Return of research results: general principles and international perspectives

Design and pilot results from the Million Veteran Program Return Of Actionable Results (MVP-ROAR) Study

BACKGROUND

As a mega-biobank linked to a national healthcare system, the Million Veteran Program (MVP) can directly improve the health care of participants. To determine the feasibility and outcomes of returning medically actionable genetic results to MVP participants, the program launched the MVP Return of Actionable Results (MVP-ROAR) Study, with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) as an exemplar actionable condition.

METHODS

The MVP-ROAR Study consists of a completed single-arm pilot phase and an ongoing randomized clinical trial (RCT), in which MVP participants are recontacted and invited to receive clinical confirmatory gene sequencing testing and a telegenetic counseling intervention. The primary outcome of the RCT is 6-month change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) between participants receiving results at baseline and those receiving results after 6 months.

RESULTS

The pilot developed processes to identify and recontact participants nationally with probable pathogenic variants in low-density lipoprotein receptor (LDLR) on the MVP genotype array, invite them to clinical confirmatory gene sequencing, and deliver a telegenetic counseling intervention. Among participants in the pilot phase, 8 (100%) had active statin prescriptions after 6 months. Results were shared with 16 first-degree family members. Six-month ΔLDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol) after the genetic counseling intervention was -37 mg/dL (95% CI: -12 to -61; P = .03). The ongoing RCT will determine between-arm differences in this primary outcome.

CONCLUSION

While underscoring the importance of clinical confirmation of research results, the pilot phase of the MVP-ROAR Study marks a turning point in MVP and demonstrates the feasibility of returning genetic results to participants and their providers. The ongoing RCT will contribute to understanding how such a program might improve patient health care and outcomes.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT04178122.

Returning Individual Research Results from Digital Phenotyping in Psychiatry

Psychiatry is rapidly adopting digital phenotyping and artificial intelligence/machine learning tools to study mental illness based on tracking participants' locations, online activity, phone and text message usage, heart rate, sleep, physical activity, and more. Existing ethical frameworks for return of individual research results (IRRs) are inadequate to guide researchers for when, if, and how to return this unprecedented number of potentially sensitive results about each participant's real-world behavior. To address this gap, we convened an interdisciplinary expert working group, supported by a National Institute of Mental Health grant. Building on established guidelines and the emerging norm of returning results in participant-centered research, we present a novel framework specific to the ethical, legal, and social implications of returning IRRs in digital phenotyping research. Our framework offers researchers, clinicians, and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) urgently needed guidance, and the principles developed here in the context of psychiatry will be readily adaptable to other therapeutic areas.

Investigator and participant expectations for returning non-genetic results: insights from the Rare and Atypical Diabetes Network (RADIANT) study

Objectives/Goals

The Rare and Atypical DIAbetes NeTwork (RADIANT) aims to discover the underlying pathoetiology of atypical diabetes by conducting both genotyping and non-genetic deep phenotyping. While the return of genetic test results in research settings has been investigated, the return of non-genetic results (RoR-NG) has received less attention. We explore the RoR-NG with RADIANT investigators and participants.

Methods/Study Population

We conducted one-on-one interviews with 10 adult RADIANT participants and 10 RADIANT investigators. Participants also completed two health literacy screening tools and a survey on perspectives regarding return of results (RoR). Investigators completed one survey on experience and confidence in explaining clinical tests utilized in the RADIANT study and another survey on perspectives regarding RoR.

Results

Most participants were non-Hispanic White. All participants had high scores on health literacy screens. Both RADIANT participants and investigators expressed strong support for RoR-NG. RADIANT participants and investigators acknowledged the different roles and responsibilities between research and clinical care for interpreting and acting on non-genetic results. However, the lines between clinical care and research in returning and acting on results were often blurred by both participants and investigators.

Discussion/Significance

Our study provides important insight into how both investigators and participants simultaneously distinguish and blur clinical and research roles and responsibilities when discussing non-genetic research results and the return of these results. Further study should engage individuals from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds and with varying levels of health literacy to understand how best to support all participants when returning research results.

Returning individual research results in international direct-to-participant genomic research: results from a 31-country study

This paper summarizes the results of a 31-country qualitative study of expert perspectives on the regulation of international "direct-to-participant" (DTP) genomic research. We outline how the practice of directly recruiting participants for genomic studies online complicates ethics and regulatory considerations for the return of individual research results. As part of a larger project supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, we prepared and distributed to 31 global legal experts a questionnaire intended to ascertain opinions and perspectives on the way international DTP genomic research is likely to be regulated. We found significant disagreement across jurisdictions on the most favorable approach to managing such results, with some countries favoring return by default and others preferring to return only with the express consent of research participants. We conclude by outlining policy considerations that should guide researcher practices in this context. As international DTP genomic research evolves, jurists and ethicists should be attentive to the ways novel approaches to subject recruitment align with existing ethical and regulatory norms in research with human participants. This paper is a preliminary step toward documenting such alignment in the context of the return of individual research results.

Return of Positive Test Results to Participants in Sexually Transmitted Infection Prevalence Studies: Research Ethics and Responsibilities

BACKGROUND

In prevalence studies of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), investigators often provide syndromic management for symptomatic participants, but may not provide specific treatment for asymptomatic individuals with positive laboratory test results due to the delays between sample collection and availability of results as well as logistical constraints in re-contacting study participants.

METHODS

To characterize the extent of this issue, 80 prevalence studies from the World Health Organization's Report on global sexually transmitted infection surveillance, 2018, were reviewed. Studies were classified as to whether clinically relevant positive results were returned or if this was not specified.

RESULTS

More than half (56%) of the cited studies did not specify if participants were notified of clinically relevant positive STI test results. The percentages were similar for low- and middle-income country populations (57%) and high-income country populations (53%).

CONCLUSIONS

The absence of documentation of the provision of test results raises the possibility that in some instances, results may not have been communicated, with potential negative effects for participants, their sexual partners, and newborns. From an ethical perspective, clinically relevant results should be returned to study participants and treating clinicians in a timely fashion to ensure appropriate management of identified infections. Study authors should document if they returned test results to study participants and report on numbers lost to follow-up.

Transparency, trust and minimizing burden to increase recruitment and retention in trials: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To describe patient perspectives on recruitment and retention in clinical trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review of qualitative studies that reported the perspective of adult patients with any health condition who accepted or declined to participate in clinical trials.

RESULTS

Sixty-three articles involving 1681 adult patients were included. Six themes were identified. Four themes reflected barriers: ambiguity of context and benefit - patients were unaware of the research question and felt pressured in making decisions; lacking awareness of opportunities - some believed health professionals obscured trials opportunities, or felt confused because of language barriers; wary of added burden - patients were without capacity because of sickness or competing priorities; and skepticism, fear and mistrust - patients feared loss of privacy, were suspicious of doctor's motivation, afraid of being a guinea pig, and disengaged from not knowing outcomes. Two themes captured facilitators: building confidence - patients hoped for better treatment, were supported from family members and trusted medical staff; and social gains and belonging to the community - altruism, a sense of belonging and peer encouragement motivated participation in trials.

CONCLUSION

Improving the visibility and transparency of trials, supporting informed decision making, minimizing burden, and ensuring confidence and trust may improve patient participation in trials.

Recruitment and retention in clinical trials in chronic kidney disease: report from national workshops with patients, caregivers and health professionals

BACKGROUND

Slow recruitment and poor retention jeopardize the reliability and statistical power of clinical trials, delaying access to effective interventions and increasing costs, as commonly observed in nephrology trials. Involving patients in trial design, recruitment and retention is infrequent but potentially transformational.

METHODS

We conducted three workshops involving 105 patients/caregivers and 43 health professionals discussing patient recruitment and retention in clinical trials in chronic kidney disease.

RESULTS

We identified four themes. 'Navigating the unknown'-patients described being unaware of the research question, confused by technical terms, sceptical about findings and feared the risk of harm. 'Wary of added burden'-patients voiced reluctance to attend additional appointments, were unsure of the commitment required or at times felt too unwell and without capacity to participate. 'Disillusioned and disconnected'-some patients felt they were taken for granted, particularly if they did not receive trial results. Participants believed there was no culture of trial participation in kidney disease and an overall lack of awareness about opportunities to participate. To improve recruitment and retention, participants addressed 'Building motivation and interest'.

CONCLUSIONS

Investigators should establish research consciousness from the time of diagnosis, consider optimal timing for approaching patients, provide comprehensive information in an accessible manner, emphasize current and future relevance to them and their illness, involve trusted clinicians in recruitment and minimize the burden of trial participation. Participation in clinical trials was seen as an opportunity for people to give back to the health system and for future people in their predicament.

Genomics and Infectious Diseases: Expert Perspectives on Public Health Considerations regarding Actionability and Privacy

There is growing evidence that human genetics plays a significant role in shaping human responses to infectious diseases. For instance, individuals' genetic susceptibility or resistance to infectious disease is likely to affect disease transmission. Yet little attention has been paid to the ethical, legal, and social implications of research in genomics and infectious disease, despite the unique ethical issues that arise in this arena. This article presents results from a pilot study exploring ethics in research on human genetics and response to HIV and other infectious diseases and is focused on perspectives from expert stakeholders. Whereas chairs of institutional review boards, biobank directors, and researchers in genomics and infectious disease expressed similar views about research privacy in the context of a public health emergency, they expressed different perspectives about the role that public health considerations ought to play in the return of individual results to research participants. These perspectives highlight the need to emphasize the importance of broad dialogue for helping various parties navigate the ethically complex current and future challenges of genomics and infectious disease research.

Frequency and format of clinical trial results dissemination to patients: a survey of authors of trials indexed in PubMed

OBJECTIVE

Dissemination of research findings is central to research integrity and promoting discussion of new knowledge and its potential for translation into practice and policy. We investigated the frequency and format of dissemination to trial participants and patient groups.

DESIGN

Survey of authors of clinical trials indexed in PubMed in 2014-2015.

RESULTS

Questionnaire emailed to 19 321 authors; 3127 responses received (16%). Of these 3127 trials, 2690 had human participants and 1818 enrolled individual patients. Among the 1818, 498 authors (27%) reported having disseminated results to participants, 238 (13%) planned to do so, 600 (33%) did not plan to, 176 (10%) were unsure and 306 (17%) indicated 'other' or did not answer. Of the 498 authors who had disseminated, 198 (40%) shared academic reports, 252 (51%) shared lay reports, 111 (22%) shared both and 164 (33%) provided individualised study results. Of the 1818 trials, 577 authors (32%) shared/planned to share results with patients outside their trial by direct contact with charities/patient groups, 401 (22%) via patient communities, 845 (46%) via presentations at conferences with patient representation, 494 (27%) via mainstream media and 708 (39%) by online lay summaries. Relatively few of the 1818 authors reported dissemination was suggested by institutional bodies: 314 (17%) of funders reportedly suggested dissemination to trial participants, 252 (14%) to patient groups; 333 (18%) of ethical review boards reportedly suggested dissemination to trial participants, 148 (8%) to patient groups. Authors described many barriers to dissemination.

CONCLUSION

Fewer than half the respondents had disseminated to participants (or planned to) and only half of those who had disseminated shared lay reports. Motivation to disseminate results to participants appears to arise within research teams rather than being incentivised by institutional bodies. Multiple factors need to be considered and various steps taken to facilitate wide dissemination of research to participants.

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.

When Patient Engagement and Research Ethics Collide: Lessons from a Dementia Forum

The importance of patient engagement in research has been gaining recognition since the turn of the 21st century. However, little is known about the perspectives of people with dementia on the process of discovery. To fill this gap and to inform priorities in patient engagement in the context of dementia research, the Clinic for Alzheimer Disease and Related Disorders at the University of British Columbia hosted an interactive session for members of the patient community and of the general public to share their views on various ethical aspects of the research process. Results from the session indicate that several current research ethics policies and norms in dementia research are not in line with participants' preferences. Here we discuss the importance of bridging the gap between researchers and patients and call for reforms in current standards of dementia research.

Perspectives on Communicating Biomarker-Based Assessments of Alzheimer's Disease to Cognitively Healthy Individuals

In clinical trials which target pathophysiological mechanisms associated with Alzheimer's disease, research participants who are recruited based on biomarker test results should be informed about their increased risk of developing Alzheimer's dementia. This paper presents the results of a qualitative focus group study of attitudes and concerns toward learning information about biomarker-based risk status among healthy research participants in the United Kingdom and Spain and people with dementia and their supporters/caregivers from countries represented in the European Working Group of People with Dementia of Alzheimer Europe. The study identified expectations related to learning risk status and preferences related to the content, quality, and follow-up of the disclosure process. The latter emphasize distinctions between risk and diagnoses, the importance of clear information about risk, and suggestions for risk reduction, as well as expectations for follow up and support. The implications of these preferences for practice are discussed. Providing details of research participants' experience and views may serve as a guide for the development of processes for the responsible disclosure of Alzheimer's disease biomarkers.

Moral Duties of Genomics Researchers: Why Personalized Medicine Requires a Collective Approach

Advances in genome sequencing together with the introduction of personalized medicine offer promising new avenues for research and precision treatment, particularly in the field of oncology. At the same time, the convergence of genomics, bioinformatics, and the collection of human tissues and patient data creates novel moral duties for researchers. After all, unprecedented amounts of potentially sensitive information are being generated. Over time, traditional research ethics principles aimed at protecting individual participants have become supplemented with social obligations related to the interests of society and the research enterprise at large, illustrating that genomic medicine is also a social endeavor. In this review we provide a comprehensive assembly of moral duties that have been attributed to genomics researchers and offer suggestions for responsible advancement of personalized genomic cancer care.

"Maybe they have found something new" participants' views on returning cohort psychosocial survey results

BACKGROUND

Although greater attention is currently being paid to participants in research, no studies have dealt so far with the issue of returning aggregate psychosocial results to cohort participants.

OBJECTIVE

(i) To explore participants' views about disclosure of the aggregate results of a French national psychosocial cohort survey on the epidemiology of preventive behaviour in women from families with a hereditary breast cancer risk. (ii) To assess whether it is worth consulting participants before designing the disclosure process.

DESIGN

A qualitative study using semi-structured face-to-face interviews and a thematic analysis based on Grounded Theory methods.

PARTICIPANTS

Nineteen interviews were conducted with cancer-free female BRCA mutation carriers/non-carriers aged 31-79 who had participated in a cohort survey by answering self-administered questionnaires.

RESULTS

Participants showed considerable interest in the issue of result disclosure. The preferences expressed about disclosure were rarely relevant to the topic investigated, however, as they often focused on medical knowledge about BRCA and not on the psychosocial findings obtained. This confusion may have been due to the participants' experience of the survey procedures, including its longitudinal nature, the occurrence of very few interactions with the investigators and the wide range of topics addressed in the questionnaires.

CONCLUSION

Investigators should ascertain participants' expectations and preferences by consulting them before disclosing the results obtained. Although the disclosure process may not meet participants' expectations completely, consultation is the key to preventing them from having irrealistic expectations about the information they are going to receive.

An implementation framework for the feedback of individual research results and incidental findings in research

BACKGROUND

This article outlines procedures for the feedback of individual research data to participants. This feedback framework was developed in the context of a personalized medicine research project in Canada. Researchers in this domain have an ethical obligation to return individual research results and/or material incidental findings that are clinically significant, valid and actionable to participants. Communication of individual research data must proceed in an ethical and efficient manner. Feedback involves three procedural steps: assessing the health relevance of a finding, re-identifying the affected participant, and communicating the finding. Re-identification requires researchers to break the code in place to protect participant identities. Coding systems replace personal identifiers with a numerical code. Double coding systems provide added privacy protection by separating research data from personal identifying data with a third "linkage" database. A trusted and independent intermediary, the "keyholder", controls access to this linkage database.

DISCUSSION

Procedural guidelines for the return of individual research results and incidental findings are lacking. This article outlines a procedural framework for the three steps of feedback: assessment, re-identification, and communication. This framework clarifies the roles of the researcher, Research Ethics Board, and keyholder in the process. The framework also addresses challenges posed by coding systems. Breaking the code involves privacy risks and should only be carried out in clearly defined circumstances. Where a double coding system is used, the keyholder plays an important role in balancing the benefits of individual feedback with the privacy risks of re-identification. Feedback policies should explicitly outline procedures for the assessment of findings, and the re-identification and contact of participants. The responsibilities of researchers, the Research Ethics Board, and the keyholder must be clearly defined. We provide general guidelines for keyholders involved in feedback. We also recommend that Research Ethics Boards should not be directly involved in the assessment of individual findings. Hospitals should instead establish formal, interdisciplinary clinical advisory committees to help researchers determine whether or not an uncertain finding should be returned.

Ethical considerations of research policy for personal genome analysis: the approach of the Genome Science Project in Japan

As evidenced by high-throughput sequencers, genomic technologies have recently undergone radical advances. These technologies enable comprehensive sequencing of personal genomes considerably more efficiently and less expensively than heretofore. These developments present a challenge to the conventional framework of biomedical ethics; under these changing circumstances, each research project has to develop a pragmatic research policy. Based on the experience with a new large-scale project-the Genome Science Project-this article presents a novel approach to conducting a specific policy for personal genome research in the Japanese context. In creating an original informed-consent form template for the project, we present a two-tiered process: making the draft of the template following an analysis of national and international policies; refining the draft template in conjunction with genome project researchers for practical application. Through practical use of the template, we have gained valuable experience in addressing challenges in the ethical review process, such as the importance of sharing details of the latest developments in genomics with members of research ethics committees. We discuss certain limitations of the conventional concept of informed consent and its governance system and suggest the potential of an alternative process using information technology.

Disclosure of individual pharmacogenomic results in research projects: when and what kind of information to return to research participants

In the growing field of genomics, the utility of returning certain research results to participants has become a highly debated issue. Existing guidelines are not explicit as to the kind of genomic information that should be returned to research participants. Moreover, very few current recommendations and articles in the literature address the return of pharmacogenomic results. Although genetics and pharmacogenomics have many similarities, the circumstances in which disclosure could have a benefit for the participants are different. This review aims to describe the conditions in which disclosure of pharmacogenomic results is appropriate.

Funding considerations for the disclosure of genetic incidental findings in biobank research

The use of biobanks in biomedical research has grown considerably in recent years. As a result of the increasing analysis of tissue samples stored in biobanks, there has also been an increase in the probability of discovering-in addition to the research target-incidental findings (IF). We identified 23 laws, policies and guidelines from international, regional and national organizations that provide guidance or identify the need for the disclosure of IF to research participants. We analyzed these instruments to determine their contemplation of the funding considerations for the disclosure of IF, examining their guidance for who discloses and the extent of researcher responsibilities. We found that the available normative documents provide little guidance to researchers and biobanks for how they should address cost and funding concerns associated with IF disclosure. It is therefore essential that the research and policy communities think through the financial implications of imposing an ethical responsibility to disclose IF. Concerted efforts should be made by policymakers, ethicists, researchers, clinicians and research institutions to develop detailed funding recommendations, potentially universal in application, to aid in the disclosure of IF, and we provide recommendations on steps that can be taken to ensure full consideration of these issues.

Using AD biomarker research results for clinical care: a survey of ADNI investigators

OBJECTIVE

To inform whether the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) should change its policy of not returning research results to ADNI participants, we surveyed investigators and research staff about disclosing ADNI biomarker information to research participants, with particular emphasis on amyloid imaging results.

METHODS

In April 2012, just before Food and Drug Administration approval of the amyloid-binding radiotracer, florbetapir, all ADNI investigators and personnel were recruited to complete an anonymous online survey that contained fixed choice and free-text questions.

RESULTS

Although ADNI participants often requested amyloid imaging results (the proportions of investigators who reported requests from more than half of their participants with normal cognition or mild cognitive impairment were 20% and 22%, respectively), across all diagnostic groups, the majority of ADNI investigators (approximately 90%) did not return amyloid imaging results to ADNI participants. However, the majority of investigators reported that, if the Food and Drug Administration approved florbetapir, they would support the return of amyloid imaging results to participants with mild cognitive impairment and normal cognition, but they emphasized the need for guidance on how to provide these results to participants and for research to assess the value of returning results as well as how returning results will affect study validity and participant well-being.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of ADNI investigators support returning amyloid imaging results to ADNI participants. The findings that they want guidance on how to do this and research on the impact of disclosure suggest how to develop and monitor a disclosure process.

Return of results: towards a lexicon?

Currently, the return of results in the domain of biobanking constitutes an ethical and legal quagmire, whether it involves population or specific clinical research studies. In light of the fact that population biobanks are often not seen as distinct from those biobanks created for disease research, as well as the uncertainty as to what "return of results" means concretely, this lexicon attempts to demystify the terminology. The terms - results, return, clinical significance, and utility - are discussed. Through an analysis of international and national normative guidance on this issue, the authors propose a concordance of meaning and a simplified lexicon.