Toward Meeting the Obligation of Respect for Persons in Pragmatic Clinical Trials

Research ethics oversight systems have traditionally emphasized the informed consent process as the primary means by which to demonstrate respect for prospective subjects. Yet how researchers can best fulfill the ethical obligations of respect for persons in pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs)-particularly those that may alter or waive informed consent-remains unknown. We propose eight dimensions of demonstrating respect in PCTs: (1) engaging patients and communities in research design and execution, (2) promoting transparency and open communication, (3) maximizing agency, (4) minimizing burdens and promoting accessibility, (5) protecting privacy and confidentiality, (6) valuing interpersonal interactions with clinicians and study team members, (7) providing compensation, and (8) maximizing social value. While what respect requires in the context of PCTs will vary based on the nature of the PCT in question, the breadth of these dimensions demonstrates that respect obligations extend beyond informed consent processes.

Addressing racism in the healthcare encounter: The role of clinical ethics consultants

Justice is a core principle in bioethics, and a fair opportunity to achieve health is central to this principle. Racism and other forms of prejudice, discrimination, or bias directed against people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group are known contributors to health inequity, defined as unjust differences in health or access to care. Though hospital-based ethics committees and consultation services routinely address issues of justice that arise in the course of patient care, there is variability in whether and how racism and other causes of health inequities are addressed. In this paper, we describe a novel structure and process for addressing health equity within clinical ethics consultation. In addition, we discuss the barriers and challenges to its success, many of which are rooted in the identities, norms and assumptions that underlie traditional clinical ethics consultation. We offer pragmatic recommendations and conclude with unresolved questions that remain as we work to adapt the structure of a clinical ethics consultation service to improve attention to issues of health equity and promote anti-racism in patient care and institutional policy.

Conflicts between parents and clinicians: Tracheotomy decisions and clinical bioethics consultation

Background:

The parent of a child with profound cognitive disability will have complex decisions to consider throughout the life of their child. An especially complex decision is whether to place a tracheotomy to support the child’s airway. The decision may involve the parent wanting a tracheotomy and the clinician advising against this intervention or the clinician recommending a tracheotomy while the parent is opposed to the intervention. This conflict over what is best for the child may lead to a bioethics consult.

Objective:

The study explores the conflicts that may arise around tracheotomy placements.

Research design:

This study is a retrospective cohort study of pediatric patients for whom a tracheotomy decision required a bioethics consult.

Participants and research context:

Pediatric patients aged birth to 18 years old with a bioethics consult for a tracheotomy decision conflict between April 2010 and December 2016. A standardized data collection tool was used to review notes entered by the palliative care team, social workers, primary clinical team interim summaries, and the bioethics consult service.

Ethical considerations:

The study was reviewed and approved by the medical center’s institutional review board.

Results:

There were 248 clinical bioethics consults during the identified study period. There were 31 consults involving 21 children where the word tracheotomy was mentioned in the consult, and 13 of the 21 consults were for children with profound cognitive disability.

Discussion and conclusion:

Clinicians need to be aware of their own biases when discussing a child’s prognosis and treatment options while also understanding the parents’ values and what the parent might consider to be burdensome in the care of their child and the acceptable burden for the child to experience.

Perceived Utility of Genomic Sequencing: Qualitative Analysis and Synthesis of a Conceptual Model to Inform Patient-Centered Instrument Development

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Successful clinical integration of genomic sequencing (GS) requires evidence of its utility. While GS potentially has benefits (utilities) or harms (disutilities) across multiple domains of life for both patients and their families, there is as yet no empirically informed conceptual model of these effects. Our objective was to develop an empirically informed conceptual model of perceived utility of GS that captures utilities and disutilities for patients and their families across diverse backgrounds.

METHODS

We took a patient-centered approach, in which we began with a review of existing literature followed by collection of primary interview data. We conducted semi-structured interviews to explore types of utility in a clinically and sociopolitically diverse sample of 60 adults from seven Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium projects. Interviewees had either personally received, or were parents of a child who had received, GS results. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Findings from interviews were integrated with existing literature on clinical and personal utility to form the basis of an initial conceptual model that was refined based on expert review and feedback.

RESULTS

Five key utility types that have been previously identified in qualitative literature held up as primary domains of utility and disutility in our diverse sample. Interview data were used to specify and organize subdomains of an initial conceptual model. After expert refinement, the five primary domains included in the final model are clinical, emotional, behavioral, cognitive, and social, and several subdomains are specified within each.

CONCLUSION

We present an empirically informed conceptual model of perceived utility of GS. This model can be used to guide development of instruments for patient-centered outcome measurement that capture the range of relevant utilities and disutilities and inform clinical implementation of GS.

Ethical, legal and social implications of human genome studies in radiation research: a workshop report for studies on atomic bomb survivors at the Radiation Effects Research Foundation

The Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) is the primary organization in Japan dedicated to studying the health consequences of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings in World War II. In December 2020, RERF held a virtual international workshop on the ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI) of genome studies. In this workshop, the ELSI considerations of future human genome studies on radiation research including atomic bomb survivors and their families were discussed. Since genome sequencing (GS) is now practical and affordable, RERF now plans GS of parents/child trios to examine genetic effects of atomic bomb radiation. As such studies may engender some novel risks and benefits, ethics review and engagement with families (including consent) need to be considered. These include protection of individual privacy, use of samples from deceased prior participants, return of results to the participants, public sharing of genome data and advance science and social welfare. Specifically with regard to social welfare, the results of such studies may have implications for public and government decision-making regarding social benefits of victims and other important questions. Based on these broad-ranging discussions we have developed the following concepts to guide this work: "trust," "compromise" and "relationship building," inclusive of the concerned stakeholders, scientific aims and Japanese society at large. We conclude that in order to realize, establish and maintain these concepts, it is essential to put procedures into place to ensure the successful, consensus-based implementation of the RERF studies.

Development and early implementation of an Accessible, Relational, Inclusive and Actionable approach to genetic counseling: The ARIA model

OBJECTIVE

To describe the training and early implementation of the ARIA model of genetic counseling (Accessible, Relational, Inclusive, Actionable).

METHODS

As part of the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study, an interdisciplinary workgroup developed the ARIA curriculum and trained genetic counselors to return exome sequencing results using the ARIA model.

CURRICULUM

The ARIA curriculum includes didactic elements, discussion, readings, role plays, and observations of usual care genetic counseling sessions. The ARIA model provides the skills and strategies needed for genetic counseling to be accessible to all patients, regardless of prior knowledge or literacy level; involves appropriate psychological and social counseling without overwhelming the patient with information; and leaves the patient with clear and actionable next steps.

CONCLUSION

With sufficient training and practice, the ARIA model appears to be feasible, with promise for ensuring that genetic counselors' communication is accessible, relational, inclusive and actionable for the diverse patients participating in genomic medicine.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

ARIA offers a coherent set of principles and strategies for effective communication with patients of all literacy levels and outlines specific techniques to practice and incorporate these skills into routine practice. The ARIA model could be integrated into genetic counseling training programs and practice, making genetic counseling more accessible and meaningful for all patients.

Discordant Patient and Clinician Perspectives on the Potential Value of Genetic Services in Safety-Net Clinics

PURPOSE

As new genetic services become available, their implementation in safety-net settings must be studied.

METHODS

We interviewed stakeholders (patients and primary care clinicians) from federally qualified health centers to discuss the utility, acceptability, and priority of new genetic services. We presented scenarios tailored for each audience describing carrier testing, diagnostic testing for a developmental delay, and hereditary cancer syndrome testing. We summarized transcripts using the framework method and compared patient and clinician perspectives.

RESULTS

Clinicians questioned the relevance and priority of genetic services. Hereditary cancer testing was perceived most favorably by clinicians, who focused on actionability, cost, and access to downstream care. Patients stated that access to genetic services was important and that there should be parity across safety-net and higher-resourced settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Genetic services with clear clinical impact are more acceptable to clinicians in safety-net clinics. Clinicians may be underestimating patients' interest in expanded genetic services.

Abstract PO-050: Reducing disparities in genomic medicine using a literacy-focused genetic counseling model for cancer risk assessment

Genetic and genomic testing is reaching more people than ever, yet disparities in access to and application of hereditary cancer screening remain. Further, with the advent of lower cost sequencing, the amount and complexity of information that is conveyed to patients, including secondary results, has increased. As part of the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study implemented a hereditary cancer risk assessment program for healthy adults aged 18-49. Participants were recruited in English and Spanish from two primary care settings (Kaiser Permanente Northwest and Denver Health). Participants underwent clinical exome sequencing and were randomized to receive their test results via usual care or a “literacy-focused” genetic counseling approach (n=845). Genetic counselors in the literacy- focused arm received in-depth training to adapt and apply evidence-based methods for effective communication with individuals of all literacy levels. We hypothesized that the literacy-focused approach would be non-inferior to usual care genetic counseling and generate higher satisfaction, engagement, and understanding of and adherence to recommended care. We also collected qualitative data to explore the experience of receiving exome sequencing results in this setting. Here, we present findings from qualitative interviews with participants conducted within a month (n=35) and again at 6 months (n=15) after receiving results, including: pathogenic cancer risk variants, medically actionable secondary findings and carrier results; variants of uncertain significant (VUS) in cancer genes; and negative results. The mean age of participants was 33. 72% spoke English and 75% were considered medically underserved by CHARM criteria. Participants in both trial arms expressed overall satisfaction; however, some participants in the literacy-focused arm indicated that specific elements of the approach, such as teach-back and plain language, helped facilitate their understanding, while some in the usual care arm said the information was overly technical. Younger participants in both arms, whose sequencing results will not be clinically actionable for many years, reported less worry and recalled fewer details about their results than older participants. While participants recognized the utility of positive results for family, at six months only some had spoken with them about testing, and few relatives had undergone cascade testing offered by CHARM. Genomic medicine requires clear communication of disease risk and prevention recommendations. Our qualitative findings suggest that the literacy-focused approach to genetic counseling can help facilitate patient understanding of cancer and other genomic risk. These results can guide effective disclosure of sequencing results and have implications for training clinical genetics professionals in the provision of equitable care for diverse patients.

Citation Format: Leslie Riddle, Laura M. Amendola, Marian J. Gilmore, Brad Rolf, Jamilyn Zepp, Claudia Guerra, Barbara Biesecker, Mikaella Caruncho, Katherine P. Anderson, Alan F. Rope, Tia L. Kauffman, Hannah Lewis, Stephanie A. Kraft, Devan M. Duenas, Benjamin Wilfond, Katrina A.B. Goddard, Galen Joseph. Reducing disparities in genomic medicine using a literacy-focused genetic counseling model for cancer risk assessment [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: Thirteenth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2020 Oct 2-4. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(12 Suppl):Abstract nr PO-050.

Abstract PR02: Using web-based tools to assess familial cancer risk in diverse populations

Introduction: The Cancer Health Risk Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study (NCT03426878) aims to increase access to genetic testing for hereditary cancer in low-income, low-literacy, and minority populations (hereafter referred to as “underserved”). To implement the study, we have capitalized on the availability of electronic medical record (EMR) systems, developed innovative web-based tools, and designed a novel telemedicine protocol for return of clinical genetic testing results.

Methods: Patients aged 18-49 years are recruited from two centers: Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW; an integrated health care system in Portland, OR) and Denver Health (DH; a federally qualified health care center in Denver, CO). Specific protocols were developed to identify potentially eligible patients from the EMR and invite them to complete a web-based family history assessment. KPNW patients were recruited using email, text messaging, and in-clinic booths; DH patients were recruited via mail, phone, and provider referral. Validated risk assessment tools for Lynch syndrome (PREMM5) and heredity breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (B-RST) were adapted for our low-literacy and bilingual (English and Spanish) target population. Genetic testing is offered to patients with greater than average risk for hereditary cancer, or where risk cannot be assessed because of unknown family history or limited family structure. Eligible patients review a multipart, multimedia online consent. Those who consent to participate provide a saliva sample for clinical exome sequencing. Genetic counselors return results by telephone using traditional (usual care active comparator) or modified, communication-focused (experimental) counseling for pathogenic variants, likely pathogenic variants, and select variants of uncertain significance in 39 genes related to cancer risk, pathogenic variants in 79 genes related to medically actionable secondary findings, and 14 genes related to carrier status.

Results: In the first four months of recruitment, 258 patients have completed the risk assessment tool (48% are underserved). Of those, 180 (70%) had greater than average risk of hereditary cancer (or limited family history information) and were invited to participate (53% were underserved); 86% of underserved patients and 78% of patients who do not meet criteria for the underserved category have consented. The vast majority of participants complete enrollment without assistance from study staff, and in-person visits are not required for participation. Telephone genetic test result disclosure will begin in December 2018.

Conclusions: We have successfully developed online tools for cancer risk assessment that are accessible to underserved and low-literacy populations. These tools may be a cost-effective approach for improving the capture of family history data in the EMR. It does not require a provider to gather the information and the patient gets immediate feedback on results of the risk assessment and appropriate next steps.

This abstract is also being presented as Poster A37.

Citation Format: Heather Spencer Feigelson, Kathleen F. Mittendorf, Tia L. Kauffman, Katherine Anderson, Sonia Okuyama, Benjamin Wilfond, Gail P. Jarvik, Laura M. Amendola, Carmit McMullen, Fances Lynch, Donna Eubanks, Elizabeth Shuster, Jake Allen, Stephanie A. Kraft, Galen Joseph, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee, Katrina A.B. Goddard. Using web-based tools to assess familial cancer risk in diverse populations [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Modernizing Population Sciences in the Digital Age; 2019 Feb 19-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PR02.

Building trust and improving communication with parents of children with Trisomy 13 and 18: A mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Trisomy 13 and trisomy 18 are common life-limiting conditions associated with major disabilities. Many parents have described conflictual relationships with clinicians, but positive and adverse experiences of families with healthcare providers have not been well described.

AIM

(1) To investigate parental experiences with clinicians and (2) to provide practical recommendations and behaviors clinicians could emulate to avoid conflict.

DESIGN

Participants were asked to describe their best and worse experiences, as well as supportive clinicians they met. The results were analyzed using mixed methods.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Parents of children with trisomy 13 and 18 who were part of online social support networks. A total of 503 invitations were sent, and 332 parents completed the questionnaire about 272 children.

RESULTS

The majority of parents (72%) had met a supportive clinician. When describing clinicians who changed their lives, the overarching theme, present in 88% of answers, was trust. Parents trusted clinicians when they felt he or she cared and valued their child, their family, and made them feel like good parents (69%), had appropriate knowledge (66%), and supported them and gave them realistic hope (42%). Many (42%) parents did not want to make-or be part of-life-and-death decisions. Parents gave specific examples of supportive behaviors that can be adopted by clinicians. Parents also described adverse experiences, generally leading to conflicts and lack of trust.

CONCLUSION

Realistic and compassionate support of parents living with children with trisomy 13 and 18 is possible. Adversarial interactions that lead to distrust and conflicts can be avoided. Many supportive behaviors that inspire trust can be emulated.

Preconception Carrier Screening by Genome Sequencing: Results from the Clinical Laboratory

Advances in sequencing technologies permit the analysis of a larger selection of genes for preconception carrier screening. The study was designed as a sequential carrier screen using genome sequencing to analyze 728 gene-disorder pairs for carrier and medically actionable conditions in 131 women and their partners (n = 71) who were planning a pregnancy. We report here on the clinical laboratory results from this expanded carrier screening program. Variants were filtered and classified using the latest American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) guideline; only pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants were confirmed by orthologous methods before being reported. Novel missense variants were classified as variants of uncertain significance. We reported 304 variants in 202 participants. Twelve carrier couples (12/71 couples tested) were identified for common conditions; eight were carriers for hereditary hemochromatosis. Although both known and novel variants were reported, 48% of all reported variants were missense. For novel splice-site variants, RNA-splicing assays were performed to aid in classification. We reported ten copy-number variants and five variants in non-coding regions. One novel variant was reported in F8, associated with hemophilia A; prenatal testing showed that the male fetus harbored this variant and the neonate suffered a life-threatening hemorrhage which was anticipated and appropriately managed. Moreover, 3% of participants had variants that were medically actionable. Compared with targeted mutation screening, genome sequencing improves the sensitivity of detecting clinically significant variants. While certain novel variant interpretation remains challenging, the ACMG guidelines are useful to classify variants in a healthy population.

Methodological and Ethical Issues in Pediatric Medication Safety Research

In May 2016, the Eshelman School of Pharmacy at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill convened the PharmSci conference to address the topic of "methodological and ethical issues in pediatric medication safety research." A multidisciplinary group of experts representing a diverse array of perspectives, including those of the US Food and Drug Administration, children's hospitals, and academia, identified important considerations for pediatric medication safety research and opportunities to advance the field. This executive summary describes current challenges that clinicians and researchers encounter related to pediatric medication safety research and identifies innovative and ethically sound methodologies to address these challenges to improve children's health. This article addresses 5 areas: (1) pediatric drug development and drug trials; (2) conducting comparative effectiveness research in pediatric populations; (3) child and parent engagement on study teams; (4) improving communication with children and parents; and (5) assessing child-reported outcomes and adverse drug events.

\Defining Patient Advocacy for the Context of Clinical Ethics Consultation: A Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Consultants

The idea of patient advocacy as a function of clinical ethics consultation (CEC) has been debated in the bioethics literature. In particular, opinion is divided as to whether patient advocacy inherently is in conflict with the other duties of the ethics consultant, especially that of impartial mediator. The debate is complicated, however, because patient advocacy is not uniformly conceptualized. This article examines two literatures that are crucial to understanding patient advocacy in the context of bioethical deliberations: the CEC literature and the literature on advocacy in the social work profession. A review of this literature identifies four distinct approaches to patient advocacy that are relevant to CEC: (1) the best interest approach, (2) the patient rights approach, (3) the representational approach, and (4) the empowerment approach. After providing a clearer understanding of the varied meanings of patient advocacy in the context of CEC, we assert that patient advocacy is not inherently inconsistent with the function of the ethics consultant and the CEC process. Finally, we provide a framework to help consultants determine if they should adopt an advocacy role.

"Watching time tick by…": Decision making for Duchenne muscular dystrophy trials

OBJECTIVE

This interview study explored clinicians' perspectives and parents' decision making about children's participation in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) clinical trials.

METHODS

Data from semi-structured interviews conducted with clinicians and parents in U.S. or Canada were assessed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Eleven clinicians involved in ten trials and fifteen parents involved in six trials were interviewed. Parents described benefit-risk assessments using information from advocacy, peers, professionals, and sponsors. Strong influence was attributed to the progressive nature of DMD. Most expected direct benefit. Few considered the possibility of trial failure. Most made decisions to participate before the informed consent (IC) process, but none-the-less perceived informed choice with little to lose for potential gain. Clinicians described more influence on parental decisions than attributed by parents. Clinicians felt responsible to facilitate IC while maintaining hope. Both clinicians and parents reported criticisms about the IC process and regulatory barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of parents described undertaking benefit-risk assessments that led to informed choices that offered psychological and potential disease benefits. Parents' high expectations influenced their decisions while also reflecting optimism. Clinicians felt challenged in balancing parents' expectations and likely outcomes. Prognosis-related pressures coupled with decision making prior to IC suggest an obligation to ensure educational materials are understandable and accurate, and to consider an expanded notion of IC timeframes. Anticipatory guidance about potential trial failure might facilitate parents' deliberations while aiding clinicians in moderating overly-optimistic motivations. Regulators and industry should appreciate special challenges in progressive disorders, where doing nothing was equated with doing harm.

Professionally Responsible Disclosure of Genomic Sequencing Results in Pediatric Practice

Genomic sequencing is being rapidly introduced into pediatric clinical practice. The results of sequencing are distinctive for their complexity and subsequent challenges of interpretation for generalist and specialist pediatricians, parents, and patients. Pediatricians therefore need to prepare for the professionally responsible disclosure of sequencing results to parents and patients and guidance of parents and patients in the interpretation and use of these results, including managing uncertain data. This article provides an ethical framework to guide and evaluate the professionally responsible disclosure of the results of genomic sequencing in pediatric practice. The ethical framework comprises 3 core concepts of pediatric ethics: the best interests of the child standard, parental surrogate decision-making, and pediatric assent. When recommending sequencing, pediatricians should explain the nature of the proposed test, its scope and complexity, the categories of results, and the concept of a secondary or incidental finding. Pediatricians should obtain the informed permission of parents and the assent of mature adolescents about the scope of sequencing to be performed and the return of results.

The ethics and regulatory landscape of including vulnerable populations in pragmatic clinical trials

Policies have been developed to protect vulnerable populations in clinical research, including the US federal research regulations (45 Code of Federal Regulations 46 Subparts B, C, and D). These policies generally recognize vulnerable populations to include pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, children, prisoners, persons with physical handicaps or mental disabilities, and disadvantaged persons. The aim has been to protect these populations from harm, often by creating regulatory and ethical checks that may limit their participation in many clinical trials. The recent increase in pragmatic clinical trials raises at least two questions about this approach. First, is exclusion itself a harm to vulnerable populations, as these groups may be denied access to understanding how health interventions work for them in clinical settings? Second, are groups considered vulnerable in traditional clinical trials also vulnerable in pragmatic clinical trials? We argue first that excluding vulnerable subjects from participation in pragmatic clinical trials can be harmful by preventing acquisition of data to meaningfully inform clinical decision-making in the future. Second, we argue that protections for vulnerable subjects in traditional clinical trial settings may not be translatable, feasible, or even ethical to apply in pragmatic clinical trials. We conclude by offering specific recommendations for appropriately protecting vulnerable research subjects in pragmatic clinical trials, focusing on pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, children, prisoners, persons with physical handicaps or mental disabilities, and disadvantaged persons.

The ethics and regulatory landscape of including vulnerable populations in pragmatic clinical trials

Policies have been developed to protect vulnerable populations in clinical research, including the US federal research regulations (45 Code of Federal Regulations 46 Subparts B, C, and D). These policies generally recognize vulnerable populations to include pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, children, prisoners, persons with physical handicaps or mental disabilities, and disadvantaged persons. The aim has been to protect these populations from harm, often by creating regulatory and ethical checks that may limit their participation in many clinical trials. The recent increase in pragmatic clinical trials raises at least two questions about this approach. First, is exclusion itself a harm to vulnerable populations, as these groups may be denied access to understanding how health interventions work for them in clinical settings? Second, are groups considered vulnerable in traditional clinical trials also vulnerable in pragmatic clinical trials? We argue first that excluding vulnerable subjects from participation in pragmatic clinical trials can be harmful by preventing acquisition of data to meaningfully inform clinical decision-making in the future. Second, we argue that protections for vulnerable subjects in traditional clinical trial settings may not be translatable, feasible, or even ethical to apply in pragmatic clinical trials. We conclude by offering specific recommendations for appropriately protecting vulnerable research subjects in pragmatic clinical trials, focusing on pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, children, prisoners, persons with physical handicaps or mental disabilities, and disadvantaged persons.

Research ethics consultation: ethical and professional practice challenges and recommendations

The complexity of biomedical research has increased considerably in the last decade, as has the pace of translational research. This complexity has generated a number of novel ethical issues for clinical investigators, institutional review boards (IRBs), and other oversight committees. In response, many academic medical centers have created formal research ethics consultation (REC) services to help clinical investigators and IRBs navigate ethical issues in biomedical research. Key functions of a REC service include assisting with research design and implementation, providing a forum for deliberative exploration of ethical issues, and supplementing regulatory oversight. As increasing numbers of academic research institutions establish REC services, there is a pressing need for consensus about the primary aims and policies that should guide these activities. Establishing clear expectations about the aims and policies of REC services is important if REC programs are to achieve their full potential. Drawing on the experiences of a Clinical and Translational Science Award Research Ethics Consultation Working Group, this article describes three major ethical and professional practice challenges associated with the provision of REC: (1) managing multiple institutional roles and responsibilities, (2) managing sensitive information, and (3) communicating with consultation requestors about how these issues are managed. The paper also presents several practical strategies for addressing these challenges and enhancing the quality of REC services.

Actionable exomic incidental findings in 6503 participants: challenges of variant classification

Recommendations for laboratories to report incidental findings from genomic tests have stimulated interest in such results. In order to investigate the criteria and processes for assigning the pathogenicity of specific variants and to estimate the frequency of such incidental findings in patients of European and African ancestry, we classified potentially actionable pathogenic single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) in all 4300 European- and 2203 African-ancestry participants sequenced by the NHLBI Exome Sequencing Project (ESP). We considered 112 gene-disease pairs selected by an expert panel as associated with medically actionable genetic disorders that may be undiagnosed in adults. The resulting classifications were compared to classifications from other clinical and research genetic testing laboratories, as well as with in silico pathogenicity scores. Among European-ancestry participants, 30 of 4300 (0.7%) had a pathogenic SNV and six (0.1%) had a disruptive variant that was expected to be pathogenic, whereas 52 (1.2%) had likely pathogenic SNVs. For African-ancestry participants, six of 2203 (0.3%) had a pathogenic SNV and six (0.3%) had an expected pathogenic disruptive variant, whereas 13 (0.6%) had likely pathogenic SNVs. Genomic Evolutionary Rate Profiling mammalian conservation score and the Combined Annotation Dependent Depletion summary score of conservation, substitution, regulation, and other evidence were compared across pathogenicity assignments and appear to have utility in variant classification. This work provides a refined estimate of the burden of adult onset, medically actionable incidental findings expected from exome sequencing, highlights challenges in variant classification, and demonstrates the need for a better curated variant interpretation knowledge base.

Patient Perspectives on the Learning Health System: The Importance of Trust and Shared Decision Making

We conducted focus groups to assess patient attitudes toward research on medical practices in the context of usual care. We found that patients focus on the implications of this research for their relationship with and trust in their physicians. Patients view research on medical practices as separate from usual care, demanding dissemination of information and in most cases, individual consent. Patients expect information about this research to come through their physician, whom they rely on to identify and filter associated risks. In general, patients support this research, but worry that participation in research involving randomization may undermine individualized care that acknowledges their unique medical histories. These findings suggest the need for public education on variation in practice among physicians and the need for a collaborative approach to the governance of research on medical practices that addresses core values of trust, transparency, and partnership.

Parental permission for pilot newborn screening research: guidelines from the NBSTRN

There is broad recognition of the need for population-based research to assess the safety and efficacy of newborn screening (NBS) for conditions that are not on current panels. However, prospective population-based research poses significant ethical, regulatory, and logistical challenges. In the context of NBS, there have been a variety of approaches that address parental decision-making in pilot studies of new screening tests or conditions. This article presents an ethical and legal analysis of the role of parental permission by the Bioethics and Legal Work Group of the Newborn Screening Translational Research Network created under a contract from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Circumstances are outlined in which a waiver of documentation of permission or a waiver of permission may be ethically and legally appropriate in the NBS context. These guidelines do not constitute American Academy of Pediatrics policy.

Li-Fraumeni syndrome: report of a clinical research workshop and creation of a research consortium

Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) is a rare dominantly inherited cancer predisposition syndrome that was first described in 1969. In most families, it is caused by germline mutations in the TP53 gene and is characterized by early onset of multiple specific cancers and very high lifetime cumulative cancer risk. Despite significant progress in understanding the molecular biology of TP53, the optimal clinical management of this syndrome is poorly defined. We convened a workshop on November 2, 2010, at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, bringing together clinicians and scientists, as well as individuals from families with LFS, to review the state of the science, address clinical management issues, stimulate collaborative research, and engage the LFS family community. This workshop also led to the creation of the Li-Fraumeni Exploration (LiFE) Research Consortium.

Comment on "Multidimensional results reporting to participants in genomic studies: getting it right"

Bookman et al. write to correct the impression given in the Commentary by Kohane and Taylor that the recommendations of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Working Group "Reporting Genetic Results in Research Studies" included advice to return genetic information to research subjects only in cases where there is a proven or preventative intervention for the identified disorder. In fact, the report does recommend that genetic information be returned to subjects when there is an intervention available, but it does not recommend against giving this kind of information to subjects if there is no available intervention.

From genetics to genomics: ethics, policy, and parental decision-making

OBJECTIVE

Ethical evaluation of genetic testing in children is traditionally based on balancing clinical benefits and risks. However, this focus can be inconsistent with the general practice of respecting parental decision-making about their children's health care. We argue that respect for parental decision-making should play a larger role in shaping pediatric genetic testing practices, and play a similar role regarding decisions to use emerging genomic technologies.

METHODS

Genomic testing involves the examination of thousands of DNA markers spanning genes throughout the genome and their interrelationships, yielding virtually limitless interpretations. We presume that parents and providers should proceed cautiously in applying genomic testing in children, as we explore how genomic testing will stress the fault lines of the traditional ethical analysis.

RESULTS

Empirical data about the psychosocial risks and benefits of genetic testing of children do not reveal serious harms, yet virtually no such data exist yet about genomic testing. Unless empirical social and behavioral data indicate that genomic testing is highly likely to cause serious harms to the children, parental decisions to obtain comprehensive genomic testing in their children should be respected. Once comprehensive genomic testing of children becomes routine, resultant information may be more easily integrated by families than anticipated.

CONCLUSIONS

Research on the social and behavioral impact of comprehensive genomic testing on children and their families is needed to further inform parents, clinicians, and policy makers.

Genetic and environmental risk assessment for colorectal cancer risk in primary care practice settings: a pilot study

PURPOSE

The assessment of genetic variants and environmental exposures (i.e., genetic and environmental risk assessment) may permit individualized risk stratification for common diseases as part of routine care. A pilot study was conducted to assess the uptake of, and response to, testing for colorectal cancer risk among average risk patients in primary care practice settings.

METHODS

Physicians in primary care practices identified patients eligible for colorectal cancer screening and referred them to the study. Research staff administered a baseline survey to consenting patients. At a scheduled office visit, participants underwent decision counseling with a trained nurse educator to facilitate informed decision making about being tested for methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase status and red blood cell folate level. Combined assessment can stratify colorectal cancer risk. Test results were disclosed within 2 weeks after the visit. Postvisit and 1-month endpoint surveys were administered. Univariable analyses of survey data were performed to assess changes from baseline in genetic and environmental risk assessment and colorectal cancer screening-related knowledge and perceptions.

RESULTS

Of the 57 patients who were referred to the study, 25 (44%) consented to participate, and all but one were tested. Participant knowledge about genetic and environmental risk assessment and colorectal cancer screening, perceived colorectal cancer screening response efficacy, and perceived social support for colorectal cancer screening increased significantly from baseline. Participants reported low levels of intrusive thoughts about CRC.

CONCLUSION

Knowledge and favorable perceptions of colorectal cancer screening increased, as did knowledge about genetic and environmental risk assessment, after exposure to the study intervention. Further research is needed to assess genetic and environmental risk assessment uptake and impact at the population level.

Reporting genetic results in research studies: summary and recommendations of an NHLBI working group

Prospective epidemiologic studies aid in identifying genetic variants associated with diseases, health risks, and physiologic traits. These genetic variants may eventually be measured clinically for purposes of diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. As evidence of the potential clinical value of such information accrues, research studies face growing pressure to report these results to study participants or their physicians, even before sufficient evidence is available to support widespread screening of asymptomatic persons. There is thus a need to begin to develop consensus on whether and when genetic findings should be reported to participants in research studies. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) convened a Working Group on Reporting Genetic Results in Research Studies to discuss if, when, and how genetic information should be reported to study participants. The Working Group concluded that genetic test results should be reported to study participants when the associated risk for the disease is significant; the disease has important health implications such as premature death or substantial morbidity or has significant reproductive implications; and proven therapeutic or preventive interventions are available. Finally, the Working Group recommended procedures for reporting genetic research results and encouraged increased efforts to create uniform guidelines for this activity.

Institutional review board practices regarding assent in pediatric research

OBJECTIVE

To assess how Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) implement the assent requirement for research with children.

METHODS

Telephone interviews were conducted with 188 chairpersons of IRBs from a range of institutions nationwide. Respondents were queried on 4 topics: 1) which children are considered capable of assent, 2) which information investigators must provide pediatric research subjects, 3) whether IRBs favor the enrollment of children who are capable of assent, and 4) how chairpersons view payment for children's research participation.

RESULTS

Half of IRBs have a method that they require investigators to follow when determining which children are capable of assent, most commonly an age cutoff. Half of IRBs do not have a method, and the majority rely on investigators' clinical judgment. IRBs largely follow the adult research regulations when determining which information should be provided to an assenting child. A total of 58% of IRBs would enroll a child who is incapable of assent in a nonbeneficial study, even if children who are capable of assent could be enrolled instead. Almost half (46%) of chairpersons believe that it sometimes or always acceptable to offer incentive payments to children, and more than one third (35%) thought it acceptable to offer payment to the parents.

CONCLUSION

When possible, IRBs follow the federal regulations for research with adults when implementing the assent requirement. For considerations that do not have analogs in the adult regulations, IRB practices vary widely. These data suggest that IRBs need guidance on how to implement the assent requirement in a way that provides appropriate protections for pediatric research subjects.

How do institutional review boards apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric research?

CONTEXT

Federal regulations allow children in the United States to be enrolled in clinical research only when the institutional review board (IRB) determines that the risks are minimal or a minor increase over minimal, or that the research offers a prospect of direct benefit. Despite this reliance on IRBs, no data exist on how IRBs apply the risk and benefit categories for pediatric research.

OBJECTIVE

To determine how IRB chairpersons apply the federal risk and benefit categories for pediatric research.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Telephone survey, conducted between May and August 2002 of 188 randomly selected chairpersons of IRBs in the Unites States. The survey consisted of 21 questions to assess the application of federal risk standards to research procedures, whether certain interventions offer a prospect of direct benefit to participating children, and the extent to which IRBs use the federal definition of minimal risk when categorizing the risks of research procedures in children.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Responses regarding categorization of the risk level and direct benefits of pediatric research procedures.

RESULTS

A single blood draw was the only procedure categorized as minimal risk by a majority (152 or 81%) of the 188 respondents. An electromyogram was categorized as minimal or a minor increase over minimal risk by 100 (53%) and as more than a minor increase over minimal risk by 77 (41%). Allergy skin testing was categorized as minimal risk by 43 IRB chairpersons (23%), a minor increase over minimal risk by 81 (43%), and more than a minor increase over minimal risk by 51 (27%). Regarding benefits, 113 chairpersons (60%) considered added psychological counseling to be a direct benefit, while participant payment was considered a direct benefit by 10% (n = 19).

CONCLUSIONS

Application of the federal risk and benefit categories for pediatric research by IRB chairpersons is variable and sometimes contradicted by the available data on risks and the regulations themselves. To protect children from excessive risks while allowing appropriate research, IRB chairpersons need guidance on applying the federal risk and benefit categories and also need data on the risks children face in daily life and during routine physical or psychological tests.

Ethical assessment of clinical asthma trials including children subjects

BACKGROUND

The inclusion of children with asthma in clinical asthma trials is increasing, including their participation in placebo-controlled trials (PCTs). The objectives of this study are to assess whether children with asthma have been harmed by their participation in PCTs.

METHODS

Seventy clinical asthma trials involving children published between January 1998 and December 2001 that involved distinct US research populations were identified. Studies were reviewed to determine whether all subjects with more than mild asthma received daily antiinflammatory medication as recommended by national guidelines. Sixty-two clinical asthma trials included data about subject withdrawal and were analyzed for the frequency of asthma exacerbations.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies were designed as PCTs and did not require that all subjects with more than mild asthma receive antiinflammatory medications. Of 24,953 subjects, 4653 (19%) for whom data are available withdrew from research, and 1247 subjects (9.4%) withdrew from PCTs due to asthma exacerbations compared with 358 subjects (3.1%) in other trials. In PCTs, subjects withdrew more frequently from the placebo arms than the active-treatment arms and did so more frequently because of an asthma exacerbation (667 or 15% vs 580 or 6.5%). Fifty-two studies enrolled both children and adults, although only 1 performed subset analysis of the children.

CONCLUSIONS

Subjects enrolled in PCTs of asthma have been exposed to unnecessary risks and harms. Clinical asthma trials involving children and adults do not benefit children as a class because they rarely provide subset analysis of children subjects.

Descriptions of benefits and risks in consent forms for phase 1 oncology trials

BACKGROUND

Ethicists have suggested that written consent forms encourage participants in phase 1 cancer trials to expect benefit from the experimental agent and to overlook serious risks.

METHODS

To evaluate the written description of direct benefit as well as risk, all consent forms for 1999 phase 1 cancer trials were compiled from 80 percent of the National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers and from six of eight large pharmaceutical developers of anticancer drugs. In each case, we evaluated the characteristics of the trial, the descriptions of the purpose and procedures of the research, the promise of benefit, the description of risks, and the description of alternatives.

RESULTS

Of 272 forms, 268 explicitly mentioned that the trial was research, and 249 stated that the purpose of the trial was testing for safety. Nearly all forms (269) mentioned the right to withdraw from the trial. Almost all forms (260) referred to the experimental agent as "treatment" or "therapy." Only one consent form promised direct benefit to subjects. Most forms (181) mentioned death as a risk, and very few (14) mentioned cure as even a possible benefit. Most (229) stated that there was unknown risk involved and indicated that severe or permanent harms were possible (224).

CONCLUSIONS

Consent forms for phase 1 oncology studies almost never promise direct benefit to subjects, rarely mention cure, and usually communicate the seriousness and unpredictability of risk. Although there is room for improvement, the substance of these forms is unlikely to be the primary source of misunderstanding by subjects in phase 1 oncology trials.

Does the current consent process minimize the risks of genetics research?

Completion of the human genome project is expected to lead to an increase in the number of individuals who participate in genetics research. The current informed consent process-developed prior to widespread genetics research-may not be sufficient to minimize the research risks that these individuals face. The current consent process focuses on informing individuals of the risks of research participation prior to their research enrollment. However, the risks of genetics research often are influenced by what subjects disclose to others after their research participation has ended. To assess whether the current consent process helps subjects remember the risks of future disclosures and, thereby, minimize the risks of genetics research, we interviewed 130 individuals who had previously participated in genetics research. Nineteen percent recalled that their samples would undergo genetic testing; 16% recalled that samples might be used for future research; 15% recalled that release of research records could affect their insurance status. These data suggest that current consent practices may not minimize the risks of genetics research. To address this concern, Institutional Review Boards and investigators should consider implementing supplemental mechanisms to help subjects remember when forgetting aspects of their research participation could place them at increased risk.

Ethical issues in cystic fibrosis newborn screening: from data to public health policy

Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis (CF) remains controversial largely because its implementation is less a scientific decision than a resolution of different and often conflicting normative values that underlie the policy issues framing the debate. This article summarizes the literature published between May 2001 and April 2002 (and relevant earlier literature) regarding the screening and treatment goals, clinical benefits and harms, and programmatic and ethical issues. Finally, we will present an analysis to argue for one set of ethical considerations that point to very specific policy recommendations that would justify CF newborn screening in certain circumstances and make its implementation more ethically appropriate.

Unintended messages: the ethics of teaching genetic dilemmas

Bioethicists teaching and writing about the uses of prenatal genetic testing sometimes use "difficult cases" in which people with a disability want to test and select for the presence of their disability. Such cases challenge our stereotypes but also play into them.

Gene-expression profiles in hereditary breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Many cases of hereditary breast cancer are due to mutations in either the BRCA1 or the BRCA2 gene. The histopathological changes in these cancers are often characteristic of the mutant gene. We hypothesized that the genes expressed by these two types of tumors are also distinctive, perhaps allowing us to identify cases of hereditary breast cancer on the basis of gene-expression profiles.

METHODS

RNA from samples of primary tumor from seven carriers of the BRCA1 mutation, seven carriers of the BRCA2 mutation, and seven patients with sporadic cases of breast cancer was compared with a microarray of 6512 complementary DNA clones of 5361 genes. Statistical analyses were used to identify a set of genes that could distinguish the BRCA1 genotype from the BRCA2 genotype.

RESULTS

Permutation analysis of multivariate classification functions established that the gene-expression profiles of tumors with BRCA1 mutations, tumors with BRCA2 mutations, and sporadic tumors differed significantly from each other. An analysis of variance between the levels of gene expression and the genotype of the samples identified 176 genes that were differentially expressed in tumors with BRCA1 mutations and tumors with BRCA2 mutations. Given the known properties of some of the genes in this panel, our findings indicate that there are functional differences between breast tumors with BRCA1 mutations and those with BRCA2 mutations.

CONCLUSIONS

Significantly different groups of genes are expressed by breast cancers with BRCA1 mutations and breast cancers with BRCA2 mutations. Our results suggest that a heritable mutation influences the gene-expression profile of the cancer.

Genetic testing for susceptibility to adult-onset cancer. The process and content of informed consent

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidance on informed consent to clinicians offering cancer susceptibility testing.

PARTICIPANTS

The Task Force on Informed Consent is part of the Cancer Genetics Studies Consortium (CGSC), whose members were recipients of National Institutes of Health grants to assess the implications of cancer susceptibility testing. The 10 task force members represent a range of relevant backgrounds, including various medical specialties, social science, genetic counseling, and consumer advocacy.

EVIDENCE

The CGSC held 3 public meetings from 1994 to 1996. At its first meeting, the task force jointly established a list of topics. The cochairs (G.G. and J.R.B) then developed an outline and assigned each topic to an appropriate writer and reviewer. Writers summarized the literature on their topics and drafted recommendations, which were then revised by the reviewers. The cochairs compiled and edited the entire manuscript. All members were involved in writing this report.

CONSENSUS PROCESS

The first draft was distributed to task force members, after which a meeting was held to discuss its content and organization. Consensus was reached by voting. A subsequent draft was presented to the entire CGSC at its third meeting, and comments were incorporated.

CONCLUSIONS

The task force recommends that informed consent for cancer susceptibility testing be an ongoing process of education and counseling in which (1) providers elicit participant, family, and community values and disclose their own, (2) decision making is shared, (3) the style of information disclosure is individualized, and (4) specific content areas are discussed.

Incorporating biomarkers of exposure and genetic susceptibility into smoking cessation treatment: effects on smoking-related cognitions, emotions, and behavior change

In this article the authors report on the short-term impact of incorporating biomarker feedback about exposure and genetic susceptibility into minimal-contact quit-smoking counseling (QSC). Four hundred and twenty-seven smokers were randomized to 1 of 3 treatments: (a) QSC, (b) QSC + exposure biomarker feedback (EBF) about carbon monoxide in exhaled breath, or (b) QSC + EBF + biomarker feedback about genetic susceptibility to lung cancer (SBF). We observed significant immediate positive effects of SBF, compared with EBF and QSC on perceived risk, perceived quitting benefits, and fear arousal. However, at the 2-month follow-up, there were no group differences in quit rates. SBF did lead to significant reductions in the number of cigarettes smoked for smokers who were in the preparation stage. Smokers in the EBF and QSC conditions showed reductions in depressive symptoms by 2 months, but smokers in the SBF condition did not. In the context of QSC, genetic feedback may heighten vulnerability and possibly promote distress, but may not immediately enhance quitting in most smokers.

Incorporating biomarkers of exposure and genetic susceptibility into smoking cessation treatment: effects on smoking-related cognitions, emotions, and behavior change

In this article the authors report on the short-term impact of incorporating biomarker feedback about exposure and genetic susceptibility into minimal-contact quit-smoking counseling (QSC). Four hundred and twenty-seven smokers were randomized to 1 of 3 treatments: (a) QSC, (b) QSC + exposure biomarker feedback (EBF) about carbon monoxide in exhaled breath, or (b) QSC + EBF + biomarker feedback about genetic susceptibility to lung cancer (SBF). We observed significant immediate positive effects of SBF, compared with EBF and QSC on perceived risk, perceived quitting benefits, and fear arousal. However, at the 2-month follow-up, there were no group differences in quit rates. SBF did lead to significant reductions in the number of cigarettes smoked for smokers who were in the preparation stage. Smokers in the EBF and QSC conditions showed reductions in depressive symptoms by 2 months, but smokers in the SBF condition did not. In the context of QSC, genetic feedback may heighten vulnerability and possibly promote distress, but may not immediately enhance quitting in most smokers.