"If relatives inherited the gene, they should inherit the data." Bringing the family into the room where bioethics happens

Development of a digital risk-prediction tool based on family health history for the general population: legal and ethical implications

Cardiovascular diseases, both inherited and familial, indicate a risk of early and preventable cardiovascular events for relatives of affected individuals. A digital risk-prediction tool that enables general population individuals to evaluate their cardiovascular risk based on family health history could be a responsible approach to facilitate early detection and improve public health, but development and use of such a tool is not without legal and ethical requirements. At the start of tool development, experts addressed potential legal and ethical implications. Especially European Union (EU) regulations could present potential obstacles for the tool's development, broader availability and general use. A first example is that the EU General Data Protection Regulation does not allow the tool to collect health data about relatives without their consent; the alternative is data anonymisation. This requirement has major consequences for the tool's usefulness and raises ethical concerns about who 'the owner' is of family data. A second example is related to the EU's Medical Device Regulation: if software generates health risks or provides medical advice, it requires a CE mark from a 'notified body', an extensive and costly procedure. In this article, we describe these implications in more detail and discuss possible solutions. To conclude, alongside national law, European law can impact on the development of digital tools that collect family health data to provide information on health risks. We recommend including experts in law and ethics in developmental stages of such tools which are likely to become more frequent in routine public care.

Who has the responsibility to inform relatives at risk of hereditary cancer? A population-based survey in Sweden

OBJECTIVES

Hereditary cancer has implications not only for patients but also for their at-risk relatives (ARRs). In current clinical practice, risk disclosure to ARRs involves collaboration between patients and healthcare providers (HCPs). However, the specific responsibilities of each party are intertwined and at times unclear. In this study, we explored public attitudes regarding moral and legal responsibilities to disclose familial risk information to uninformed ARRs.

DESIGN

In an online cross-sectional survey, participants were prompted with a hypothetical scenario where a gender-neutral patient learnt about their familial risk of colorectal cancer. The patient was advised to regularly undergo colonoscopy screening, and this recommendation was extended to both their siblings and cousins. While the patient informed their siblings, they had not spoken to their cousins in 20 years and did not want to contact them. The survey assessed respondents' views on the patient's and HCPs' ethical responsibility and legal obligation to inform the cousins (ARRs).

PARTICIPANTS

A random selection of 1800 Swedish citizens 18-74 years of age were invited. Out of those, 914 (51%) completed the questionnaire.

RESULTS

In total, 75% believed that HCPs had a moral responsibility to inform ARRs, while 59% ascribed this moral responsibility to the patient. When asked about the ultimate responsibility for risk disclosure to ARRs, 71% placed this responsibility with HCPs. Additionally, 66% believed that HCPs should have a legal obligation to inform ARRs, while only 21% thought the patient should have such an obligation. When prompted about a scenario in which the patient actively opposed risk disclosure, a majority believed that HCPs should still inform the ARRs.

CONCLUSION

Our study indicates that the Swedish public ascribes moral responsibility for informing ARRs to both the patient and HCPs. However, contrary to current practice, they believe HCPs hold the ultimate responsibility. The majority of respondents support disclosure even without patient consent.

Cascade genetic testing in hereditary cancer: exploring the boundaries of the Italian legal framework

Despite its clinical value, cascade genetic testing (CGT) in hereditary cancer syndromes remains underutilized for a number of reasons, including ineffective family communication of genetic risk information. Therefore, alternative strategies are being explored to improve CGT uptake rates; one such strategy is direct contact with at-risk relatives by healthcare professionals with proband consent. It is unclear how Italian laws and regulations pertaining to CGT-including the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)-should be understood and implemented in the context of such alternative strategies. The authors constructed a hypothetical case about CGT, reviewed laws and regulations on informed consent, privacy, and the right not to know, and analyzed how those laws and regulations might apply to different communicative strategies relevant to the case and aimed at supporting CGT. A constitutionally consistent reading of Italian law and of the GDPR, an integral part of the Italian privacy framework, suggests that multiple communicative approaches may be legally permissible in Italy to support the CGT process. This includes direct contact by healthcare professionals with proband consent, provided certain conditions are met. Understanding the effectiveness of such approaches in improving CGT uptake will require further research efforts.

Modern Family: An Ethical Justification for System-Led Contact of Relatives Eligible for Cascade Screening in the United States

BACKGROUND

Though genomic science has rapidly advanced, efforts to demonstrate the population-level utility of genomics have been slow to follow. It has long been argued that the family is an important unit of significance in genomics, yet it has been challenging to address this in clinical care. This is apparent in how hospital administrators and clinicians in the United States typically approach cascade screening, the process of notifying and offering genetic testing to at-risk relatives of a patient with a hereditary condition. The most common notification approach is proband-led contact, in which the index patient is responsible for communicating a health risk to their relatives. This model has been associated with suboptimal outcomes. In contrast, recent research has shown that system-led contact, in which healthcare or public health institutions initiate communication to relatives with the proband's consent, has been associated with increased clinical utility and acceptability.

SUMMARY

With the needs of hospital administrators and clinicians in mind, we revisit normative questions about the appropriate way to notify relatives about their potentially elevated risk of developing an actionable disease. We review evidence demonstrating that system-led direct contact of relatives is feasible and acceptable. We further argue that system-led contact of relatives eligible for cascade screening is ethically justified if these programs are designed with public input, have an opt-out provision, and are implemented for conditions that meet specific criteria which we propose in this article.

KEY MESSAGES

In this article, we emphasize the usefulness of public health ethics frameworks to inform the design of system-led contact programs. Beyond this, we make the case that such programs are necessary to realize the population utility of genomic medicine equitably.

Predicting age of onset and progression of disease in late-onset genetic neurodegenerative diseases: An ethics review and research agenda

Currently, a prognostic biomarker-based model is being developed to predict the onset and disease progression of Huntington's Disease (HD) and Spinocerebellar Ataxia (SCA) types 1 and 3, both late-onset genetic neurodegenerative diseases lacking a disease-modifying treatment (DMT). The need for more accurate predictions of onset and disease progression arises in the context of clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of potential DMTs and identifying the optimal time to initiate such a DMT. Moreover, such a prognostic model may provide mutation carriers with personal utility. The aim of this article is to anticipate the ethical issues raised by these new prognostic models and to formulate the ethical issues that need to be addressed to facilitate an ethically responsible development and implementation of such a model. Part one of this article describes the ethical issues raised by presymptomatic genetic testing for HD and evaluates whether and how these issues may also occur by predicting onset and disease progression. Part two presents the results of a critical interpretative review into the ethical issues raised by biomarker testing in other late-onset neurodegenerative diseases lacking a DMT. The review aims to identify new ethical issues related to biomarker testing for predicting the onset and disease progression of HD and SCA. Finally, based on parts one and two, part three proposes a research agenda for the near future regarding the most pressing ethical issues that need to be addressed to ensure an ethically responsible implementation of such a prognostic model in both research settings and clinical practice.

Young adults' reasoning for involving a parent in a genomic decision-making research study

Young adults have increasing genomic testing opportunities; however, little is known about how equipped they feel about making decisions to learn personal genomic information. We conducted qualitative interviews with 19 young adults, ages 18-21 years old, enrolled in a research study where they made decisions about learning personal genomic risk for developing preventable, treatable, and adult-onset conditions and carrier status for autosomal recessive conditions. Participants had the option to include a parent in their study visit and the decision-making process. The goal of this project was to explore young adults' reasons for involving or not involving a parent in the study and to assess young adults' perspectives about parental roles in their healthcare. Nine participants included a parent in the study and ten did not include a parent. Eleven participants received genomic test results before the interview, while eight participants had not yet received their results at the time of the interview. The study team developed a coding guide and coded interview transcripts inductively and deductively using an interpretive descriptive-analytic approach. Logistical issues dominated solo participants' reasons for not involving a parent in the study, whereas those who involved a parent often cited a close relationship with the parent and the parent's previous involvement in the participant's healthcare as reasons for involving them. Both groups of participants described gradually transitioning to independent healthcare decision-making with age and felt their comfort in medical decision-making depends on the severity of and their familiarity with the situation. Participants recommended that future genomic researchers or clinicians give young adults the option to involve a parent or friend as a support person in research or clinical visits. Although young adults may have different journeys toward independent healthcare decision-making, some may benefit from continued parental or peer involvement after reaching the age of legal adulthood.

Returning Individual Research Results from Digital Phenotyping in Psychiatry

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