Return of individual results in epilepsy genomic research: A view from the field

Perspectives on returning individual and aggregate genomic research results to study participants and communities in Kenya: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

A fundamental ethical challenge in conducting genomics research is the question of what and how individual level genetic findings and aggregate genomic results should be conveyed to research participants and communities. This is within the context of minimal guidance, policies, and experiences, particularly in Africa. The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of key stakeholders' on returning genomics research results to participants in Kenya.

METHODS

This qualitative study involved focus group discussions (FGDs) and in-depth interviews (IDIs) with 69 stakeholders. The purposively selected participants, included research ethics committee (REC) members (8), community members (44), community resource persons (8), and researchers (9). A semi-structured interview guide was used to facilitate discussions. Six FGDs and twenty-five (IDIs) were conducted among the different stakeholders. The issues explored in the interviews included: (1) views on returning results, (2) kind of results to be returned, (3) value of returning results to participants, and (4) challenges anticipated in returning results to participants and communities. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded in Nvivo 12 pro. Thematic and content analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Participants agreed on the importance of returning genomic results either as individual or aggregate results. The most cited reasons for returning of genomic results included recognizing participants' contribution to research, encouraging participation in future research, and increasing the awareness of scientific progress. Other aspects on how genomic research results should be shared included sharing easy to understand results in the shortest time possible and maintaining confidentiality when sharing sensitive results.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified key stakeholders' perspectives on returning genomic results at the individual and community levels in two urban informal settlements of Nairobi. The majority of the participants expect to receive feedback about their genomic results, and it is an obligation for researchers to see how to best fulfil it.

Return of individual research results: What do participants prefer and expect?

Newer data platforms offer increased opportunity to share multidimensional health data with research participants, but the preferences of participants for which data to receive and how is evolving. Our objective is to describe the preferences and expectations of participants for the return of individual research results within Project Baseline Health Study (PBHS). The PBHS is an ongoing, multicenter, longitudinal cohort study with data from four initial enrollment sites. PBHS participants are recruited from the general population along with groups enriched for heart disease and cancer disease risk. Cross-sectional data on return of results were collected in 2017–2018 from an (1) in-person enrollment survey (n = 1,890), (2) benchmark online survey (n = 1,059), and (3) participant interviews (n = 21). The main outcomes included (1) preferences for type of information to be added next to returned results, (2) participant plans for sharing returned results with a non-study clinician, and (3) choice to opt-out of receiving genetic results. Results were compared by sociodemographic characteristics. Enrollment and benchmark survey respondents were 57.1% and 53.5% female, and 60.0% and 66.2% white, respectively. Participants preferred the following data types be added to returned results in the future: genetics (29.9%), heart imaging, (16.4%), study watch (15.8%), and microbiome (13.3%). Older adults (OR 0.60, 95% CI: 0.41–0.87) were less likely to want their genetic results returned next. Forty percent of participants reported that they would not share all returned results with their non–study clinicians. Black (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43–0.95) and Asian (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30–0.73) participants were less likely, and older participants more likely (OR 1.45–1.61), to plan to share all results with their clinician than their counterparts. At enrollment, 5.8% of participants opted out of receiving their genetics results. The study showed that substantial heterogeneity existed in participant’s preferences and expectations for return of results, and variations were related to sociodemographic characteristics.

Precision medicine and therapies of the future

Precision medicine in the epilepsies has gathered much attention, especially with gene discovery pushing forward new understanding of disease biology. Several targeted treatments are emerging, some with considerable sophistication and individual‐level tailoring. There have been rare achievements in improving short‐term outcomes in a few very select patients with epilepsy. The prospects for further targeted, repurposed, or novel treatments seem promising. Along with much‐needed success, difficulties are also arising. Precision treatments do not always work, and sometimes are inaccessible or do not yet exist. Failures of precision medicine may not find their way to broader scrutiny. Precision medicine is not a new concept: It has been boosted by genetics and is often focused on genetically determined epilepsies, typically considered to be driven in an individual by a single genetic variant. Often the mechanisms generating the full clinical phenotype from such a perceived single cause are incompletely understood. The impact of additional genetic variation and other factors that might influence the clinical presentation represent complexities that are not usually considered. Precision success and precision failure are usually equally incompletely explained. There is a need for more comprehensive evaluation and a more rigorous framework, bringing together information that is both necessary and sufficient to explain clinical presentation and clinical responses to precision treatment in a precision approach that considers the full picture not only of the effects of a single variant, but also of its genomic and other measurable environment, within the context of the whole person. As we may be on the brink of a treatment revolution, progress must be considered and reasoned: One possible framework is proposed for the evaluation of precision treatments.

At the Research-Clinical Interface: Returning Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants

Whether individual results of genetic research studies ought to be disclosed to study participants has been debated in recent decades. Previously, the prevailing expert view discouraged the return of individual research results to participants because of the potential lack of analytic validity, questionable clinical validity and medical actionability, and questions about whether it is the role of research to provide participants with their data. With additional knowledge of participant perspectives and shifting views about the benefits of research and respect for participants, current expert consensus is moving toward support of returning such results. Significant ethical controversies remain, and there are many practical questions left to address, including appropriate procedures for returning results and the potential burden to clinicians when patients seek guidance about the clinical implications of research results. In this review, we describe current views regarding the return of genetic research results, including controversies and practical challenges, and consider the application of these issues to research on apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1), a gene recently associated with health disparities in kidney disease. Although this case is unique, it illustrates the complexities involved in returning results and highlights remaining questions.

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.

New insights into a spectrum of developmental malformations related to mTOR dysregulations: challenges and perspectives

In recent years the role of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway has emerged as crucial for normal cortical development. Therefore, it is not surprising that aberrant activation of mTOR is associated with developmental malformations and epileptogenesis. A broad spectrum of malformations of cortical development, such as focal cortical dysplasia (FCD) and tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC), have been linked to either germline or somatic mutations in mTOR pathway-related genes, commonly summarised under the umbrella term 'mTORopathies'. However, there are still a number of unanswered questions regarding the involvement of mTOR in the pathophysiology of these abnormalities. Therefore, a monogenetic disease, such as TSC, can be more easily applied as a model to study the mechanisms of epileptogenesis and identify potential new targets of therapy. Developmental neuropathology and genetics demonstrate that FCD IIb and hemimegalencephaly are the same diseases. Constitutive activation of mTOR signalling represents a shared pathogenic mechanism in a group of developmental malformations that have histopathological and clinical features in common, such as epilepsy, autism and other comorbidities. We seek to understand the effect of mTOR dysregulation in a developing cortex with the propensity to generate seizures as well as the aftermath of the surrounding environment, including the white matter.