Taking part in a pharmacogenetic clinical trial: assessment of trial participants understanding of information disclosed during the informed consent process

Variability of Pharmacogenomics Information in Drug Labels Approved by Different Agencies and Its Ethical Implications

AIMS

The aim of this study was to determine if there are discrepancies among various agency-approved labels for the same active ingredient and where the labels approved by the Turkish Medicines and Medical Devices Agency (TMMDA) stand regarding the inclusion of PGx and discuss these ethical implications.

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of drugs can be improved by rational prescription and personalization of medicine for each patient. Pharmacogenomics information (PGx) in drug labels (DL) is one of the important tools for the personalization of medications because genetic differences may affect both drug efficacy and safety. Providing adequate PGx to patients has ethical implications.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate PGx in the DLs approved by TMMDA and other national agencies provided by the Pharmacogenomics Knowledgebase.

METHODS

DL annotations from the Pharmacogenomics Knowledgebase and DLs approved by the TMMDA were analyzed according to information and action levels, which are "testing required", "testing recommended", "actionable", and "informative".

RESULTS

There are 381 drugs listed in PharmGKB drug label annotations with pharmacogenomics information and 278 of these have biomarkers. A total of 242 (63.5%) drugs are approved and available in Turkey. Of these, 207 (85.5%) contain the same information as in or similar to that in the labels approved by the other agencies. The presence and level of information varied among the DLs approved by different agencies. The inconsistencies may have an important effect on the efficacy and the safety of drugs.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest a need for the standardization of PGx information globally because it may not only affect the efficacy and safety of medications but also essential ethical rules regarding patient rights by violating not sufficiently sharing all available information.

Why parents consent to their children's participation in genetic research: A study of parental decision making

Parents need to be asked to provide informed consent on behalf of their child for participation in genetic research. Decision making for such parents is difficult because ethical challenges in paediatric genetic research studies are different from similar adult studies. This paper focuses on interviews conducted with parents who were asked to consent to their children's participation (or not) in a genetic research study of intellectual disability and/or autism.

A stepwise approach to implementing pharmacogenetic testing in the primary care setting

Pharmacogenetic testing can help identify primary care patients at increased risk for medication toxicity, poor response or treatment failure and inform drug therapy. While testing availability is increasing, providers are unprepared to routinely use pharmacogenetic testing for clinical decision-making. Practice-based resources are needed to overcome implementation barriers for pharmacogenetic testing in primary care.The NHGRI's IGNITE I Network (Implementing GeNomics In pracTicE; www.ignite-genomics.org) explored practice models, challenges and implementation barriers for clinical pharmacogenomics. Based on these experiences, we present a stepwise approach pharmacogenetic testing in primary care: patient identification; pharmacogenetic test ordering; interpretation and application of test results, and patient education. We present clinical factors to consider, test-ordering processes and resources, and provide guidance to apply test results and counsel patients. Practice-based resources such as this stepwise approach to clinical decision-making are important resources to equip primary care providers to use pharmacogenetic testing.

Ethical Issues of Using CRISPR Technologies for Research on Military Enhancement

This paper presents an overview of the key ethical questions of performing gene editing research on military service members. The recent technological advance in gene editing capabilities provided by CRISPR/Cas9 and their path towards first-in-human trials has reinvigorated the debate on human enhancement for non-medical purposes. Human performance optimization has long been a priority of military research in order to close the gap between the advancement of warfare and the limitations of human actors. In spite of this focus on temporary performance improvement, biomedical enhancement is an extension of these endeavours and the ethical issues of such research should be considered. In this paper, we explore possible applications of CRISPR to military human gene editing research and how it could be specifically applied towards protection of service members against biological or chemical weapons. We analyse three normative areas including risk-benefit analysis, informed consent, and inequality of access as it relates to CRISPR applications for military research to help inform and provide considerations for military institutional review boards and policymakers.

Rethinking vulnerable groups in clinical research

Vulnerable groups are often excluded from clinical research on the basis of scientific, ethical and practical reasons. Although intended to protect vulnerable people and maintain study integrity, exclusion of vulnerable groups from research through use of standard exclusion criteria may not always be necessary and may result in findings that are not generalisable. Achieving a balance between the competing needs to protect vulnerable people and to make progress in our understanding of disorders and their management through research requires a reconsideration of exclusion criteria and consent processes to ensure vulnerable people are appropriately represented in clinical research. Reasons for development of broad exclusion criteria include both concrete barriers and intangible discouraging factors. This paper examines this situation and its consequences, perceived and real barriers to inclusion of vulnerable people in research, and suggests methods for overcoming these barriers and applying thoughtful exclusion criteria.

Abandoning personalization to get to precision in the pharmacotherapy of depression

Effectiveness studies and analyses of naturalistic cohorts demonstrate that many patients with major depressive disorder do not experience symptomatic remission with antidepressant treatments. In an effort to better match patients with effective treatments, numerous investigations of predictors or moderators of treatment response have been reported over the past five decades, including clinical features as well as biological measures. However, none of these have entered routine clinical practice; instead, clinicians typically personalize treatment on the basis of patient preferences as well as their own. Here, we review the reasons why it has been challenging to identify and deploy treatment-specific predictors of response, and suggest strategies that may be required to achieve true precision in the pharmacotherapy of depression. We emphasize the need for changes in how depression care is delivered, measured, and used to inform future practice.

A review of consent practices and perspectives for pharmacogenetic testing

AIM

We aimed to understand consent practices for pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing.

METHODS

We conducted a literature review and analysis of consent forms from clinical laboratories offering PGx testing.

RESULTS

Our review of the literature shows a lack of consensus about the need for and type of informed consent for PGx testing. We identified 35 companies offering PGx testing and were able to confirm consent practices for 22 of those. We found a range of variability in the consent practices regarding the consent approach and information disclosed.

CONCLUSION

Variability in the consent practices among laboratories offering PGx testing mirrors the ambiguous practices and recommendations reported in the literature. Establishing a minimal set of information to be disclosed to patients may help address the disparities in consent practice.

Within and beyond the communal turn to informed consent in industry-sponsored pharmacogenetics research: merits and challenges of community advisory boards

The one-size-fits-all paradigm of drug development fails to address inter-individual variability in drug response. Pharmacogenetics research aims at studying the role of genotypic differences in drug response. Recently, the pharmaceutical industry has shown interest to embed pharmacogenetics studies in the process of drug development. Nevertheless, population-based and commercial aspects of such future-oriented studies pose challenges for individually based informed consent (IC). As an exemplar of the communal turn to IC procedures, community advisory boards (CABs) have been integrated into different types of medical research. CABs hold the promise of organizing the relationship between participants and researchers in a more reciprocal and participatory way, offering possible means of overcoming the lapses of individualistic IC. However, the involvement of CABs with pharmacogenetics research might be rife with difficulties, uncertainties, and challenges. The current study first reviews the existing literature to discuss added values and challenges of relying on CABs as a supplement to individually based IC. Then, the particular moral and regulatory landscape of pharmacogenetics research will be delineated to argue that community engagement is both necessary and promising beyond the communal turn to IC processes. Three main features of the landscape include (1) new supportive stances that some regulatory bodies have adopted toward pharmacogenetics research, (2) the motivation of the industry to draw reception and trust from the subpopulations, and (3) the important role of the society in generating and embedding pharmacogenetics knowledge. Finally, some points to consider will be discussed to contextualize relying on CABs within this landscape.

Reading Level and Comprehension of Research Consent Forms

Consent forms continue to be at a higher reading level than the recommended sixth to eighth grade, making it difficult for participants to comprehend information before enrolling in research. To assess and address the extent of the problem regarding the level of literacy of consent forms and update previously published reports, we conducted an integrative literature review of English language research published between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2013; 35 descriptive and eight intervention studies met inclusion criteria. Results confirmed that developing forms at eighth-grade level was attainable though not practiced. It was found that risks of participation was the section most poorly understood. There was also a lack of consensus regarding the most effective method to increase comprehension. Further research using standardized tools is needed to determine the best approach for improving consent forms and processes.

Service users' and carers' views on research towards stratified medicine in psychiatry: a qualitative study

Background

Approximately 30 % of people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia receive little to no benefit from current medications. There is therefore an urgent need to develop more precisely targeted and effective treatments. Identifying biomarkers to predict response to treatment and stratify patients into groups may be a way forward. However, we know little about service users’ and carers’ attitudes regarding such a ‘stratified medicine’ approach for psychiatry—nor how this might impact on their willingness to participate in stratified medicine research. This paper presents psychiatric service user and carer views on research to develop stratified medicine for treatment resistant schizophrenia, and explores the conditions under which people would be prepared to participate in a trial and their willingness to undergo various research procedures.

Methods

Participatory methods were used throughout. A consultation was undertaken with an existing Service User Advisory Group (SUAG) in order to establish a topic guide. Service user focus groups were then conducted by service user researchers in Manchester, London and Edinburgh (totalling 18 people) and one carer focus group in London, attended by eight participants. Focus groups were digitally recorded, the transcripts analysed in NVivo 10 using a simple thematic analysis, and quotations de-identified to protect participants.

Results

The data reflected enthusiasm for the potential of stratified medicine and both service users and carers demonstrated a strong desire to help others. However, some service users and carers feared poor performance on neuropsychological assessments, and reported that certain medication side effects might discourage them from undergoing procedures demanding immobility and concentration. Concerns were voiced that stratified medicine could encourage an overemphasis on biological symptoms, at the expense of psychosocial factors and subjective experience.

Conclusions

People with experience of treatment resistant schizophrenia would welcome stratified medicine research; however researchers should take into account how such experience might inflect service users’ willingness to undergo various procedures in the context of this research. These results reinforce the value of service user perspectives in the development and evaluation of novel treatment approaches.

Pharmacogenetic information for patients on drug labels

Advances in pharmacogenetic research have improved our understanding of adverse drug responses and have led to the development of pharmacogenetic tests and targeted drugs. However, the extent of the communication process and provision of information to patients about pharmacogenetics is unclear. Pharmacogenetic information may be included in sections of a drug's package insert intended for patients, which is provided directly to patients or communicated via the health provider. To determine what pharmacogenetic information, if any, is included in patient-targeted sections of the drug label, we reviewed the labels listed in the US Food and Drug Administration's Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labels. To date, 140 drugs include pharmacogenetic-related information in the approved label. Our analysis revealed that pharmacogenetic information is included in patient-targeted sections for a minority (n=29; 21%) of drug labels, with no obvious pattern associated with the inclusion of pharmacogenetic information. Therefore, patients are unlikely to learn about pharmacogenetics through written materials dispensed with the drug. Given that there are also inconsistencies with regard to inclusion of pharmacogenetic information in the patient counseling information section, it is also unlikely that patients are receiving adequate pharmacogenetic information from their provider. The inconsistent presence of pharmacogenetic information in patient-targeted sections of drug labels suggests a need to review the criteria for inclusion of information in patient-targeted sections in order to increase consistency and patient knowledge of pharmacogenetic information.