Contrasting Medical and Legal Standards of Evidence: A Precision Medicine Case Study

PARC report: a perspective on the state of clinical pharmacogenomics testing

In this Perspective, the authors discuss the state of pharmacogenomics testing addressing a number of advances, challenges and barriers, including legal ramifications, changes to the regulatory landscape, coverage of testing and the implications of direct-to-consumer genetic testing on the provision of care to patients. Patient attitudes toward pharmacogenomics testing and associated costs will play an increasingly important role in test acquisition and subsequent utilization in a clinical setting. Additional key steps needed include: further research trials demonstrating clinical utility and cost–effectiveness of pharmacogenetic testing, evidence review to better integrate genomic information into clinical practice guidelines in target therapeutic areas to help providers identify patients that may benefit from pharmacogenetic testing and engagement with payers to create a path to reimbursement for pharmacogenetic tests that currently have sufficient evidence of clinical utility. Increased adoption of testing by payers and improved reimbursement practices will be needed to overcome barriers, especially as the healthcare landscape continues to shift toward a system of value-based care.

Non-Invasive Prenatal Screening: Navigating the Relevant Legal Norms

The implementation of non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS) in Canada will be affected by legal norms. The law can shape physician behaviour, help to crystallize standards of care, influence utilization patterns, and reflect and reinforce patient expectations. In Canada, failure to inform a patient about NIPS, or misinterpretation of NIPS results, could result in a successful "wrongful birth" claim if the patient subsequently gives birth to a child with a condition that had been detectable. Given that research shows that physicians' decisions are influenced by concerns about liability, malpractice law seems likely to encourage increased recommendation and use of NIPS. Physicians' fiduciary and negligence-based disclosure standards require they consider both objective factors as well as a specific patient's subjective and reasonable beliefs, fears, desires, and expectations. Thus, physicians likely must address dominant public discourses and controversies relevant to NIPS. Given the existence of spin, hype, and misinformation about NIPS, there is an increasing need for a robust consent process and, when appropriate, genetic counselling. In sum, the law will define and bound the acceptable behaviour of physicians recommending or administering NIPS, and nudge the technology's implementation forward. Physicians and policymakers should be aware of the potential impact of these legal norms on both utilization and public expectations.

From Genetics to Genomics: Facing the Liability Implications in Clinical Care

Health care is transitioning from genetics to genomics, in which single-gene testing for diagnosis is being replaced by multi-gene panels, genome-wide sequencing, and other multi-genic tests for disease diagnosis, prediction, prognosis, and treatment. This health care transition is spurring a new set of increased or novel liability risks for health care providers and test laboratories. This article describes this transition in both medical care and liability, and addresses 11 areas of potential increased or novel liability risk, offering recommendations to both health care and legal actors to address and manage those liability risks.

Navigating the research-clinical interface in genomic medicine: analysis from the CSER Consortium

Purpose

The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium encompasses nine National Institutes of Health–funded U-award projects investigating translation of genomic sequencing into clinical care. Previous literature has distinguished norms and rules governing research versus clinical care. This is the first study to explore how genomics investigators describe and navigate the research–clinical interface.

Methods

A CSER working group developed a 22-item survey. All nine U-award projects participated. Descriptive data were tabulated and qualitative analysis of text responses identified themes and characterizations of the research–clinical interface.

Results

Survey responses described how studies approached the research–clinical interface, including in consent practices, recording results, and using a research versus clinical laboratory. Responses revealed four characterizations of the interface: clear separation between research and clinical care, interdigitation of the two with steps to maintain separation, a dynamic interface, and merging of the two. All survey respondents utilized at least two different characterizations. Although research has traditionally been differentiated from clinical care, respondents pointed to factors blurring the distinction and strategies to differentiate the domains.

Conclusion

These results illustrate the difficulty in applying the traditional bifurcation of research versus clinical care to translational models of clinical research, including in genomics. Our results suggest new directions for ethics and oversight.

Physicians' duty to recontact and update genetic advice

This perspective addresses whether physicians have a duty to recontact former or current patients to update clinical advice based on newly discovered genomic information. Genetic information is unique compared with other medical data in that the underlying data do not appreciably change during the patients' lifetime, but the clinical significance of that information will continue to evolve. Based on relevant case law and guidelines, there is no general, established legal duty for physicians to affirmatively recontact former or current patients to update clinical advice based on newly discovered genetic information. However, integration of genomics into clinical practice is advancing quickly, and there may be limited, specific situations where a physician may have a duty to provide updated genetic information.