 1,267 (66%) eligible subjects. Most (97%) wanted study updates, with 92% wanting updates at least once a year. Participants preferred paper (66%) or emailed (62%) newsletter methods, with 95% selecting one of these. Older, less-educated, and lower-income respondents strongly preferred offline approaches (P < 0.001). Most (93%) had no concerns about receiving updates and 97% were willing to provide health updates to researchers.

CONCLUSION

Most participants were comfortable receiving and providing updated information. Demographic factors predicted communication preferences.

IMPACT

Researchers should make plans for ongoing communication early in study development and funders should support the necessary infrastructure for these efforts.

Why brain death is considered death and why there should be no confusion

Neurologic determination of brain death is a complex assessment that may be misunderstood by nonspecialists and families. Recent guidelines clarify how to proceed with such an examination and are available to physicians, with the time of death in adults and children being determined by the last defining test-the apnea test. This core principle in neurology has been challenged recently in court and resulted in an unprecedented continuation of care in a 13-year-old child declared dead. This review comments on the medical, legal, and ethical quandaries introduced by this case and highlights the major elements of consensus on matters related to brain death that have been forged over 3 decades of sustained medical and societal debate. A clear appreciation by physicians and the public of the diagnostic determination of death following loss of brain function will help to prevent similar conflicts from occurring in the future.

Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between

As more research studies incorporate next-generation sequencing (including whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing), investigators and institutional review boards face difficult questions regarding which genomic results to return to research participants and how. An American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics 2013 policy paper suggesting that pathogenic mutations in 56 specified genes should be returned in the clinical setting has raised the question of whether comparable recommendations should be considered in research settings. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium and the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network are multisite research programs that aim to develop practical strategies for addressing questions concerning the return of results in genomic research. CSER and eMERGE committees have identified areas of consensus regarding the return of genomic results to research participants. In most circumstances, if results meet an actionability threshold for return and the research participant has consented to return, genomic results, along with referral for appropriate clinical follow-up, should be offered to participants. However, participants have a right to decline the receipt of genomic results, even when doing so might be viewed as a threat to the participants' health. Research investigators should be prepared to return research results and incidental findings discovered in the course of their research and meeting an actionability threshold, but they have no ethical obligation to actively search for such results. These positions are consistent with the recognition that clinical research is distinct from medical care in both its aims and its guiding moral principles.

Return of results in the genomic medicine projects of the eMERGE network

The electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) (Phase I) network was established in 2007 to further genomic discovery using biorepositories linked to the electronic health record (EHR). In Phase II, which began in 2011, genomic discovery efforts continue and in addition the network is investigating best practices for implementing genomic medicine, in particular, the return of genomic results in the EHR for use by physicians at point-of-care. To develop strategies for addressing the challenges of implementing genomic medicine in the clinical setting, the eMERGE network is conducting studies that return clinically-relevant genomic results to research participants and their health care providers. These genomic medicine pilot studies include returning individual genetic variants associated with disease susceptibility or drug response, as well as genetic risk scores for common “complex” disorders. Additionally, as part of a network-wide pharmacogenomics-related project, targeted resequencing of 84 pharmacogenes is being performed and select genotypes of pharmacogenetic relevance are being placed in the EHR to guide individualized drug therapy. Individual sites within the eMERGE network are exploring mechanisms to address incidental findings generated by resequencing of the 84 pharmacogenes. In this paper, we describe studies being conducted within the eMERGE network to develop best practices for integrating genomic findings into the EHR, and the challenges associated with such work.

The challenge of informed consent and return of results in translational genomics: empirical analysis and recommendations

As exome and genome sequencing move into clinical application, questions surround how to elicit consent and handle potential return of individual genomic results. This study analyzes nine consent forms used in NIH-funded sequencing studies. Content analysis reveals considerable heterogeneity, including in defining results that may be returned, identifying potential benefits and risks of return, protecting privacy, addressing placement of results in the medical record, and data-sharing. In response to lack of consensus, we offer recommendations.

The role of patient advocacy organizations in shaping genomic science

Patient advocacy organizations (PAOs) are nonprofit groups that represent patients and families affected by a significant medical condition or disease. We review some of the different approaches that humanities and social researchers use to study PAOs. Drawing on this recent scholarship, we describe some contemporary patient groups and explore how PAOs can collaborate with biomedical researchers to advance genomic science. We highlight research that aims to describe how PAOs are contributing to multiple aspects of biomedical research, including study design, definition of research goals, data collection and analysis, dissemination of results, and research funding. We also describe several challenges that genomic researchers may encounter in collaborations with PAOs. Throughout our review, we focus on the manner in which new PAO roles challenge traditional boundaries between researchers and subjects, thereby redefining the relationship of patients to science. We consider how this shift may affect our view of scientific collaborations and impact genomic researchers in the future.

Genetics patients' perspectives on clinical genomic testing

AIMS

Advances in next-generation sequencing technologies make it possible to envisage multiple contexts in which genomic tools might be used to enhance patient care. We describe how genetics patients and their caregivers view the promises and perils of clinical genomic testing.

PATIENTS & METHODS

Fifty-one interviews with patients and parents of pediatric patients seeking genetic evaluation at an academic medical center.

RESULTS

Themes from interviews include participants' enthusiasm for clinical genomic testing for diagnostic purposes, medical benefits and concerns about emotional and psychosocial burdens resulting from clinical genomic testing.

CONCLUSION

By clarifying these patients' and caregivers' views of clinical genomic testing, the findings we report can help to anticipate other patients' reactions to new forms of personalized medicine enabled by genomic technologies.

Expanded carrier screening in reproductive healthcare: perspectives from genetics professionals

STUDY QUESTION

How do genetics professionals assess the potential benefits and challenges of expanded carrier screening (ECS) in reproductive healthcare?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Genetics professionals believe that current ECS products have major limitations and are not ready for routine use in reproductive healthcare.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Non-targeted approaches to carrier screening have been met with uneven enthusiasm from relevant professional organizations. With declining genotyping costs, it is reasonable to expect that the number of genetic conditions evaluated by carrier-screening products will continue to increase. Reproductive healthcare providers will play a critical role in the adoption of ECS and need to be prepared for the potential challenges that lie ahead.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Focus groups were convened at six academic medical centers in the USA in March 2011 to examine genetics professionals' views on ECS.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Forty genetic professionals participated in six focus groups for this study. A clinical case report was presented to each focus group to examine participants' opinions about the use of highly multiplexed forms of carrier screening in reproductive healthcare. Focus group transcripts were analyzed for major themes and thematic density across sites using qualitative data analysis software (ATLAS.ti v5.8).

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Participants believed that current ECS products have major limitations pertaining to the analysis of select alleles and genetic mutations. Participants highlighted multiple interpretive and counseling challenges that reproductive healthcare providers may face in communicating ECS results to patients. Participants stressed the importance of communicating these and other limitations to patients before recommending ECS. Participants recommended collaboration with genetic counselors and medical geneticists in providing ECS.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

To the extent that ECS products have not been widely used to date, participants may have had limited familiarity and direct clinical experience with these products. Given that this study was conducted with genetic professionals from academic medical centers in the USA, participant perspectives may not be representative of professional practices and norms in other healthcare settings.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

In considering the use of ECS products in their practices, reproductive healthcare providers may find it helpful to consider the perspectives of genetics professionals. These specialists have considerable experience with diverse forms of genetic testing and can provide valuable insights regarding new genomic risk assessment tools such as ECS.

Justice in the context of family balancing

Bioethics and feminist scholarship has explored various justice implications of non-medical sex selection and family balancing. However, prospective users' viewpoints have been absent from the debate over the socially acceptable bounds of non-medical sex selection. This qualitative study provides a set of empirically-grounded perspectives on the moral values that underpin prospective users' conceptualizations of justice in the context of a family balancing program in the United States. The results indicate that couples pursuing family balancing understand justice primarily in individualist and familial terms rather than in terms of social justice for women and girls or for children resulting from sex selection. Study participants indicated that an individual's desire for gender balance in their family is ethically complex and may not be inherently sexist, immoral or socially consequential, particularly given the social context in which they live. Our findings suggest that the social conditions that contribute to prospective users' desires for gender balance in their families may direct them away from recognizing or engaging broader social justice concerns relating to sexism and stratified reproduction.