Communication of pharmacogenetic research results to HIV-infected treated patients: standpoints of professionals and patients

Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives

Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders’ perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.

Acceptability of Pharmacogenetic Testing among French Psychiatrists, a National Survey

Psychiatric disorder management is based on the prescription of psychotropic drugs. Response to them remains often insufficient and varies from one patient to another. Pharmacogenetics explain part of this variability. Pharmacogenetic testing is likely to optimize the choice of treatment and thus improve patients’ care, even if concerns and limitations persist. This practice of personalized medicine is not very widespread in France. We conducted a national survey to evaluate the acceptability of this tool by psychiatrists and psychiatry residents in France, and to identify factors associated with acceptability and previous use. The analysis included 397 observations. The mean acceptability score was 10.70, on a scale from 4 to 16. Overall acceptability score was considered as low for 3.0% of responders, intermediate for 80.1% and high for 16.9%. After regression, the remaining factors influencing acceptability independently of the others were prescription and training history and theoretical approach. The attitude of our population seems to be rather favorable, however, obvious deficiencies have emerged regarding perceived skills and received training. Concerns about the cost and delays of tests results also emerged. According to our survey, one of the keys to overcoming the barriers encountered in the integration of pharmacogenetics seems to be the improvement of training and the provision of information to practitioners.

Attitudes of Dilated Cardiomyopathy Patients and Investigators Toward Genomic Study Enrollment, Consent Process, and Return of Genetic Results

Precision medicine genetics study design requires large, diverse cohorts and thoughtful use of electronic technologies. Involving patients in research design may increase enrollment and engagement, thereby enabling a means to relevant patient outcomes in clinical practice. Few data, however, illustrate attitudes of patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and their family members toward genetic study design. This study assessed attitudes of 16 enrolled patients and their family members (P/FM), and 18 investigators or researchers (I/R) of the ongoing DCM Precision Medicine Study during a conjoint patient and investigator meeting using structured, self‐administered surveys examining direct‐to‐participant enrollment and web‐based consent, return of genetic results, and other aspects of genetic study design. Survey respondents were half women and largely identified as white. Web‐based consent was supported by 93% of P/FM and 88% of I/R. Most respondents believed that return of genetic results would motivate study enrollment, but also indicated a desire to opt out. Ideal study design preferences included a 1‐hour visit per year, along with the ability to complete study aspects by telephone or web and possibility of prophylactic medication. This study supports partnership of patients and clinical researchers to inform research priorities and study design to attain the promise of precision medicine for DCM.

Moving to Another World: Understanding the Impact of Clinical Trial Closure on Research Participants Living With HIV in Uganda

Despite an increasing need for clinical trials involving people living with HIV (PLWH), little is known about how PLWH experience trial closure, particularly in low-income countries, where the majority of trials take place. We sought to explore the impact of trial closure on PLWH in Uganda. This was an interpretive, grounded theory study using in-depth interviews, conducted between October 2014 and August 2015. Adult participants (N = 23) from 3 trials were included. The findings indicated that trial closure was represented as "moving to another world" and was an emotional transition, linked to a loss of quality care in the research environment, the need to find alternative health facilities, fear of experiencing unwanted side effects, a desire to receive trial feedback, and difficulties linking to posttrial care. We concluded that PLWH leaving trials in a resource-limited setting required holistic care to facilitate their transition back to "usual care."

Adult patient perspectives on clinical trial result reporting: A survey of cancer patients

BACKGROUND

The provision of study results to research participants is supported by pediatric and adult literature. This study assessed adult cancer patient preferences surrounding aggregate result disclosure to study participants.

METHODS

A 46-item questionnaire was given to 250 adult cancer patients who had participated in oncology trials at a single center. Respondents answered questions surrounding their preferences for timing, content, and modality of communication for dissemination of study results.

RESULTS

Questionnaire completion rate was 76% (189/250). Most patients (92%) strongly felt a right to know study results. Patients preferred result dissemination via letter for trials with positive outcomes, but preferred in-person clinic visits for negative outcomes. Despite this, a majority of participants (59%) found letters acceptable to inform participants of negative results. Only a minority (36%) of the participants found Internet-based disclosure acceptable for negative trial results. Unfortunately, very few patients (8%) recalled having received the results for a study they participated in, and of these patients, less than half fully understood the results they were given.

CONCLUSION

Most clinical trial participants feel they have a right to study result disclosure, regardless of trial outcome. In-person visits are preferred for negative results, but more feasible alternatives such as letters were still acceptable for the majority of participants. However, Internet-based disclosure was not acceptable to most participants in oncology trials. Time and cost allocations for result disclosure should be considered during grant and ethics board applications, and clear guidelines are required to help researchers share the results with patients.

Patient/family views on data sharing in rare diseases: study in the European LeukoTreat project

The purpose of this study was to explore patient and family views on the sharing of their medical data in the context of compiling a European leukodystrophies database. A survey questionnaire was delivered with help from referral centers and the European Leukodystrophies Association, and the questionnaires returned were both quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed. This study found that patients/families were strongly in favor of participating. Patients/families hold great hope and trust in the development of this type of research. They have a strong need for information and transparency on database governance, the conditions framing access to data, all research conducted, partnerships with the pharmaceutical industry, and they also need access to results. Our findings bring ethics-driven arguments for a process combining initial broad consent with ongoing information. On both, we propose key item-deliverables to database participants.

Ethical management in the constitution of a European database for leukodystrophies rare diseases

BACKGROUND

The EU LeukoTreat program aims to connect, enlarge and improve existing national databases for leukodystrophies (LDs) and other genetic diseases affecting the white matter of the brain. Ethical issues have been placed high on the agenda by pairing the participating LD expert research teams with experts in medical ethics and LD patient families and associations. The overarching goal is to apply core ethics principles to specific project needs and ensure patient rights and protection in research addressing the context of these rare diseases.

AIM

This paper looks at how ethical issues were identified and handled at project management level when setting up an ethics committee.

METHODS

Through a work performed as a co-construction between health professionals, ethics experts, and patient representatives, we expose the major ethical issues identified.

RESULTS

The committee acts as the forum for tackling specific issues tied to data sharing and patient participation: the thin line between care and research, the need for a charter establishing the commitments binding health professionals and the information items to be delivered. Ongoing feedback on the database, including delivering global results in a broad-audience format, emerged as a key recommendation. Information should be available to all patients in the partner countries developing the database and should be scaled to different patient profiles.

CONCLUSION

This work led to a number of recommendations for ensuring transparency and optimizing the partnership between scientists and patients.

Communication of genetic test results to family and health-care providers following disclosure of research results

PURPOSE

Few studies have examined methods to promote communication following the return of DNA mismatch repair genetic test results obtained during research. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate a telephone protocol for returning research results of DNA mismatch repair gene testing to identify Lynch syndrome.

METHODS

We invited individuals with known DNA mismatch repair mutations in their family, who were enrolled in the Colon Cancer Family Registry at the Mayo Clinic, to participate in this study. Participants completed surveys before and 6 months after DNA mismatch repair test result disclosure.

RESULTS

Among 107 participants, 79% opted to learn their DNA mismatch repair test results; of these, 44 (41%) carried DNA mismatch repair mutations. After disclosure, 54% reported screening for any type of cancer. Among carriers, >74% reported communicating results to family; communication was predicted by baseline confidence in coping with the genetic test result (Z = 1.97; P = 0.04). Result disclosure to a physician was predicted by greater perceived cancer risk (Z = 2.08; P = 0.03) and greater intention to share results with family (Z = 3.07; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Research versus clinically based gene disclosure presents challenges. A telephone disclosure process for the return of research-based results among Lynch syndrome families led to high rates of result uptake and participant communication of results to providers and family members.

[Ethics of biomedical research: questions about patient information]

All recommendations and laws concerning biomedical research, including the most recent in France in 2012, emphasize the quality of patient information to justify its participation. To optimize practices, it is important to take into account the central issues: what limits of information? What role for the relatives and family in the decision in case of disability or vulnerability of a patient? What need for specific information for long protocol and follow-up cohort? What information about research results?

Feedback of research findings for vaccine trials: experiences from two malaria vaccine trials involving healthy children on the Kenyan Coast

Internationally, calls for feedback of findings to be made an ‘ethical imperative’ or mandatory have been met with both strong support and opposition. Challenges include differences in issues by type of study and context, disentangling between aggregate and individual study results, and inadequate empirical evidence on which to draw. In this paper we present data from observations and interviews with key stakeholders involved in feeding back aggregate study findings for two Phase II malaria vaccine trials among children under the age of 5 years old on the Kenyan Coast. In our setting, feeding back of aggregate findings was an appreciated set of activities. The inclusion of individual results was important from the point of view of both participants and researchers, to reassure participants of trial safety, and to ensure that positive results were not over-interpreted and that individual level issues around blinding and control were clarified. Feedback sessions also offered an opportunity to re-evaluate and re-negotiate trial relationships and benefits, with potentially important implications for perceptions of and involvement in follow-up work for the trials and in future research. We found that feedback of findings is a complex but key step in a continuing set of social interactions between community members and research staff (particularly field staff who work at the interface with communities), and among community members themselves; a step which needs careful planning from the outset. We agree with others that individual and aggregate results need to be considered separately, and that for individual results, both the nature and value of the information, and the context, including social relationships, need to be taken into account.

Perspectives of surrogate decision makers for critically ill patients regarding gene variation research

PURPOSE

We undertook this investigation to explore the manner in which surrogate decision makers for critically ill patients perceived genetic data collected in the context of clinical investigation.

METHODS

Surrogate decision makers for critically ill patients cared for in intensive care units of two urban hospitals participated in focus groups designed to explore perceptions regarding gene variation research.

RESULTS

Surrogate decision makers were generally familiar with genetic concepts and reported that they could provide an informed opinion regarding permitting (or declining) the participation of their loved ones in gene variation research. Respondents perceived the risk associated with this type of research largely as the risk associated with acquiring the sample (i.e., whether it involved an invasive procedure or not) but appreciated that genetic samples could provide information not readily obtained from nongenetic sources. Concerns about potential misuse of genetic data largely centered on misconduct, paternity, forensic applications, and insurance and employment discrimination. Although surrogate decision makers expressed that their loved ones would have interest in return of results and being recontacted for future use, these interests were secondary to confidentiality concerns.

CONCLUSION

Respondents perceived genetic and nongenetic data as comparable. Informed consent processes that provide clear information regarding confidentiality protections, specimen handling, and parameters for future use may enhance enrollment.Genet Med 2013:15(5):368-373.

Information that should be given to HIV cohort participants during ongoing research: the viewpoints of patient representatives and research professionals

While investigators have a duty to provide research participants with summary findings at the end of a study, providing general information during the course of research is rarely considered. However, this raises an important ethical issue in the context of long-term studies such as cohorts or biobanks. We investigated this issue in the context of two ANRS cohorts of HIV-infected patients, AQUITAINE and COPILOTE. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with HIV patient representatives and research professionals concerning the delivery of information in the course of the research. Respondents stated that participants wish to be informed of research results (both aggregate and individual) but also expect general information about the cohort itself, research progression, and what their participation may provide. It was concluded that information provided during the course of the research may help participants to distinguish between care and research. The essential role of clinicians-investigators in providing information was emphasized.

Considerations in the construction of an instrument to assess attitudes regarding critical illness gene variation research

Clinical studies conducted in intensive care units are associated with logistical and ethical challenges. Diseases investigated are precipitous and life-threatening, care is highly technological, and patients are often incapacitated and decision-making is provided by surrogates. These investigations increasingly involve collection of genetic data. The manner in which the exigencies of critical illness impact attitudes regarding genetic data collection is unstudied. Given interest in understanding stakeholder preferences as a foundation for the ethical conduct of research, filling this knowledge gap is timely. The conduct of opinion research in the critical care arena is novel. This brief report describes the development of parallel patient/surrogate decision-maker quantitative survey instruments for use in this environment. Future research employing this instrument or a variant of it with diverse populations promises to inform research practices in critical illness gene variation research.

What Research Participants Want to Know About Genetic Research Results: The Impact of “Genetic Exceptionalism”

The disclosure of individual genetic results has generated an ongoing debate about which rules should be followed. We aimed to identify factors related to research participants' preferences about learning the results of genomic studies using their donated tissue samples. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 279 patients from the United States and Spain who had volunteered to donate a sample for genomic research. Our results show that 48% of research participants would like to be informed about all individual results from future genomic studies using their donated tissue, especially those from the U.S. (71.4%) and those believing that genetic information poses special risks (69.7%). In addition, 16% of research participants considered genetic information to be riskier than other types of personal medical data. In conclusion, our study demonstrates that a high proportion of participants prefer to be informed about their individual results and that there is a higher preference among those research subjects who perceive their genetic information as riskier than other types of personal medical data.

Public perspectives on returning genetics and genomics research results

BACKGROUND

The debate about returning research results has revealed different perspectives among researchers, participants and advisory groups with participants generally interested in obtaining their results. Given this preference, policies regarding return of individual research results may affect whether a potential subject chooses to participate in a study. Public attitudes, particularly those of African-Americans, toward this issue have been understudied.

METHODS

In 2008-2009, we convened 10 focus groups in Durham, N.C. to explore attitudes about returning research results and how different policies might influence their likelihood to participate in genetic/genomic studies. Transcripts were complimented by a short anonymous survey. Of 100 participants, 73% were female and 76% African-American with a median age of 40-49 years.

RESULTS

Although there was general interest in obtaining genetics research results, particularly individual results, discussants recognized many potential complexities. The option to obtain research results (individual or summary) was clearly valued and lack thereof was potentially a deterrent for genetic/genomic research enrollment.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing the option to learn research results may help strengthen relationships between investigators and participants and thereby serve as a positive influencing factor for minority communities. Consideration of the broader implications of returning research results is warranted. Engaging diverse publics is essential to gain a balance between the interests and burdens of participants and investigators.

Biobanking in pediatrics: the human nonsubjects approach

Pediatric biobanks are an indispensible resource for the research that will be needed to bring advances in personalized medicine into pediatric medical care. Investigators developing pediatric biobanks have struggled with the ethical and legal challenges that arise in pediatric research. This article explores how one biobank model, the 'human nonsubjects models', is able to respond to such common challenges as the role of the parent and the child in agreeing to research participation, reconsent at the age of majority, data sharing and return of research results. Although this approach does not involve formal informed consent, it is well-suited to pediatric biobanking owing to its potential to reduce risk to children through a combination of advanced deidentification techniques and extensive oversight.

Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: the debate reconsidered

Despite extensive debate, there is no consensus on whether individual genetic data should be disclosed to research participants. The emergence of whole-genome sequencing methods is increasingly generating unequalled amounts of genetic data, making the need for a clear feedback policy even more urgent. In this debate two positions can be broadly discerned: a restrictive disclosure policy ('no feedback except life-saving data') and an intermediate policy of qualified disclosure ('feedback if the results meet certain conditions'). We explain both positions and present the principal underlying arguments. We suggest that the debate should no longer address whether genetic research results should be returned, but instead how best to make an appropriate selection and how to strike a balance between the possible benefits of disclosure and the harms of unduly hindering biomedical research.

Researcher practices on returning genetic research results

BACKGROUND/AIMS

as genetic and genomic research proliferates, debate has ensued about returning results to participants. In addition to consideration of the benefits and harms to participants, researchers must also consider the logistical and financial feasibility of returning research results. However, little data exist of actual researcher practices.

METHODS

we conducted an online survey of 446 corresponding authors of genetic/genomic studies conducted in the United States and published in 2006-2007 to assess the frequency with which they considered, offered to, or actually returned research results, what factors influenced these decisions, and the method of communicating results.

RESULTS

the response rate was 24% (105/446). Fifty-four percent of respondents considered the issue of returning research results to participants, 28% offered to return individual research results, and 24% actually returned individual research results. Of those who considered the issue of returning research results during the study planning phase, the most common factors considered were whether research results were deemed clinically useful (18%) and respect for participants (13%). Researchers who had a medical degree and conducted studies on children were significantly more likely to offer to return or actually return individual results compared to those with a Ph.D. only.

CONCLUSIONS

we speculate that issues associated with clinical validity and respect for participants dominated concerns of time and expense given the prominent and continuing ethical debates surrounding genetics and genomics research. The substantial number of researchers who did not consider returning research results suggests that researchers and institutional review boards need to devote more attention to a topic about which research participants are interested.

Preferences regarding genetic research results: comparing veterans and nonveterans responses

OBJECTIVE

Communicating genetic research results to participants presents ethical challenges. Our objectives were to examine participants' preferences in receiving future genetic research results and to compare preferences reported by veteran and nonveterans participants.

METHODS

Secondary analysis was performed on data collected in 2000-2004 from 1,575 consent forms signed by Mexican-American participants enrolled in 2 genetic family studies (GFS) in San Antonio: The Family Investigation of Nephropathy and Diabetes (FIND) and the Extended FIND (EFIND). The consent forms for these studies contained multiple-choice questions to examine participants' preferences about receiving their (1) clinical lab results and (2) future genetic research results. The FIND and EFIND databases had information on subjects' demographic characteristics and some selected clinical variables. We identified veterans using the Veterans Health Administration's (VHA's) centralized data repository. We compared veterans' and nonveterans' preferences using Student's t test for continuous variables and χ² test for discrete variables. A logistic regression analyzed subjects' preference for receiving their research results, controlling for other socio-demographic and clinical variables.

RESULTS

The sample included 275 (18%) veterans and 1,247 (82%) nonveterans. Our results indicated a strong desire among the majority of participants 1,445 (95%) in getting their clinical lab research results. Likewise, 93% expressed interest in being informed about their future genetic results. There was no significant difference in veterans' and nonveterans' preference to disclosure of the research results (χ² test; p > 0.05). Regression analysis showed no significant relationship (p = 0.449) between the outcome (receiving research results) and veterans' responses after controlling for demographics and educational levels.

CONCLUSION

Participants believed they would prefer receiving their genetic research results. Veterans are similar to nonveterans in their preferences. Offering genetic research results to participants should be based on well defined and structured plans to enhance interpretation of genetic data.

Feedback of trial results to participants: a survey of clinicians' and patients' attitudes and experiences

Purpose

There is growing interest in the provision of trial results to trial participants. However, there are a number of gaps in the research base relating to the closure of clinical trials and feedback of results to participants.

Methods

The aim of this research was to explore the practice of feeding back trial results to trial participants and to identify best practice in this area. Postal questionnaires were sent to members of the UK National Cancer Research Institute Clinical Studies Groups (NCRI CSG) and to patients over the age of 18 years who completed trial treatment (located in one Cancer Network) during a 16-month period (April 07–July 08).

Results

145 NCRI CSG member surveys and 81 patient questionnaires were returned. The vast majority of all respondents supported the idea of offering results to trial participants. However, NCRI members and trial participants differed in their opinions about the timing and method for the provision of results.

Conclusion

The results provide an insight into the views of these groups in relation to desire for results and practical aspects of results feedback which should inform further investigations into trial management and the practice of feedback of trial results.

Communicating the results of clinical research to participants: attitudes, practices, and future directions

The authors discuss the available data on the effects of communicating aggregate and individual research results on participants, investigators, and the research enterprise.