Willingness to Participate in a National Precision Medicine Cohort: Attitudes of Chronic Kidney Disease Patients at a Cleveland Public Hospital

Patients' perspectives related to ethical issues and risks in precision medicine: a systematic review

Background

Precision medicine is growing due to technological advancements including next generation sequencing techniques and artificial intelligence. However, with the application of precision medicine many ethical and potential risks may emerge. Although, its benefits and potential harms are relevantly known to professional societies and practitioners, patients' attitudes toward these potential ethical risks are not well-known. The aim of this systematic review was to focus on patients' perspective on ethics and risks that may rise with the application of precision medicine.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted on 4/1/2023 in the database of PubMed, for the period 1/1/2012 to 4/1/2023 identifying 914 articles. After initial screening, only 50 articles were found to be relevant. From these 50 articles, 24 articles were included in this systematic review, 2 articles were excluded as not in English language, 1 was a review, and 23 articles did not include enough relevant qualitative data regarding our research question to be included. All full texts were evaluated following PRISMA guidelines for reporting systematic reviews following the Joanna Briggs Institute criteria.

Results

There were eight main themes emerging from the point of view of the patients regarding ethical concerns and risks of precision medicine: privacy and security of patient data, economic impact on the patients, possible harms of precision medicine including psychosocial harms, risk for discrimination of certain groups, risks in the process of acquiring informed consent, mistrust in the provider and in medical research, issues with the diagnostic accuracy of precision medicine and changes in the doctor-patient relationship.

Conclusion

Ethical issues and potential risks are important for patients in relation to the applications of precision medicine and need to be addressed with patient education, dedicated research and official policies. Further research is needed for validation of the results and awareness of these findings can guide clinicians to understand and address patients concerns in clinical praxis.

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.

Trust and Trade-Offs in Sharing Data for Precision Medicine: A National Survey of Singapore

BACKGROUND

Precision medicine (PM) programs typically use broad consent. This approach requires maintenance of the social license and public trust. The ultimate success of PM programs will thus likely be contingent upon understanding public expectations about data sharing and establishing appropriate governance structures. There is a lack of data on public attitudes towards PM in Asia.

METHODS

The aim of the research was to measure the priorities and preferences of Singaporeans for sharing health-related data for PM. We used adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis (ACBC) with four attributes: uses, users, data sensitivity and consent. We recruited a representative sample of n = 1000 respondents for an in-person household survey.

RESULTS

Of the 1000 respondents, 52% were female and majority were in the age range of 40-59 years (40%), followed by 21-39 years (33%) and 60 years and above (27%). A total of 64% were generally willing to share de-identified health data for IRB-approved research without re-consent for each study. Government agencies and public institutions were the most trusted users of data. The importance of the four attributes on respondents' willingness to share data were: users (39.5%), uses (28.5%), data sensitivity (19.5%), consent (12.6%). Most respondents found it acceptable for government agencies and hospitals to use de-identified data for health research with broad consent. Our sample was consistent with official government data on the target population with 52% being female and majority in the age range of 40-59 years (40%), followed by 21-39 years (33%) and 60 years and above (27%).

CONCLUSIONS

While a significant body of prior research focuses on preferences for consent, our conjoint analysis found consent was the least important attribute for sharing data. Our findings suggest the social license for PM data sharing in Singapore currently supports linking health and genomic data, sharing with public institutions for health research and quality improvement; but does not support sharing with private health insurers or for private commercial use.

Patients' and professionals' views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis

BACKGROUND

Precision medicine development is driven by the possibilities of next generation sequencing, information technology and artificial intelligence and thus, raises a number of ethical questions. Empirical studies have investigated such issues from the perspectives of health care professionals, researchers and patients. We synthesize the results from these studies in this review.

METHODS

We used a systematic strategy to search, screen and assess the literature for eligibility related to our research question. The initial search for empirical studies in five data bases provided 665 different records and we selected 92 of these publications for inclusion in this review. Data were extracted in a spreadsheet and categorized into different topics representing the views on ethical issues in precision medicine.

RESULTS

Many patients and professionals expect high benefits from precision medicine and have a positive attitude towards it. However, patients and professionals also perceive some risks. Commonly perceived risks include: lack of evidence for accuracy of tests and efficacy of treatments; limited knowledge of patients, which makes informed consent more difficult; possible unavailability of access to precision medicine for underprivileged people and ethnic minorities; misuse of data by insurance companies and employers, potential of racial stigmatization due to genetic information; unwanted communication of incidental findings; changes in doctor-patient-relationship through focusing on data; and the problem that patients could feel under pressure to optimize their health.

CONCLUSIONS

National legislation and guidelines already minimize many risks associated with precision medicine. However, from our perspective some problems require more attention. Should hopes for precision medicine's benefits be fulfilled, then the ethical principle of justice would require an unlimited access to precision medicine for all people. The potential for autonomous patients' decisions must be greatly enhanced by improvements in patient education. Harm from test results must be avoided in any case by the highest possible data security level and communication guidelines. Changes in the doctor-patient relationship and the impact of precision medicine on the quality of life should be further investigated. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of precision medicine should be further examined, in order to avoid malinvestment.

Views on genomic research result delivery methods and informed consent: a review

There has been little discussion of the way genomic research results should be returned and how to obtain informed consent for this. We systematically searched the empirical literature, identifying 63 articles exploring stakeholder perspectives on processes for obtaining informed consent about return of results and/or result delivery. Participants, patients and members of the public generally felt they should choose which results are returned to them and how, ranging from direct (face-to-face, telephone) to indirect (letters, emails, web-based delivery) communication. Professionals identified inadequacies in result delivery processes in the research context. Our findings have important implications for ensuring participants are supported in deciding which results they wish to receive or, if no choice is offered, preparing them for potential research outcomes.

Understanding Participation in Genetic Research Among Patients With Multiple Sclerosis: The Influences of Ethnicity, Gender, Education, and Age

This study examined reasons for participation in a genetic study of risk for multiple sclerosis (MS). Our sample consisted of 101 patients diagnosed with MS who were approached about enrolling in the Multiple Sclerosis Genetic Susceptibility Study. Participants were predominantly Hispanic (80%), female (80%), and well educated (71%), having at least some level of college education. Of these 101 individuals who were approached, 95 agreed to participate and are the focus of this report. Among enrollees, the most frequently cited reasons for participation were to find a cure for MS (56%), having MS (46%), and helping future generations (37%). Regression models comparing ethnic groups, Hispanics endorsed having MS as a reason to participate significantly more frequently than non-Hispanics (HI 52%, non-HI 19%, p = 0.015) while non-Hispanics endorsed finding new and better treatments significantly more frequently than Hispanics (Hispanic 17%, non-Hispanic 50%, p = 0.003). Among our three age groups, younger individuals endorsed finding a cure for MS significantly more frequently (74% of 18-35-year olds vs. 56% of 36-55 year olds vs. 39% of >55 year olds). Our results suggest that motivations for participation in genetic research vary by ethnicity, and that these influences need to be considered in developing more inclusive programs of disease-related genetic research. Future efforts should focus on development of standard methods for understanding participation in genetic and genomic research, especially among underrepresented groups as a catalyst for engaging all populations.

Frequency of ClinVar Pathogenic Variants in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients Surveyed for Return of Research Results at a Cleveland Public Hospital

Return of results is not common in research settings as standards are not yet in place for what to return, how to return, and to whom. As a pioneer of large-scale of return of research results, the Precision Medicine Initiative Cohort now known of All of Us plans to return pharmacogenomic results and variants of clinical significance to its participants starting late 2019. To better understand the local landscape of possibilities regarding return of research results, we assessed the frequency of pathogenic variants and APOL1 renal risk variants in a small diverse cohort of chronic kidney disease patients (CKD) ascertained from a public hospital in Cleveland, Ohio genotyped on the Illumina Infinium MegaEX. Of the 23,720 ClinVar-designated variants directly assayed by the MegaEX, 8,355 (35%) had at least one alternate allele in the 130 participants genotyped. Of these, 18 ClinVar variants deemed pathogenic by multiple submitters with no conflicts in interpretation were distributed across 27 participants. The majority of these pathogenic ClinVar variants (14/18) were associated with autosomal recessive disorders. Of note were four African American carriers of TTR rs76992529 associated with amyloidogenic transthyretin amyloidosis, otherwise known as familial transthyretin amyloidosis (FTA). FTA, an autosomal dominant disorder with variable penetrance, is more common among African-descent populations compared with European-descent populations. Also common in this CKD population were APOL1 renal risk alleles G1 (rs73885319) and G2 (rs71785313) with 60% of the study population carrying at least one renal risk allele. Both pathogenic ClinVar variants and APOL1 renal risk alleles were distributed among participants who wanted actionable genetic results returned, wanted genetic results returned regardless of actionability, and wanted no results returned. Results from this local genetic study highlight challenges in which variants to report, how to interpret them, and the participant's potential for follow-up, only some of the challenges in return of research results likely facing larger studies such as All of Us.

Mind the gap: resources required to receive, process and interpret research-returned whole genome data

Most genotype-phenotype studies have historically lacked population diversity, impacting the generalizability of findings and thereby limiting the ability to equitably implement precision medicine. This well-documented problem has generated much interest in the ascertainment of new cohorts with an emphasis on multiple dimensions of diversity, including race/ethnicity, gender, age, socioeconomic status, disability, and geography. The most well known of these new cohort efforts is arguably All of Us, formerly known as the Precision Medicine Cohort Initiative Program. All of Us intends to ascertain at least one million participants in the United States representative of the multiple dimensions of diversity. As an incentive to participate, All of Us is offering the return of research results, including whole genome sequencing data, as well as the opportunity to contribute to the scientific process as non-scientists. The scale and scope of the proposed return of research results are unprecedented. Here, we briefly review possible return of genetic data models, including the likely data file formats and modes of data transfer or access. We also review the resources required to access and interpret the genetic or genomic data once received by the average participant, highlighting the nuanced anticipated barriers that will challenge both the digitally, computationally literate and illiterate participant alike. This inventory of resources required to receive, process, and interpret return of research results exposes the potential for access disparities and warns the scientific community to mind the gap so that all participants have equal access and understanding of the benefits of human genetic research.