Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets

Research use of electronic health records: patients' perspectives on contact by researchers

Objective

The use of electronic health records (EHRs) for research has the potential to improve the diagnosis and treatment of disease, yet contact with patients based on results of EHR phenotyping has received little attention. Researchers will almost certainly discover discrepancies in EHRs that call for resolution and, in some cases, raise the ethical dilemma of whether to contact patients about a potentially undiagnosed or untreated health concern. The objective of this study was to explore patients' attitudes and opinions about potential contact by researchers who have had access to their EHRs.

Materials and methods

We conducted 15 focus groups in four diverse counties in the southeastern United States. We designed vignettes to describe different situations in which researchers conducting a hypothetical study might have reason to consider contact with patients.

Results

Many patients believed it was important for researchers to take action if they discovered information suggesting a current serious health concern. Relaying the information through patients' physicians was considered the most appropriate course of action. Across vignettes, there were significant differences between urban and rural sites.

Discussion and conclusions

Researchers may increasingly encounter situations involving contact with patients following EHR phenotyping. They should carefully consider the possibility of such contact when planning their studies, including the time and expertise needed to adjudicate potentially serious discrepancies. Our focus group results are one source of input for the development of ethical approaches to the research use of EHRs.

Preferences for Return of Genetic Results Among Participants in the Jackson Heart Study and Framingham Heart Study

BACKGROUND

Surveys suggest that most research participants desire access to secondary (incidental) genomic findings. However, few studies clarify whether preferences vary by the nature of the finding.

METHODS

We surveyed members of the JHS (Jackson Heart Study, n=960), the FHS (Framingham Heart Study; n=955), and African American members of the FHS Omni cohort (n=160) who had consented to genomic studies. Each factorial survey included 3 vignettes, randomly selected from a set of 64, that described a secondary genomic result. Vignettes varied systematically by 5 factors identified by expert panels as salient: phenotype severity, actionability (preventability), reproductive significance, and relative and absolute risk of the phenotype. Respondents indicated whether they would want to receive the result. Data were analyzed separately by cohort using generalized linear mixed models.

RESULTS

Response rates ranged from 67% to 73%. Across vignettes, 88% to 92% of respondents would definitely or probably want to learn the result. In multivariate analyses among JHS respondents, desire for results was associated with positive attitudes towards genetic testing, lower education, higher subjective numeracy, and younger age, but not with any of the 5 factors. Among FHS respondents, desire for results was associated with higher absolute risk, preventability, reproductive risk, and positive attitudes towards genetic testing. Among FHS Omni respondents, desire for results was associated with positive attitudes towards genetic testing and younger age.

CONCLUSIONS

Most genetic research participants desire return of secondary genetic results. Several factors identified by expert panels as salient are associated with preferences among FHS, but not JHS or FHS Omni, participants.

Return of genetic and genomic research findings: experience of a pediatric biorepository

Background

Assess process, uptake, validity and resource needs for return of actionable research findings to biobank participants.

Methods

Participants were prospectively enrolled in a multicenter biorepository of childhood onset heart disease. Clinically actionable research findings were reviewed by a Return of Research Results Committee (RRR) and returned to the physician or disclosed directly to the participant through a research genetic counselor. Action taken following receipt of this information was reviewed.

Results

Genetic data was generated in 1963 of 7408 participants. Fifty-nine new findings were presented to the RRR committee; 20 (34%) were deemed reportable. Twelve were returned to the physician, of which 7 were disclosed to participants (median time to disclosure, 192 days). Seven findings were returned to the research genetic counselor; all have been disclosed (median time to disclosure, 19 days). Twelve families (86%) opted for referral to clinical genetics after disclosure of findings; 7 results have been validated, 5 results are pending. Average cost of return and disclosure per reportable finding incurred by the research program was $750 when utilizing a research genetic counselor; clinical costs associated with return were not included.

Conclusions

Return of actionable research findings was faster if disclosed directly to the participant by a research genetic counselor. There was a high acceptability amongst participants for receiving the findings, for referral to clinical genetics, and for clinical validation of research findings, with all referred cases being clinically confirmed.

Psychiatric genomics researchers' perspectives on best practices for returning results to individual participants

Purpose

Large-scale array-based and sequencing studies have advanced our understanding of the genetic architecture of psychiatric disorders, but also increased the potential to generate an exponentially larger amount of clinically relevant findings. As genomic testing becomes more widespread in psychiatry research, urgency grows to establish best practices for offering return of results (RoR) to individuals at risk or diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder.

Methods

We interviewed an international sample (n = 39) of psychiatric genetics researchers to examine conceptualizations of “best practices” for RoR to individual research participants.

Results

While the vast majority of researchers do not offer RoR, most believed medically actionable findings (85%) and clinically valid but non–medically actionable findings (54%) should be offered. Researchers identified three main areas for improvement: interfacing with individual participants; interdisciplinary training, guidance, and integration; and quality planning and resource allocation for returning results.

Conclusion

There are significant gaps between researchers’ visions for “best” versus “actual” RoR practices. While researchers call for participant-centered practices, including consent practices that consider any special needs of participants with psychiatric disorders, return of individually meaningful results, and effective follow-up and provisions for treatment, the current reality is that consent and RoR practices lack standardized and evidence-based norms.

A FAUSTIAN BARGAIN THAT UNDERMINES RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS' PRIVACY RIGHTS AND RETURN OF RESULTS

A 2018 committee report published by the highly respected National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (the Report) recommends stripping research participants of crucial data privacy rights and discarding decades of carefully deliberated consensus guidelines for the ethical return of results and data from research. This Article traces these disturbing recommendations to three root causes: (1) a statement of task that blocked careful and impartial analysis of a disputed legal matter central to the Report; (2) a piecemeal legal analysis that omitted relevant strands of law; and (3) the inappropriate conflation of two distinct concepts-the return of individual research results (the stated subject of the Report) and privacy-enabling individual access rights, which have a nearly fifty-year legal history long predating the modern debate about return of results. The Report's recommendations would erect new barriers to the return of results and, simultaneously, dial back a core data privacy right that Americans-including many research participants-currently enjoy. We urge extreme caution in implementing this Report's flawed recommendations. Congress has elevated the right to see one's personal information to the status of a civil right in many different data environments. Diminishing individual access in the research context erodes its status as a right more broadly.

Managing "incidental findings" in biobank research: Recommendations of the Taiwan biobank

BACKGROUND

In this article, incidental findings (IF) refer to unforeseen findings made possible through biobanking research and advances in medical diagnostic technologies that raise issues regarding the obligation and/or responsibility of biobank-users and biobanks to return clinically significant information to participants. The World Medical Association (WMA) Declaration of Taipei (2016) highlights the possibility of encountering IF and requires that research on biospecimens address biobank feedback policies in their informed consent process, leaving open the possibility that the policy may be "no return". As clinicians and researchers begin to use these "resources", the possibility of finding clinically significant IF is becoming a reality.

DISCUSSION

In line with the WMA's Declaration of Taipei, a pragmatic approach is needed to deal with the issue of returning IF in biobank governance. Indeed, the impacts and concerns associated with the return of IF differ across different stakeholder groups and jurisdictions. Therefore, the framework governing IF return needs to be custom-built, taking into account the nature of each research project and the unique features of biobanks. To this end, in addition to facilitating biobank transparency, establishing an endurable and horizontal connection among biobanks and clinical institutions under a public health system will improve efficiency and effectiveness. Hence, subject to contemporary Taiwanese ethical and/or legal regulations, this article argues for the establishment of an updated framework for imaging-related and genetic-related IF return within the Taiwan Biobank (TWB), mainly based on a limited obligation to disclose life-threatening information revealed by imaging, but not genetic, information.

SUMMARY

After discussing some of the ethical, legal and social issues encountered by the TWB and accounting for the experiences of other international biobanks, we propose a systematic framework for returning IF, mainly on a "limited obligation" basis, which offers better and more comprehensive protection for biobank-participants' rights and health.

Prodromes and Preclinical Detection of Brain Diseases: Surveying the Ethical Landscape of Predicting Brain Health

The future of medicine lies not primarily in cures but in disease modification and prevention. While the science of preclinical detection is young, it is moving rapidly. Preclinical interventions offer hope to decrease the severity of a disease or delay the development of a disorder. With such promise, the research and practice of detecting brain disorders at a preclinical stage present unique ethical challenges that must be addressed to ensure the benefit of these technologies. Direct brain interventions have the potential to impact not just what a patient has but who they are and who they could become. Further, receiving an assessment for a preclinical or prodromal state has potential to impact perceptions about capacity, autonomy and personhood and could become entangled with stigma and discrimination. Exploring ethical issues alongside and integrated into the experimental design and research of these technologies is critical. This review will highlight ethical issues attendant to the current and near future states of preclinical detection across the life span, specifically as it relates to autism spectrum disorder (ASD), schizophrenia, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Implementation of genomics in medical practice to deliver precision medicine for an Asian population

Whilst the underlying principles of precision medicine are comparable across the globe, genomic references, health practices, costs and discrimination policies differ in Asian settings compared to the reported initiatives involving European-derived populations. We have addressed these variables by developing an evolving reference base of genomic and phenotypic data and a framework to return medically significant variants to consenting research participants applicable for the Asian context. Targeting 10,000 participants, over 2000 Singaporeans, with no known pre-existing health conditions, have consented to an extensive clinical health screen, family health history collection, genome sequencing and ongoing follow-up. Genomic variants in a subset of genes associated with Mendelian disorders and drug responses are analysed using an in-house bioinformatics pipeline. A multidisciplinary team reviews the classification of variants and a research report is generated. Medically significant variants are returned to consenting participants through a bespoke return-of-result genomics clinic. Variant validation and subsequent clinical referral are advised as appropriate. The design and implementation of this flexible learning framework enables a cohort of detailed phenotyping and genotyping of healthy Singaporeans to be established and the frequency of disease-causing variants in this population to be determined. Our findings will contribute to international precision medicine initiatives, bridging gaps with ethnic-specific data and insights from this understudied population.

The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results

The evidence base supporting genetic and genomic sequence-variant interpretations is continuously evolving. An inherent consequence is that a variant's clinical significance might be reinterpreted over time as new evidence emerges regarding its pathogenicity or lack thereof. This raises ethical, legal, and financial issues as to whether there is a responsibility to recontact research participants to provide updates on reinterpretations of variants after the initial analysis. There has been discussion concerning the extent of this obligation in the context of both research and clinical care. Although clinical recommendations have begun to emerge, guidance is lacking on the responsibilities of researchers to inform participants of reinterpreted results. To respond, an American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) workgroup developed this position statement, which was approved by the ASHG Board in November 2018. The workgroup included representatives from the National Society of Genetic Counselors, the Canadian College of Medical Genetics, and the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors. The final statement includes twelve position statements that were endorsed or supported by the following organizations: Genetic Alliance, European Society of Human Genetics, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, American Association of Anthropological Genetics, Executive Committee of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Canadian College of Medical Genetics, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, and National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Evaluation of the cost and effectiveness of diverse recruitment methods for a genetic screening study

PURPOSE

Recruitment of participants from diverse backgrounds is crucial to the generalizability of genetic research, but has proven challenging. We retrospectively evaluated recruitment methods used for a study on return of genetic results.

METHODS

The costs of study design, development, and participant enrollment were calculated, and the characteristics of the participants enrolled through the seven recruitment methods were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 1118 participants provided consent, a blood sample, and questionnaire data. The estimated cost across recruitment methods ranged from $579 to $1666 per participant and required a large recruitment team. Recruitment methods using flyers and staff networks were the most cost-efficient and resulted in the highest completion rate. Targeted sampling that emphasized the importance of Latino/a participation, utilization of translated materials, and in-person recruitments contributed to enrolling a demographically diverse sample.

CONCLUSIONS

Although all methods were deployed in the same hospital or neighborhood and shared the same staff, each recruitment method was different in terms of cost and characteristics of the enrolled participants, suggesting the importance of carefully choosing the recruitment methods based on the desired composition of the final study sample. This analysis provides information about the effectiveness and cost of different methods to recruit adults for genetic research.

Responsible Conduct of Human Subjects Research in Islamic Communities

In order to increase understanding of the ethical implications of biomedical, behavioral and clinical research, the Fogarty International Center, part of the United States National Institutes of Health, established an International Research Ethics Education and Curriculum Development Award (R25) to support programs in low- and middle-income countries. To develop research ethics expertise in Jordan, the University of California San Diego fellowship program in collaboration with Jordan University of Science and Technology provides courses that enable participants to develop skills in varied research ethics topics, including research with human subjects. The program provides a master's level curriculum, including practicum experiences. In this article we describe a practicum project to modify an existing introduction to human subjects research for a US audience to be linguistically and culturally appropriate to Arabic-speaking-Islamic communities. We also highlight key differences that guided the conversion of an English version to one that is in Arabic. And finally, as Institutional Review Boards follow the ethical principles of the Belmont Report in evaluating and approving biomedical and behavioral human subjects research proposals, we provide observations on the conformity of the three ethical principles of the Belmont Report with Islam.

Personalized Medicine and the Power of Electronic Health Records

Personalized medicine has largely been enabled by the integration of genomic and other data with electronic health records (EHRs) in the United States and elsewhere. Increased EHR adoption across various clinical settings and the establishment of EHR-linked population-based biobanks provide unprecedented opportunities for the types of translational and implementation research that drive personalized medicine. We review advances in the digitization of health information and the proliferation of genomic research in health systems and provide insights into emerging paths for the widespread implementation of personalized medicine.

Ethical and Policy Considerations for Genomic Testing in Pediatric Research: The Path Toward Disclosing Individual Research Results

DNA is now commonly collected in clinical research either for immediate genomic analyses or stored for future studies. Many genomic studies were previously designed without awareness of the ethical issues that might arise regarding the disclosure of genomic test results. At the start of the Chronic Kidney Disease in Children (CKiD) Cohort Study in 2004, we did not foresee the advent of genomic technology or the associated ethical issues pertaining to genetic research in children. Recent genomic studies and ancillary proposals using genomic technology stimulated the CKiD investigators to reassess the current ethical and policy environment pertaining to genomic testing and results disclosure. We consider the issues pertaining to next generation sequencing and individual results disclosure that may guide current and future research practices.

Return of individual genomic research results: are laws and policies keeping step?

Efforts are underway to harmonise the return of individual results and incidental findings from whole genome sequencing (WGS) across research contexts and countries. We reviewed international, regional and national laws and policies applying to return across 20 countries to identify areas of convergence and divergence. Discrepancies between laws and policies are most problematic where they cannot be reconciled through harmonisation of project-level governance. Rules for the return of results apply at different levels in different jurisdictions (e.g., human subjects research, biobanks, clinical trials, genomic sequencing, and genetic/personal data), complicating comparison. A particular concern for harmonisation are the (often contradictory) rules about when results must, should, may, or must not be returned. Adding confusion are different thresholds for utility (medical, familial, reproductive, and/or personal). The importance of respecting individual choices to know or not know is widely recognised, though some norms emphasise respect for personal preferences. Another troubling observation is that requirements for data quality, variant assessment, and the effective communication of results are evolving in uneven ways. There is a growing gap between researchers with the expertise, infrastructure, and resources to meet these requirements and those without, threatening international collaboration. Best practices for the return of individual genomic results are sorely needed to inform not only the ethical return of results, but also future legislative and policy efforts.

THE GENETIC INFORMATION NONDISCRIMINATION ACT AT AGE 10: GINA'S CONTROVERSIAL ASSERTION THAT DATA TRANSPARENCY PROTECTS PRIVACY AND CIVIL RIGHTS

The genomic testing industry is an edifice built on data transparency: transparent and often unconsented sharing of our genetic information with researchers to fuel scientific discovery, transparent sharing of our test results to help regulators infer whether the tests are safe and effective, and transparent sharing of our health information to help treat other patients on the premise that we gain reciprocity of advantage when each person's health care is informed by the best available data about all of us. Transparency undeniably confers many social benefits but creates risks to the civil rights of the people whose genetic information is shared. Touted as a major civil rights law at the time of its passage, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) has endured ten years of criticism that its protections are ineffectual, insufficient, or even unethical and overtly unsafe for the people it aims to protect. At the center of this controversy are provisions of GINA that expand people's access to genetic information that others store about them-a heavily contested assertion that data transparency implies sharing data not just with third parties, but with the people whose data are being shared. This Article traces the decades-long roots of this assertion and explores pathways to resolve the controversy that engulfs it. It is important to resolve this controversy. As GINA enters its second decade, genomics is finally starting to gain sufficient predictive power to support discriminatory and other nefarious uses that GINA was designed to prevent. We are entering a positive feedback loop in which the genomic research that exposes us to risk of unwanted data disclosures simultaneously fuels discoveries that make such disclosures potentially more damaging.

Genomic Contextualism: Shifting the Rhetoric of Genetic Exceptionalism

As genomic science has evolved, so have policy and practice debates about how to describe and evaluate the ways in which genomic information is treated for individuals, institutions, and society. The term genetic exceptionalism, describing the concept that genetic information is special or unique, and specifically different from other kinds of medical information, has been utilized widely, but often counterproductively in these debates. We offer genomic contextualism as a new term to frame the characteristics of genomic science in the debates. Using stasis theory to draw out the important connection between definitional issues and resulting policies, we argue that the framework of genomic contextualism is better suited to evaluating genomics and its policy-relevant features to arrive at more productive discussion and resolve policy debates.

Issues in the Use of Human Tissues to Support Precision Medicine

Precision medicine is an approach in which the characteristics of patients as well as their diseases are used to identify optimal therapy; it links researchers, patients, health care providers, and clinical laboratories. In precision medicine, specific molecular characteristics of an untreatable cancer can be targeted by specific molecular-based therapy. Access to high-quality human tissues is necessary to determine many characteristics of patients and their diseases (such as targetable molecules). There are ethical issues in using human tissues in precision medicine, including informed consent and confidentiality, optimal utilization, quality of tissues, and minimization of bias. When human tissues are obtained for patient therapy, the bioresource should be a component certified by Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments. For precision medicine to benefit medically underserved populations requires extensive focused research, planning, and resources, some of which are currently unavailable at rural and other sites where care is provided to underserved populations.

Should Researchers Offer Results to Family Members of Cancer Biobank Participants? A Mixed-Methods Study of Proband and Family Preferences

BACKGROUND

Genomic analysis may reveal both primary and secondary findings with direct relevance to the health of probands' biological relatives. Researchers question their obligations to return findings not only to participants but also to family members. Given the social value of privacy protection, should researchers offer a proband's results to family members, including after the proband's death?

METHODS

Preferences were elicited using interviews and a survey. Respondents included probands from two pancreatic cancer research resources, plus biological and nonbiological family members. Hypothetical scenarios based on actual research findings from the two cancer research resources were presented; participants were asked return of results preferences and justifications. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed; survey data were analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

Fifty-one individuals (17 probands, 21 biological relatives, 13 spouses/partners) were interviewed. Subsequently, a mailed survey was returned by 464 probands, 1,040 biological family members, and 399 spouses/partners. This analysis highlights the interviews, augmented by survey findings. Probands and family members attribute great predictive power and lifesaving potential to genomic information. A majority hold that a proband's genomic results relevant to family members' health ought to be offered. While informants endorse each individual's choice whether to learn results, most express a strong moral responsibility to know and to share, particularly with the younger generation. Most have few concerns about sharing genetic information within the family; rather, their concerns focus on the health consequences of not sharing.

CONCLUSIONS

Although additional studies in diverse populations are needed, policies governing return of genomic results should consider how families understand genomic data, how they value confidentiality within the family, and whether they endorse an ethics of sharing. A focus on respect for individual privacy-without attention to how the broad social and cultural context shapes preferences within families-cannot be the sole foundation of policy.

Thought leader perspectives on benefits and harms in precision medicine research

Precision medicine research is underway to identify targeted approaches to improving health and preventing disease. However, such endeavors raise significant privacy and confidentiality concerns. The objective of this study was to elucidate the potential benefits and harms associated with precision medicine research through in-depth interviews with a diverse group of thought leaders, including primarily U.S.-based experts and scholars in the areas of ethics, genome research, health law, historically-disadvantaged populations, informatics, and participant-centric perspectives, as well as government officials and human subjects protections leaders. The results suggest the prospect of an array of individual and societal benefits, as well as physical, dignitary, group, economic, psychological, and legal harms. Relative to the way risks and harms are commonly described in consent forms for precision medicine research, the thought leaders we interviewed arguably emphasized a somewhat different set of issues. The return of individual research results, harm to socially-identifiable groups, the value-dependent nature of many benefits and harms, and the risks to the research enterprise itself emerged as important cross-cutting themes. Our findings highlight specific challenges that warrant concentrated care during the design, conduct, dissemination, and translation of precision medicine research and in the development of consent materials and processes.

Approaches to carrier testing and results disclosure in translational genomics research: The clinical sequencing exploratory research consortium experience

BACKGROUND

Clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) is primarily used to address specific clinical concerns by detecting risk of future disease, clarifying diagnosis, or directing treatment. Additionally, CGES makes possible the disclosure of autosomal recessive and X-linked carrier results as additional secondary findings, and research about the impact of carrier results disclosure in this context is needed.

METHODS

Representatives from 11 projects in the clinical sequencing exploratory research (CSER) consortium collected data from their projects using a structured survey. The survey focused on project characteristics, which variants were offered and/or disclosed to participants as carrier results, methods for carrier results disclosure, and project-specific outcomes. We recorded quantitative responses and report descriptive statistics with the aim of describing the variability in approaches to disclosing carrier results in translational genomics research projects.

RESULTS

The proportion of participants with carrier results was related to the number of genes included, ranging from 3% (three genes) to 92% (4,600 genes). Between one and seven results were disclosed to those participants who received any positive result. Most projects offered participants choices about whether to receive some or all of the carrier results. There were a range of approaches to communicate results, and many projects used separate approaches for disclosing positive and negative results.

CONCLUSION

Future translational genomics research projects will need to make decisions regarding whether and how to disclose carrier results. The CSER consortium experience identifies approaches that balance potential participant interest while limiting impact on project resources.

Aspects of Modern Biobank Activity - Comprehensive Review

Biobanks play an increasing role in contemporary research projects. These units meet all requirements to regard them as a one of the most innovative and up-to-date in the field of biomedical research. They enable conducting wide-scale research by the professional collection of biological specimens and correlated clinical data. Pathology units may be perceived roots of biobanking. The review aims at describing the concept of biobanks, their model of function and scientific potential. It comprises the division of biobanks, sample preservation methods and IT solutions as well as guidelines and recommendations for management of a vast number of biological samples and clinical data. Therefore, appropriate standard operating procedures and protocols are outlined. Constant individualization of diagnostic process and treatment procedures creates the niche for translational units. Thus, the role of biobanks in personalized medicine was also specified. The exceptionality of biobanks poses some new ethical-legal issues which have various solutions, in each legal system, amongst the world. Finally, distribution and activity of European biobanks are mentioned.

What information and the extent of information research participants need in informed consent forms: a multi-country survey

Background

The use of lengthy, detailed, and complex informed consent forms (ICFs) is of paramount concern in biomedical research as it may not truly promote the rights and interests of research participants. The extent of information in ICFs has been the subject of debates for decades; however, no clear guidance is given. Thus, the objective of this study was to determine the perspectives of research participants about the type and extent of information they need when they are invited to participate in biomedical research.

Methods

This multi-center, cross-sectional, descriptive survey was conducted at 54 study sites in seven Asia-Pacific countries. A modified Likert-scale questionnaire was used to determine the importance of each element in the ICF among research participants of a biomedical study, with an anchored rating scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important).

Results

Of the 2484 questionnaires distributed, 2113 (85.1%) were returned. The majority of respondents considered most elements required in the ICF to be ‘moderately important’ to ‘very important’ for their decision making (mean score, ranging from 3.58 to 4.47). Major foreseeable risk, direct benefit, and common adverse effects of the intervention were considered to be of most concerned elements in the ICF (mean score = 4.47, 4.47, and 4.45, respectively).

Conclusions

Research participants would like to be informed of the ICF elements required by ethical guidelines and regulations; however, the importance of each element varied, e.g., risk and benefit associated with research participants were considered to be more important than the general nature or technical details of research. Using a participant-oriented approach by providing more details of the participant-interested elements while avoiding unnecessarily lengthy details of other less important elements would enhance the quality of the ICF.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12910-018-0318-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Development of a consensus approach for return of pathology incidental findings in the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project

The active debate about the return of incidental or secondary findings in research has primarily focused on return to research participants, or in some cases, family members. Particular attention has been paid to return of genomic findings. Yet, research may generate other types of findings that warrant consideration for return, including findings related to the pathology of donated biospecimens. In the case of deceased biospecimen donors who are also organ and/or tissue transplant donors, pathology incidental findings may be relevant not to family members, but to potential organ or tissue transplant recipients. This paper will describe the ethical implications of pathology incidental findings in the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project, the process for developing a consensus approach as to if/when such findings should be returned, possible implications for other research projects collecting postmortem tissues and how the scenario encountered in GTEx fits into the larger return of results/incidental findings debate.

Opportunities and Challenges for Genetic Studies of End-Stage Renal Disease in Canada

Purpose of review:

Genetic testing can improve diagnostic precision in some patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) providing the potential for targeted therapy and improved patient outcomes. We sought to describe the genetic architecture of ESRD and Canadian data sources available for further genetic investigation into ESRD.

Sources of information:

We performed PubMed searches of English, peer-reviewed articles using keywords “chronic kidney disease,” “ESRD,” “genetics,” “sequencing,” and “administrative databases,” and searched for nephrology-related Mendelian diseases on the Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man database.

Methods:

In this narrative review, we discuss our evolving understanding of the genetic architecture of kidney disease and ESRD, the risks and benefits of using genetic data to help diagnose and manage patients with ESRD, existing public Canadian biobanks and databases, and a vision for future genetic studies of ESRD in Canada.

Key findings:

ESRD has a polygenic architecture including rare Mendelian mutations and common small effect genetic polymorphism contributors. Genetic testing will improve diagnostic accuracy and contribute to a precision medicine approach in nephrology. However, the risk and benefits of genetic testing needs to be considered from an individual and societal perspective, and further research is required. Merging existing health data, linking biobanks and administrative databases, and forming Canadian collaborations hold great potential for genetic research into ESRD. Large sample sizes are necessary to perform the suitably powered investigations required to bring this vision to reality.

Limitations:

This is a narrative review of the literature discussing future directions and opportunities. It reflects the views and academic biases of the authors.

Implications:

National collaborations will be required to obtain sample sizes required for impactful, robust research. Merging established datasets may be one approach to obtain adequate samples. Patient education and engagement will improve the value of knowledge gained.

Impact of Receiving Secondary Results from Genomic Research: A 12-Month Longitudinal Study

The impact of returning secondary results from exome sequencing (ES) on patients/participants is important to understand as ES is increasingly utilized in clinical care and research. Participants were recruited from studies using ES and were separated into two arms: 107 who had ES and were offered the choice to learn secondary results (ES group) and 85 who had not yet had ES (No ES group). Questionnaires were administered at baseline and 1 and 12 months, following results disclosure (ES group) or enrollment (No ES group). While the majority (65%) elected to learn all results following pre-test counseling, it was reduced from the 76% who indicated a desire for all results at baseline. Thirty-seven percent received results associated with an increased personal disease risk. There were no differences in changes in any of the psychological and social measures from baseline to post-results disclosure between the ES and No ES groups. Receiving a wide range of secondary findings appeared to have little measurable impact on most participants. The experience of learning secondary results may be related to participants' previous experiences with genetics, as well as the genetic counseling provided. Future research with a more diverse, genetically naïve group, as well as scalable methods of delivery, is needed.

Attitudes Toward Return of Genetic Research Results to Relatives, Including After Death: Comparison of Cancer Probands, Blood Relatives, and Spouse/Partners

Genetic research generates results with implications for relatives. Recommendations addressing relatives' access to a participant's genetic research findings include eliciting participant preferences about access and choosing a representative to make decisions about access upon participant incapacity/death. Representatives are likely to be blood relatives or spouse/partners (who may share genetically related children). This raises the question of whether relatives hold similar attitudes about access or divergent attitudes that may yield conflict. We surveyed pancreatic cancer biobank participants (probands) and relatives in a family registry (blood relatives and spouse/partners of probands); 1,903 (>55%) surveys were returned. Results revealed few attitudinal differences between the groups. A slightly higher proportion of blood relatives agreed with statements reflecting proband privacy. In conclusion, probands' decisions on access are likely to be accepted by relatives; in choosing a representative, probands may not face major differences in attitudes about privacy/sharing between a blood relative and a spouse/partner.

Large-Scale Genomic Biobanks and Cardiovascular Disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and is the focus of extensive biomedical research. Large genetic consortia combining data from many traditional prospective cohort and ascertained case-control study designs have facilitated the discovery of genetic associations for a variety of cardiovascular diseases including diabetes, coronary artery disease, and hypertension. Biobank-based genetic studies offer an alternative whereby large populations are genotyped and linked to electronic health records.

RECENT FINDINGS

Biobank sample sizes worldwide have surpassed even the largest genetic consortia and have yielded key insights into the genetic determinants of both common and rare cardiovascular phenotypes. Herein, we provide an overview of the largest genomic biobanks and discuss the relevant advantages and challenges inherent to the biobank model of cohort generation and genomic study design.

Perceptions of legislation relating to the sharing of genomic biobank results with donors-a survey of BBMRI-ERIC biobanks

Biobanks accumulate huge amounts of research findings, including participants' genomic data. Increasingly this leads to biobanks receiving research results that could be of clinical significance to biobank participants. The EU Horizon 2020 Project 'Genetics Clinic of the Future' surveyed European biobanks' perceptions of the legal and regulatory requirements for communicating individual research results to donors. The goal was to gain background knowledge for possible future guidelines, especially relating to the consent process. The Survey was implemented using a web-based Webropol tool. The questionnaire was sent at the end of 2015 to 351 European biobanks in 13 countries that are members of BBMRI-ERIC (Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure-European Research Infrastructure Consortium). Seventy-two biobanks responded to the survey, representing each of the 13 BBMRI Member States. Respondents were mainly individuals responsible for the governance of biobanks. The replies indicate that the majority of the respondents thought that their national legislation allowed them to contact participants to communicate results, and that research participants had the right to request their results. However, respondents' understanding of their national legislation varied even within member states. Our results indicate that legislation applied to biobanks in many countries may be scattered and difficult to interpret. In BBMRI-ERIC, there is an ongoing discussion about the need for European recommendations on sharing genomic biobank results with donors, which may pave the way for more coherent global guidelines. Our results form a basis for this work.

Patients' Attitudes Towards the Return of Incidental Findings After Research with Residual Tissue: A Mixed Methods Study

AIMS

To investigate the attitudes of patients toward the return of individual research results from scientific research with residual tissue.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We recruited 1319 patients from 6 Dutch hospitals. In total, 673 patients (51% response rate) completed the questionnaire and 146 were interviewed. Based on the questionnaire data, the majority of respondents (92%) wanted to be informed of incidental findings about both a curable (92%) and an incurable (76%) disease. Respondents' wishes to be informed about incidental findings did not vary significantly as a function of patient demographics or type of disease. The interview data show that respondents wished to be informed about incidental findings because they considered it to be normal practice; they expected the information to be of benefit for their health. Information should be provided by their physician. Yet, most respondents (84%) would consent to research even if they would not be informed about incidental findings, primarily because they recognized that there might be practical problems in providing such information, and because they valued scientific research highly.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that, while the majority of patients want to be informed about incidental findings, they also recognize that this may be difficult.

APPLaUD: access for patients and participants to individual level uninterpreted genomic data

BACKGROUND

There is a growing support for the stance that patients and research participants should have better and easier access to their raw (uninterpreted) genomic sequence data in both clinical and research contexts.

MAIN BODY

We review legal frameworks and literature on the benefits, risks, and practical barriers of providing individuals access to their data. We also survey genomic sequencing initiatives that provide or plan to provide individual access. Many patients and research participants expect to be able to access their health and genomic data. Individuals have a legal right to access their genomic data in some countries and contexts. Moreover, increasing numbers of participatory research projects, direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies, and now major national sequencing initiatives grant individuals access to their genomic sequence data upon request.

CONCLUSION

Drawing on current practice and regulatory analysis, we outline legal, ethical, and practical guidance for genomic sequencing initiatives seeking to offer interested patients and participants access to their raw genomic data.

Paediatric genomics: diagnosing rare disease in children

The majority of rare diseases affect children, most of whom have an underlying genetic cause for their condition. However, making a molecular diagnosis with current technologies and knowledge is often still a challenge. Paediatric genomics is an immature but rapidly evolving field that tackles this issue by incorporating next-generation sequencing technologies, especially whole-exome sequencing and whole-genome sequencing, into research and clinical workflows. This complex multidisciplinary approach, coupled with the increasing availability of population genetic variation data, has already resulted in an increased discovery rate of causative genes and in improved diagnosis of rare paediatric disease. Importantly, for affected families, a better understanding of the genetic basis of rare disease translates to more accurate prognosis, management, surveillance and genetic advice; stimulates research into new therapies; and enables provision of better support.

Reconsidering the duty to warn genetically at-risk relatives

The duty to warn genetically at-risk relatives of patients is one of the most misunderstood legal and ethical issues affecting clinical genetics. The legal doctrines are often associated with three state appellate court cases beginning in the mid-1990s. Since the HIPAA Privacy Rule went into effect in 2003, the duty to warn must be accomplished by warning the patient of the genetic nature of a diagnosed disorder or genetic risk and the necessity of warning at-risk relatives. Health-care providers are neither required nor permitted to warn at-risk relatives without the consent of their patients. Having warnings issued by the patient most closely aligns with traditional ethical principles and the interests of the parties. Physicians and other health-care providers can assist their patients by preparing jargon-free explanations of the genetic risk and offering consultation or referral services. In the future, the need for warnings is less likely to be triggered by diagnoses and more likely to be based on predictive information derived from genome sequencing and other technologies and data sources.

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.

Aggregate penetrance of genomic variants for actionable disorders in European and African Americans

In populations that have not been selected for family history of disease, it is unclear how commonly pathogenic variants (PVs) in disease-associated genes for rare Mendelian conditions are found and how often they are associated with clinical features of these conditions. We conducted independent, prospective analyses of participants in two community-based epidemiological studies to test the hypothesis that persons carrying PVs in any of 56 genes that lead to 24 dominantly inherited, actionable conditions are more likely to exhibit the clinical features of the corresponding diseases than those without PVs. Among 462 European American Framingham Heart Study (FHS) and 3223 African-American Jackson Heart Study (JHS) participants who were exome-sequenced, we identified and classified 642 and 4429 unique variants, respectively, in these 56 genes while blinded to clinical data. In the same participants, we ascertained related clinical features from the participants' clinical history of cancer and most recent echocardiograms, electrocardiograms, and lipid measurements, without knowledge of variant classification. PVs were found in 5 FHS (1.1%) and 31 JHS (1.0%) participants. Carriers of PVs were more likely than expected, on the basis of incidence in noncarriers, to have related clinical features in both FHS (80.0% versus 12.4%) and JHS (26.9% versus 5.4%), yielding standardized incidence ratios of 6.4 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.7 to 16.5; P = 7 × 10^-4) in FHS and 4.7 (95% CI, 1.9 to 9.7; P = 3 × 10^-4) in JHS. Individuals unselected for family history who carry PVs in 56 genes for actionable conditions have an increased aggregated risk of developing clinical features associated with the corresponding diseases.

Translating Biobank Science into Patient-Centered Language

Introduction: This project used Boot Camp Translation (BCT) to translate the complex medical jargon of biobanking into locally relevant evidence-based messages and materials to support increased knowledge and understanding in the local community.

Methods: Biobank BCT was a partnership of 16 community members and 5 academic researchers. The partnership met for 8 months.

Results: The partnership developed five main and seven submessages to assist patients and community members in making an informed decision about enrollment in a biobank.

Discussion: The resulting messages balance an individual's right to privacy and choice, while encouraging participation for the greater good.

Clinical verification of genetic results returned to research participants: findings from a Colon Cancer Family Registry

BACKGROUND

The extent to which participants act to clinically verify research results is largely unknown. This study examined whether participants who received Lynch syndrome (LS)-related findings pursued researchers' recommendation to clinically verify results with testing performed by a CLIA-certified laboratory.

METHODS

The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center site of the multinational Colon Cancer Family Registry offered non-CLIA individual genetic research results to select registry participants (cases and their enrolled relatives) from 2011 to 2013. Participants who elected to receive results were counseled on the importance of verifying results at a CLIA-certified laboratory. Twenty-six (76.5%) of the 34 participants who received genetic results completed 2- and 12-month postdisclosure surveys; 42.3% of these (11/26) participated in a semistructured follow-up interview.

RESULTS

Within 12 months of result disclosure, only 4 (15.4%) of 26 participants reported having verified their results in a CLIA-certified laboratory; of these four cases, all research and clinical results were concordant. Reasons for pursuing clinical verification included acting on the recommendation of the research team and informing future clinical care. Those who did not verify results cited lack of insurance coverage and limited perceived personal benefit of clinical verification as reasons for inaction.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest researchers will need to address barriers to seeking clinical verification in order to ensure that the intended benefits of returning genetic research results are realized.

Towards precision nephrology: the opportunities and challenges of genomic medicine

The expansion of genomic medicine is furthering our understanding of many human diseases. This is well illustrated in the field of nephrology, through the characterization, discovery, and growing insight into various renal diseases through use of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) technologies. This review will provide an overview of the diagnostic opportunities of using genetic testing in the clinical setting by describing notable discoveries regarding inherited forms of renal disease that have advanced the field and by highlighting some of the potential benefits of establishing a molecular diagnosis in a clinical practice. In addition, it will discuss some of the challenges associated with the expansion of genetic testing into the clinical setting, including clinical variant interpretation and return of genetic results.

Pathogenic variants in the healthy elderly: unique ethical and practical challenges

: Genetic research into ageing, longevity and late-onset disease is becoming increasingly common. Yet, there is a paucity of knowledge related to clinical actionability and the return of pathogenic variants to otherwise healthy elderly individuals. Whether or not genetic research in the elderly should be managed differently from standard practices adapted for younger populations has not yet been defined. In this article, we provide an overview of ethical and practical challenges in preparing for a genetic study of over 14 000 healthy Australians aged 70 years or older enrolled in the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) Healthy Ageing Biobank. At the time of consent, all participants in this study were free of life-threatening illness, cardiovascular disease or cognitive impairment. ASPREE is thus a cohort of healthy elderly individuals with seemingly minimal burden of genetic disease recruited without ascertainment bias. The cohort presents a unique opportunity to address the penetrance of known pathogenic variants in a population without disease symptoms; however, it also raises a number of ethical concerns regarding the interpretation and disclosure of variants with known clinical actionability. Some of the challenges include (a) how to manage the interpretation, disclosure and actioning of pathogenic variants found in otherwise healthy elderly adults without disease symptoms, (b) whether or not to disclose findings for the benefit of family members rather than elderly consented donors themselves, (c) how to manage the return of genetic findings to the elderly individuals who are now in severe cognitive decline or terminal illness, (d) how to ensure quality of information and clinical service upon disclosure of results to this demographic and (e) how to prepare for the insurance implications of disclosing genetic information under Australian law. We discuss these and other dilemmas and propose a defensible plan of management.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN83772183.

Population-based biobank participants' preferences for receiving genetic test results

There are ongoing debates on issues relating to returning individual research results (IRRs) and incidental findings (IFs) generated by genetic research in population-based biobanks. To understand how to appropriately return genetic results from biobank studies, we surveyed preferences for returning IRRs and IFs among participants of the Tohoku Medical Megabank Project (TMM). We mailed a questionnaire to individuals enrolled in the TMM cohort study (Group 1; n=1031) and a group of Tohoku region residents (Group 2; n=2314). The respondents were required to be over 20 years of age. Nearly 90% of Group 1 participants and over 80% of Group 2 participants expressed a preference for receiving their genetic test results. Furthermore, over 60% of both groups preferred to receive their genetic results ‘from a genetic specialist.’ A logistic regression analysis revealed that engaging in ‘health-conscious behaviors’ (such as regular physical activity, having a healthy diet, intentionally reducing alcohol intake and/or smoking and so on) was significant, positively associated with preferring to receive their genetic test results (odds ratio=2.397 (Group 1) and 1.897 (Group 2)). Our findings provided useful information and predictors regarding the return of IRRs and IFs in a population-based biobank.

The science behind One Health: at the interface of humans, animals, and the environment

Humans face a grand quality-of-life challenge as growing demands for resources for an ever-expanding population threaten the existence of wildlife populations, degrade land, and pollute air and water. Public investment and policy decisions that will shape future interactions of humans, animals, and the environment need scientific input to help find common ground for durable and sustainable success. The Second International Conference on One Medicine One Science brought together a broad range of scientists, trainees, regulatory authorities, and health experts from 34 countries to inform and discuss the human impacts of air quality; the complexities of water quality, access, and conflicts; the opportunities and uncertainties in precision medicine; and the role of science communication in health policy formulation. Workshops focused on the roles and development of physician-scientists and multidisciplinary teams in complex problem solving, Big Data tools for analysis and visualization, international policy development processes, and health models that benefit animals and humans. Key realizations were that local and regional health challenges at the interface of humans, animals, and the environment are variations of the same overarching conflicts and that international gatherings provide new opportunities for investigation and policy development that are broadly applicable.

Identifying public expectations of genetic biobanks

Understanding public priorities for biobanks is vital for maximising utility and efficiency of genetic research and maintaining respect for donors. This research directly assessed the relative importance the public place on different expectations of biobanks. Quantitative and qualitative results from a national sample of 800 Australians revealed that the majority attributed more importance to protecting privacy and ethical conduct than maximising new healthcare benefits, which was in turn viewed as more important than obtaining specific consent, benefit sharing, collaborating and sharing data. A latent class analysis identified two distinct classes displaying different patterns of expectations. One placed higher priority on behaviours that respect the donor ( n = 623), the other on accelerating science ( n = 278). Additional expectations derived from qualitative data included the need for biobanks to be transparent and to prioritise their research focus, educate the public and address commercialisation.

Review: Genetic research on alcohol use outcomes in African American populations: A review of the literature, associated challenges, and implications

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There have been remarkable advances in understanding genetic influences on complex traits; however, individuals of African descent have been underrepresented in genetic research.

METHODS

We review the limitations of existing genetic research on alcohol phenotypes in African Americans (AA) including both twin and gene identification studies, possible reasons for underrepresentation of AAs in genetic research, the implications of the lack of racially diverse samples, and special considerations regarding conducting genetic research in AA populations.

RESULTS

There is a marked absence of large-scale AA twin studies so little is known about the genetic epidemiology of alcohol use and problems among AAs. Individuals of African descent have also been underrepresented in gene identification efforts; however, there have been recent efforts to enhance representation. It remains unknown the extent to which genetic variants associated with alcohol use outcomes in individuals of European and African descent will be shared. Efforts to increase representation must be accompanied by careful attention to the ethical, legal, and social implications of genetic research. This is particularly true for AAs due to the history of abuse by the biomedical community and the persistent racial discrimination targeting this population.

CONCLUSIONS AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

Lack of representation in genetic studies limits our understanding of the etiological factors that contribute to substance use and psychiatric outcomes in populations of African descent and has the potential to further perpetuate health disparities. Involving individuals of diverse ancestry in discussions about genetic research will be critical to ensure that all populations benefit equally from genetic advances. (Am J Addict 2017;26:486-493).

The Right to Know and the Right Not to Know Revisited: Part One

Prompted by developments in human genetics, a recurrent bioethical question concerns a person’s ‘right to know’ and ‘right not to know’ about genetic information held that is intrinsically related to or linked to them. In this paper, we will revisit the claimed rights in relation to two particular test cases. One concerns the rights of the 500,000 participants in UK Biobank (UKB) whose biosamples, already having been genotyped, will now be exome sequenced, and the other concerns the rights of pregnant women (and their children) who undergo non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT)—a simple blood test that can reveal genetic information about both a foetus and its mother. This two-part paper is in four principal sections. First, we sketch the relevant features of our two test cases. Secondly, we consider the significance of recent legal jurisprudence in the UK and Singapore. Thirdly, we consider how, the jurisprudence apart, the claimed rights might be grounded. Fourthly, we consider the limits on the rights. We conclude with some short remarks about the kind of genetically aware society that we might want to be and how far there is still an opportunity meaningfully to debate the claimed rights.

Clinical genome sequencing and population preferences for information about 'incidental' findings-From medically actionable genes (MAGs) to patient actionable genes (PAGs)

Whole genome or exome sequencing is increasingly used in the clinical contexts, and ‘incidental’ findings are generated. There is need for an adequate policy for the reporting of these findings to individuals. Such a policy has been suggested by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). We argue that ACMG’s policy is overly paternalistic, and that an adequate policy must take into account population preferences. We conducted a choice based conjoint survey of population preferences for reporting in a representative sample of the Danish population. In a 12 task survey respondents were asked about their preference for reporting in relation to three scenarios with seven different attributes. Of 1200 respondents 66.4% participated. We show that population preferences for reporting differs from ACMG’s recommendations, and suggest a new policy based on both medically and patient actionable genes.