Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives

Ethical Issues in Glaucoma Genomic Research: Perspectives and Preferences of Potential Research Participants in Enugu, Southeast Nigeria

Genomic research is challenged by many ethical issues, especially in low-resource locations. To determine the views and perspectives of research participants regarding these ethical challenges, two hundred and eight potential research participants were interviewed. Views regarding basic genetic knowledge, return of research results and incidental findings and secondary data use were elicited. Overall, 87.5% of participants were aware of genomic research. About 95.7% of participants had poor basic genetic knowledge, while 15.4% had an understanding of the concept of genetic research. Most participants (92.3% and 82.2% respectively) expressed preference for return of research results and incidental findings. One hundred and forty-nine participants (71.6%) expressed reservation regarding future unspecified use of their blood sample and medical information while 76.4% expressed concern regarding data sharing with other researchers. Optimal consideration should be given to participants' preferences in the design of genomic research protocols.

Healthcare professionals' perspectives on and experiences with non-invasive prenatal testing: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The increasing integration of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) into antenatal practice and public healthcare systems globally raises both significant challenges in standardising service delivery and important ethical questions around routinisation and reproductive autonomy. This systematic review aims to synthesise existing primary empirical research on healthcare professionals' views on and experiences with NIPT.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted across four major databases in September 2023 and repeated in December 2024. Studies that reported findings from primary empirical research, including quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research were included.

RESULTS

Searches returned 65 eligible articles, spanning 38 countries and 1 special administrative region and at least 12 professions. Views on who NIPT should have access to and which conditions should be screened for were influenced by perceived clinical utility. While healthcare professionals acknowledged NIPT as beneficial for supporting reproductive autonomy, concerns were raised about the amount and complexity of information to be conveyed during prenatal counseling and potential pressure to test. Cost was also identified as a significant barrier. Challenges reported during post-test counseling included communicating test failures and gaining information from laboratories. Views on the implications of NIPT for decision-making around abortion and for people with disabilities varied.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare professionals play a critical role in facilitating the access to and decisions by pregnant people around prenatal genetic testing. Addressing barriers in clinical practice and increasing consistency across and access to clinical guidelines and education resources may support healthcare professionals in supporting reproductive autonomy.

Parental knowledge, attitudes, satisfaction and decisional conflict regarding whole genome sequencing in the Genomic Medicine Service: a multisite survey study in England

BACKGROUND

Whole genome sequencing (WGS) for paediatric rare disease diagnosis is now available as a first-line test for certain clinical indications in the Genomic Medicine Service in England. The aim of this study was to assess decisional conflict regarding WGS at the time of consent as well as parental knowledge, attitudes and satisfaction.

METHODS

We conducted a multisite quantitative survey including validated measures. Surveys were sent out across seven National Health Service Trusts in England to parents of children offered WGS, within 4 weeks of their appointment.

RESULTS

374/1366 survey responses were included in the final dataset. Parents were highly satisfied with their WGS appointment (mean=24.47/28), had low decisional conflict (mean=20.09/100) and felt they had received enough information and support to make an informed decision (83.9%). Parents had positive attitudes towards WGS (mean=18.17/20), and those who had discussed WGS with a genetic counsellor or genomic associate had significantly more positive attitudes than those seen by genetic consultants (p<0.001). Most parents (84.3%) strongly agreed (27.2%) or agreed (67.1%) that they had a clear understanding of what a genomic test is. Parents whose child's condition was reported as more serious (p=0.0011) felt less conflicted about their decision.

CONCLUSIONS

The parents in this study had low decisional conflict and most felt they had made an informed decision. Further research after parents receive WGS results to assess whether any, and if so who, regrets their decision, is important.

Systematic review of the uptake and outcomes from returning secondary findings to adult participants in research genomic testing

The increasing use of genomic sequencing in research means secondary findings (SF) is more frequently detected and becoming a more pressing issue for researchers. This is reflected by the recent publication of multiple guidelines on this issue, calling for researchers to have a plan for managing SF prior to commencing their research. A deeper understanding of participants' experiences and outcomes from receiving SF is needed to ensure that the return of SF is conducted ethically and with adequate support. This review focuses on the uptake and outcomes of receiving actionable SF for research participants. This review included studies from January 2010 to January 2023. Databases searched included Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Scopus. Of the 3903 studies identified, 29 were included in the analysis. The uptake of SF ranged between 20% and 97%, and outcomes were categorized into psychological, clinical, lifestyle and behavioral, and family outcomes. The results indicate there is minimal psychological impact from receiving SF. Almost all participants greatly valued receiving SF. These findings highlight considerations for researchers when returning results, including the importance of involving genetic health professionals in consenting, results return process, and ensuring continuity of care by engaging healthcare providers.

Global Perspectives on Returning Genetic Research Results in Parkinson Disease

Background and Objectives

In the era of precision medicine, genetic test results have become increasingly relevant in the care of patients with Parkinson disease (PD). While large research consortia are performing widespread research genetic testing to accelerate discoveries, debate continues about whether, and to what extent, the results should be returned to patients. Ethically, it is imperative to keep participants informed, especially when findings are potentially actionable. However, research testing may not hold the same standards required from clinical diagnostic laboratories and hold significant psychosocial implications. The absence of universally recognized protocols complicates the establishment of appropriate guidelines.

Methods

Aiming to develop recommendations on return of research results (RoR) practice within the Global Parkinson's Genetics Program (GP2), we conducted a global survey to gain insight on GP2 members' perceptions, practice, readiness, and needs surrounding RoR.

Results

GP2 members (n = 191), representing 147 institutions and 60 countries across 6 continents, completed the survey. Access to clinical genetic testing services was significantly higher in high-income countries compared with low- and middle-income countries (96.6% vs 58.4%), where funding was predominantly covered by patients themselves. While 92.7% of the respondents agreed that genetic research results should be returned, levels of agreement were higher for clinically relevant results relating to pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in genes known to cause PD or other neurodegenerative diseases. Less than 10% offered separate clinically accredited genetic testing before returning genetic research results. A total of 48.7% reported having a specific statement on RoR policy in their ethics consent form, while 53.9% collected data on participants' preferences on RoR prospectively. 24.1% had formal genetic counselling training. Notably, the comfort level in returning incidental genetic findings or returning results to unaffected individuals remains low.

Discussion

Given the differences in resources and training for RoR, as well as ethical and regulatory considerations, tailored approaches are required to ensure equitable access to RoR. Several identified strategies to enhance RoR practices include improving informed consent processes, increasing capacity for genetic counselling including providing counselling toolkits for common genetic variants, broadening access to sustainable clinically accredited testing, building logistical infrastructure for RoR processes, and continuing public and health care education efforts on the important role of genetics in PD.

"I'm quite proud of how we've handled it": health professionals' experiences of returning additional findings from the 100,000 genomes project

Participants in the 100,000 Genomes Project (100kGP) could consent to receive additional finding (AF) results, individual variants relating to genes associated with susceptibility to cancer and familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). In the study reported here, qualitative interviews were used to explore the experiences of National Health Service (NHS) professionals from across England who were tasked with returning over 80,000 "no AF" results and 700 positive AF results to 100kGP participants. Interviews were conducted with 45 professionals from a range of backgrounds, including Genetic Counsellors, Clinical Geneticists, FH Clinical Nurse Specialists and Clinical Scientists. Interviews were analysed using a codebook thematic analysis approach. Returning AF results has been a significant endeavour, with challenges for pathways, administrative processes and clinical and laboratory time when the capacity of NHS services is already stretched. Professionals discussed going "above and beyond" to prioritise patient care through pathway design, additional clinics, overtime, longer appointments and provision of follow-up appointments. Professionals also described facing practical and emotional challenges when returning AFs. Benefits for patients from receiving AFs in the 100kGP were highlighted and professionals were generally positive about offering clinically actionable AFs within routine NHS clinical care. Professionals were, however, cautious around the implementation of AFs into routine care and felt more research and discussion was needed to determine which AFs to offer, approaches to consent and communication of results, costs and the potential strain on NHS capacity and resources. Further consultation is required with careful review of pathways and resources before offering AFs in clinical practice.

Promise and Peril of a Genotype-First Approach to Mendelian Cardiovascular Disease

Precision medicine, which among other aspects includes an individual's genomic data in diagnosis and management, has become the standard-of-care for Mendelian cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, early identification and management of asymptomatic patients with potentially lethal and manageable Mendelian CVD through screening, which is the promise of precision health, remains an unsolved challenge. The reduced costs of genomic sequencing have enabled the creation of biobanks containing in-depth genetic and health information, which have facilitated the understanding of genetic variation, penetrance, and expressivity, moving us closer to the genotype-first screening of asymptomatic individuals for Mendelian CVD. This approach could transform health care by diagnostic refinement and facilitating prevention or therapeutic interventions. Yet, potential benefits must be weighed against the potential risks, which include evolving variant pathogenicity assertion or identification of variants with low disease penetrance; costly, stressful, and inappropriate diagnostic evaluations; negative psychological impact; disqualification for employment or of competitive sports; and denial of insurance. Furthermore, the natural history of Mendelian CVD is often unpredictable, making identification of those who will benefit from preventive measures a priority. Currently, there is insufficient evidence that population-based genetic screening for Mendelian CVD can reduce adverse outcomes at a reasonable cost to an extent that outweighs the harms of true-positive and false-positive results. Besides technical, clinical, and financial burdens, ethical and legal aspects pose unprecedented challenges. This review highlights key developments in the field of genotype-first approaches to Mendelian CVD and summarizes challenges with potential solutions that can pave the way for implementing this approach for clinical care.

Nephrologists' Views on a Workflow for Returning Genetic Results to Research Participants

Introduction

Returning research-based genetic results (gRoR) to participants in nephrology research can improve care; however, the practice raises implementational questions and no established guidelines for this process currently exist. Nephrologists' views on this issue can inform the process but are understudied.

Methods

We developed a conceptual workflow for gRoR from literature and experience, covering aspects such as which results to return, how, and by whom. We surveyed US nephrologists to gauge their views on the workflow and anticipated barriers and collected participants' demographics, including professional backgrounds.

Results

A total of 201 adult and pediatric nephrologists completed the survey. Most of them agreed that all diagnostic kidney-related results (93%), secondary findings (80%), and kidney-related risk variants (83%) should be returned. No significant differences were found between adult and pediatric nephrologists' responses, except that 48% of adult nephrologists versus 26% of pediatric nephrologists supported returning polygenic risk scores (PRS) (P < 0.01). Seventy-nine percent wanted to know about research results before clinical confirmation. Most of them (63%) believed a genetic counselor should return clinically confirmed results. Key barriers included the cost of clinical validation (77%) and the unavailability of genetic counseling services (63%). Facilitators included educational resources on genetic kidney diseases (91%), a referral list of experts (89%), and clear clinical care guidelines (89%). We discuss findings' implications and provide "points to consider."

Conclusion

There is significant interest in gRoR among nephrologists; however, logistical and economic concerns need addressing. Identified facilitators can help large nephrology studies planning to return genetic results to participants.

Design and pilot results from the Million Veteran Program Return Of Actionable Results (MVP-ROAR) Study

BACKGROUND

As a mega-biobank linked to a national healthcare system, the Million Veteran Program (MVP) can directly improve the health care of participants. To determine the feasibility and outcomes of returning medically actionable genetic results to MVP participants, the program launched the MVP Return of Actionable Results (MVP-ROAR) Study, with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) as an exemplar actionable condition.

METHODS

The MVP-ROAR Study consists of a completed single-arm pilot phase and an ongoing randomized clinical trial (RCT), in which MVP participants are recontacted and invited to receive clinical confirmatory gene sequencing testing and a telegenetic counseling intervention. The primary outcome of the RCT is 6-month change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) between participants receiving results at baseline and those receiving results after 6 months.

RESULTS

The pilot developed processes to identify and recontact participants nationally with probable pathogenic variants in low-density lipoprotein receptor (LDLR) on the MVP genotype array, invite them to clinical confirmatory gene sequencing, and deliver a telegenetic counseling intervention. Among participants in the pilot phase, 8 (100%) had active statin prescriptions after 6 months. Results were shared with 16 first-degree family members. Six-month ΔLDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol) after the genetic counseling intervention was -37 mg/dL (95% CI: -12 to -61; P = .03). The ongoing RCT will determine between-arm differences in this primary outcome.

CONCLUSION

While underscoring the importance of clinical confirmation of research results, the pilot phase of the MVP-ROAR Study marks a turning point in MVP and demonstrates the feasibility of returning genetic results to participants and their providers. The ongoing RCT will contribute to understanding how such a program might improve patient health care and outcomes.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT04178122.

Prevalence and Reclassification of Genetic Variants in South African Populations with Breast Cancer

Concurrent testing of numerous genes for hereditary breast cancer (BC) is available but can result in management difficulties. We evaluated use of an expanded BC gene panel in women of diverse South African ancestries and assessed use of African genomic data to reclassify variants of uncertain significance (VUS). A total of 331 women of White, Black African, or Mixed Ancestry with BC had a 9-gene panel test, with an additional 75 genes tested in those without a pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant. The proportion of VUS reclassified using ClinGen gene-specific allele frequency (AF) thresholds or an AF > 0.001 in nonguidelines genes in African genomic data was determined. The 9-gene panel identified 58 P/LP variants, but only two of the P/LP variants detected using the 75-gene panel were in confirmed BC genes, resulting in a total of 60 (18.1%) in all participants. P/LP variant prevalence was similar across ancestry groups, but VUS prevalence was higher in Black African and Mixed Ancestry than in White participants. In total, 611 VUS were detected, representing 324 distinct variants. 10.8% (9/83) of VUS met ClinGen AF thresholds in genomic data while 10.8% (26/240) in nonguideline genes had an AF > 0.001. Overall, 27.0% of VUS occurrences could potentially be reclassified using African genomic data. Thus, expanding the gene panel yielded few clinically actionable variants but many VUS, particularly in participants of Black African and Mixed Ancestry. However, use of African genomic data has the potential to reclassify a significant proportion of VUS.

The Kids Heart BioBank: supporting 20 years of patient care and research into CHD

INTRODUCTION

The cause of most CHD is unknown and considered complex, implicating genetic and environmental factors in disease causation. The Kids Heart BioBank was established in 2003 to accelerate genetic investigations into CHD.

METHODS

Recruitment includes patients undergoing interventions for CHD at The Children's Hospital at Westmead. Informed consent is obtained from parents/guardians, and blood is collected at the time of cardiac intervention from which DNA is extracted and stored. Associated detailed clinical information and a family history are stored in the purpose-designed database.

RESULTS

To date, the Kids Heart BioBank contains biospecimens and associated clinical information from over 4,900 patients with CHD and their families. Two-thirds (64.1%) of probands have been included in research studies with 28.9% of participants who underwent genomic sequencing receiving a molecular diagnosis with direct clinical utility. The value of this resource to patients and families is highlighted by the high consent rate (94.6%) and the low withdrawal of consent rate (0.4%). The Kids Heart BioBank has supported many large national and international collaborations and contributed significantly to CHD research.

CONCLUSIONS

The Kids Heart BioBank is an invaluable resource and, together with other similar resources, the resulting research has paved the way for clinical genetic testing options for CHD patients, previously not possible. With research in the field moving away from diagnosing monogenic disease, the Kids Heart BioBank is ideally placed to support the next chapter of research efforts into complex disease mechanisms, requiring large patient cohorts with detailed phenotypic information.

All of Us participant perspectives on the return of value in research

PURPOSE

To understand participant preferences for receiving specific types of research information, whether information preferences vary across sociodemographic groups, and the types of health providers participants could access to understand returned information.

METHODS

All of Us Research Program participants completed a value of returning research information survey. Stratified sampling was implemented to enhance participant diversity and avoid noncoverage. We used weighted multivariable logistic regression to evaluate associations between the most valuable information types, access to providers, and sociodemographic variables.

RESULTS

Participants (N = 20,405) were diverse in their race/ethnicity (eg, 52% were White, 18% were Hispanic/Latino or Spanish, 3% were Asian, and 20% were Black or African American). Most participants (78.6%) valued information about their risk of serious genetic diseases with available treatment. Primary care physicians, specialists, and genetic counselors were the top providers that participants could access for help understanding returned information. Information preferences and provider access varied across sociodemographic groups. For example, as income levels increased, the odds of placing value on genetic results indicating risk of serious disease with available treatment increased when compared with the lowest income levels (P value < .001).

CONCLUSION

Although genetic information was most valuable to participants, preferences about specific information types varied across sociodemographic groups.

Should institutions fund the feedback of individual findings in genomic research?

The article argues the thesis that institutions have a prima facie obligation to fund the feedback of individual findings in genomic research conducted on the African continent by drawing arguments from an underexplored Afro-communitarian view of distributive justice and rights of researchers to be aided. Whilst some studies have explored how institutions have a duty to support return as a form of ancillary care or additional foreseeable service in research by mostly appealing to dominant principles and theories in the Global North, this mostly normative study explores this question by appealing to underexplored African philosophy. This is a new way of thinking about institutional responsibility to fund feedback and responds to the call to decolonise health research in Africa. Further studies are required to study how this prima facie obligation will interact with social contexts and an institution's extant relationships to find an actual duty. The research community should also work out procedures, policies and governance structures to facilitate feedback. In our opinion, though the impacts of feeding back can inform how institutions think about their actual duty, these do not obliterate the binding duty to fund feedback.

Perspectives of researchers, science policy makers and research ethics committee members on the feedback of individual genetic research findings in African genomics research

BACKGROUND

Genetic research can yield information that is unrelated to the study's objectives but may be of clinical or personal interest to study participants. There is an emerging but controversial responsibility to return some genetic research results, however there is little evidence available about the views of genomic researchers and others on the African continent.

METHODS

We conducted a continental survey to solicit perspectives of researchers, science policy makers and research ethics committee members on the feedback of individual genetic research findings in African genomics research.

RESULTS

A total of 110 persons participated in the survey with 51 complete and 59 incomplete surveys received. Data was summarised using descriptive analysis. Overall, our respondents believed that individual genetic research results that are clinically actionable should be returned to study participants apparently because participants have a right to know things about their health, and it might also be a means for research participation to be recognized. Nonetheless, there is a need for development of precise guidance on how to return individual genetic research findings in African genomics research.

DISCUSSION

Participants should receive information that could promote a healthier lifestyle; only clinically actionable findings should be returned, and participants should receive all important information that is directly relevant to their health. Nevertheless, detailed guidelines should inform what ought to be returned. H3Africa guidelines stipulate that it is generally considered good practice for researchers to feedback general study results, but there is no consensus about whether individual genomic study results should also be fed back. The decision on what individual results to feedback, if any, is very challenging and the specific context is important to make an appropriate determination.

Difficulties in disclosing secondary findings by facilities performing comprehensive germline genetic testing for rare diseases in Japan

In Japan, a limited number of laboratories perform comprehensive genetic testing for rare diseases; this study investigated the attitudes of these laboratories toward the disclosure of secondary finding (SF). Following a preliminary survey, we identified laboratories conducting comprehensive genetic testing for participation. Subsequently, an online survey involving 20 selected facilities was conducted. The response rate was 80% (16/20). Of the 14 facilities, 71.4% had SFs. While 42.9% of them had a policy to disclose SFs with clinical utility, only 14.3% actively searched for actionable variants that could be included in the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics list. Japan was less enthusiastic than the USA regarding SF disclosure. With regard to the reasons for not disclosing SFs, the factors "the thought that participants may have a low desire for SFs" and "uncertainty regarding their wish" were considered more important than in the USA. A content analysis of what was sought as a solution to this difficulty revealed a need to improve databases on pathogenicity and actionability and collect public thoughts on the issue. The factor "to promote entry in research" was not considered a critical reason for disclosing SFs, indicating that the thirst for information was not possibly due to anxiety but rather due to scientific interest. Japanese medical professionals may not be confident that society requires the disclosure of SFs. To improve the environment, it is necessary to survey the public regarding their thoughts on SF disclosure and discuss this issue in society.

Interrogating the Value of Return of Results for Diverse Populations: Perspectives from Precision Medicine Researchers

BACKGROUND

Over the last decade, the return of results (ROR) in precision medicine research (PMR) has become increasingly routine. Calls for individual rights to research results have extended the "duty to report" from clinically useful genetic information to traits and ancestry results. ROR has thus been reframed as inherently beneficial to research participants, without a needed focus on who benefits and how. This paper addresses this gap, particularly in the context of PMR aimed at increasing participant diversity, by providing investigator and researcher perspectives on and questions about the assumed value of ROR in PMR.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of investigators and researchers across federally funded PMR studies in three national consortia, as well as observations of study activities, focused on how PM researchers conceptualize diversity and implement inclusive practices across research stages, including navigating ROR.

RESULTS

Interviewees (1) validated the value of ROR as a benefit of PMR, while others (2) questioned the benefit of clinically actionable results to individuals in the absence of sufficient resources for translating findings into health care for diverse and disadvantaged populations; (3) expressed uncertainties in applying the presumed value of ROR as a benefit for non-clinical results; and (4) and debated when the promise of the value of ROR may undermine trust in PMR, and divert efforts to return value beyond ROR.

CONCLUSIONS

Conceptualizations of diversity and inclusion among PM researchers and investigators raise unique ethical questions where unexamined assumptions of the value of ROR inform study recruitment efforts to enroll minoritized and under-represented populations. A lack of consideration for resources and infrastructure necessary to translate ROR into actionable information may hinder trustworthy community-research relationships. Thus, we argue for a more intentional interrogation of ROR practices as an offer of benefit and for whom.

Development and utility of a clinical research informatics application for participant recruitment and workflow management for a return of results pilot trial in familial hypercholesterolemia in the Million Veteran Program

Objective

The development of clinical research informatics tools and workflow processes associated with re-engaging biobank participants has become necessary as genomic repositories increasingly consider the return of actionable research results.

Materials and Methods

Here we describe the development and utility of an informatics application for participant recruitment and enrollment management for the Veterans Affairs Million Veteran Program Return Of Actionable Results Study, a randomized controlled pilot trial returning individual genetic results associated with familial hypercholesterolemia.

Results

The application is developed in Python-Flask and was placed into production in November 2021. The application includes modules for chart review, medication reconciliation, participant contact and biospecimen logging, survey recording, randomization, and documentation of genetic counseling and result disclosure. Three primary users, a genetic counselor and two research coordinators, and 326 Veteran participants have been integrated into the system as of February 23, 2023. The application has successfully handled 3367 task requests involving greater than 95 000 structured data points. Specifically, application users have recorded 326 chart reviews, 867 recruitment telephone calls, 158 telephone-based surveys, and 61 return of results genetic counseling sessions, among other available study tasks.

Conclusion

The development of usable, customizable, and secure informatics tools will become increasingly important as large genomic repositories begin to return research results at scale. Our work provides a proof-of-concept for developing and using such tools to aid in managing the return of results process within a national biobank.

Hope, but never expect? Comparing parents' pre- and post-disclosure attitudes toward return of results from diagnostic exome sequencing for their child

BACKGROUND

Counseling for whole-exome sequencing (WES) could benefit from aligning parents' pre- and post-disclosure attitudes. A few studies have qualitatively compared parents' pre- and post-disclosure attitudes toward receiving WES results for their child in a diagnostic setting. This study explored these attitudes in the context of children with a developmental delay.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents (n = 27) of 16 children undergoing diagnostic WES in trio-analysis, both before and after receiving results.

RESULTS

Three key insights emerged. First, the distinction between hoping and expecting was relevant for shaping parents' experiences with receiving results related to the primary indication. Second, parents of young children whose development of autonomous capacities was uncertain sometimes found themselves in a situation resembling a Catch-22 when confronted with decisions about unsolicited findings (UFs): an important reason for consenting to WES was to gain a better picture of how the child might develop, but in order to make responsible choices about UFs, some ideas of their child's development is needed. Third, default opt-ins and opt-outs helped parents fathom new kinds of considerations for accepting or declining UFs in different categories, thereby aiding decision-making.

CONCLUSION

Results from this study are relevant for counseling and policy development.

Eliciting parental preferences and values for the return of additional findings from genomic sequencing

Health economic evidence is needed to inform the design of high-value and cost-effective processes for returning genomic results from analyses for additional findings (AF). This study reports the results of a discrete-choice experiment designed to elicit preferences for the process of returning AF results from the perspective of parents of children with rare conditions and to estimate the value placed on AF analysis. Overall, 94 parents recruited within the Australian Genomics and Melbourne Genomics programmes participated in the survey, providing preferences in a total of 1128 choice scenarios. Statistically significant preferences were identified for the opportunity to change the choices made about AF; receiving positive AF in person from a genetic counsellor; timely access to a medical specialist and high-quality online resources; receiving automatic updates through a secure online portal if new information becomes available; and lower costs. For AF uptake rates ranging between 50-95%, the mean per person value from AF analysis was estimated at AU$450-$1700 (US$300-$1140). The findings enable the design of a value-maximising process of analysis for AF in rare-disease genomic sequencing.

The need for an intersectionality framework in precision medicine research

Precision medicine research has seen growing efforts to increase participation of communities that have been historically underrepresented in biomedical research. Marginalized racial and ethnic communities have received particular attention, toward the goal of improving the generalizability of scientific knowledge and promoting health equity. Against this backdrop, research has highlighted three key issues that could impede the promise of precision medicine research: issues surrounding (dis)trust and representation, challenges in translational efforts to improve health outcomes, and the need for responsive community engagement. Existing efforts to address these challenges have predominantly centered on single-dimensional demographic criteria such as race, ethnicity, or sex, while overlooking how these and additional variables, such as disability, gender identity, and socioeconomic factors, can confound and jointly impact research participation. We argue that increasing cohort diversity and the responsiveness of precision medicine research studies to community needs requires an approach that transcends conventional boundaries and embraces a more nuanced, multi-layered, and intersectional framework for data collection, analyses, and implementation. We draw attention to gaps in existing work, highlight how overlapping layers of marginalization might shape and substantiate one another and affect the precision-medicine research cycle, and put forth strategies to facilitate equitable advantages from precision-medicine research to diverse participants and internally heterogeneous communities.

Lessons learned during the process of reporting individual genomic results to participants of a population-based biobank

The return of individual genomic results (ROR) to research participants is still in its early phase, and insight on how individuals respond to ROR is scarce. Studies contributing to the evidence base for best practices are crucial before these can be established. Here, we describe a ROR procedure conducted at a population-based biobank, followed by surveying the responses of almost 3000 participants to a range of results, and discuss lessons learned from the process, with the aim of facilitating large-scale expansion. Overall, participants perceived the information that they received with counseling as valuable, even when the reporting of high risks initially caused worry. The face-to-face delivery of results limited the number of participants who received results. Although the participants highly valued this type of communication, additional means of communication need to be considered to improve the feasibility of large-scale ROR. The feedback collected sheds light on the value judgements of the participants and on potential responses to the receipt of genetic risk information. Biobanks in other countries are planning or conducting similar projects, and the sharing of lessons learned may provide valuable insight and aid such endeavors.

Return of Results in Genomic Research Using Large-Scale or Whole Genome Sequencing: Toward a New Normal

Genome sequencing is increasingly used in research and integrated into clinical care. In the research domain, large-scale analyses, including whole genome sequencing with variant interpretation and curation, virtually guarantee identification of variants that are pathogenic or likely pathogenic and actionable. Multiple guidelines recommend that findings associated with actionable conditions be offered to research participants in order to demonstrate respect for autonomy, reciprocity, and participant interests in health and privacy. Some recommendations go further and support offering a wider range of findings, including those that are not immediately actionable. In addition, entities covered by the US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) may be required to provide a participant's raw genomic data on request. Despite these widely endorsed guidelines and requirements, the implementation of return of genomic results and data by researchers remains uneven. This article analyzes the ethical and legal foundations for researcher duties to offer adult participants their interpreted results and raw data as the new normal in genomic research.

Studying the impact of translational genomic research: Lessons from eMERGE

Two major goals of the Electronic Medical Record and Genomics (eMERGE) Network are to learn how best to return research results to patient/participants and the clinicians who care for them and also to assess the impact of placing these results in clinical care. Yet since its inception, the Network has confronted a host of challenges in achieving these goals, many of which had ethical, legal, or social implications (ELSIs) that required consideration. Here, we share impediments we encountered in recruiting participants, returning results, and assessing their impact, all of which affected our ability to achieve the goals of eMERGE, as well as the steps we took to attempt to address these obstacles. We divide the domains in which we experienced challenges into four broad categories: (1) study design, including recruitment of more diverse groups; (2) consent; (3) returning results to participants and their health care providers (HCPs); and (4) assessment of follow-up care of participants and measuring the impact of research on participants and their families. Since most phases of eMERGE have included children as well as adults, we also address the particular ELSI posed by including pediatric populations in this research. We make specific suggestions for improving translational genomic research to ensure that future projects can effectively return results and assess their impact on patient/participants and providers if the goals of genomic-informed medicine are to be achieved.

Two-step offer and return of multiple types of additional genomic findings to families after ultrarapid trio genomic testing in the acute care setting: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

As routine genomic testing expands, so too does the opportunity to look for additional health information unrelated to the original reason for testing, termed additional findings (AF). Analysis for many different types of AF may be available, particularly to families undergoing trio genomic testing. The optimal model for service delivery remains to be determined, especially when the original test occurs in the acute care setting.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Families enrolled in a national study providing ultrarapid genomic testing to critically ill children will be offered analysis for three types of AF on their stored genomic data: paediatric-onset conditions in the child, adult-onset conditions in each parent and reproductive carrier screening for the parents as a couple. The offer will be made 3-6 months after diagnostic testing. Parents will have access to a modified version of the Genetics Adviser web-based decision support tool before attending a genetic counselling appointment to discuss consent for AF. Parental experiences will be evaluated using qualitative and quantitative methods on data collected through surveys, appointment recordings and interviews at multiple time points. Evaluation will focus on parental preferences, uptake, decision support use and understanding of AF. Genetic health professionals' perspectives on acceptability and feasibility of AF will also be captured through surveys and interviews.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This project received ethics approval from the Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee as part of the Australian Genomics Health Alliance protocol: HREC/16/MH/251. Findings will be disseminated through peer-review journal articles and at conferences nationally and internationally.

A practical checklist for return of results from genomic research in the European context

An increasing number of European research projects return, or plan to return, individual genomic research results (IRR) to participants. While data access is a data subject's right under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and many legal and ethical guidelines allow or require participants to receive personal data generated in research, the practice of returning results is not straightforward and raises several practical and ethical issues. Existing guidelines focusing on return of IRR are mostly project-specific, only discuss which results to return, or were developed outside Europe. To address this gap, we analysed existing normative documents identified online using inductive content analysis. We used this analysis to develop a checklist of steps to assist European researchers considering whether to return IRR to participants. We then sought feedback on the checklist from an interdisciplinary panel of European experts (clinicians, clinical researchers, population-based researchers, biobank managers, ethicists, lawyers and policy makers) to refine the checklist. The checklist outlines seven major components researchers should consider when determining whether, and how, to return results to adult research participants: 1) Decide which results to return; 2) Develop a plan for return of results; 3) Obtain participant informed consent; 4) Collect and analyse data; 5) Confirm results; 6) Disclose research results; 7) Follow-up and monitor. Our checklist provides a clear outline of the steps European researchers can follow to develop ethical and sustainable result return pathways within their own research projects. Further legal analysis is required to ensure this checklist complies with relevant domestic laws.

Attitudes and beliefs regarding race-targeted genetic testing of Black people: A systematic review

Geographical ancestry has been associated with an increased risk of various genetic conditions. Race and ethnicity often have been used as proxies for geographical ancestry. Despite numerous problems associated with the crude reliance on race and ethnicity as proxies for geographical ancestry, some genetic testing in the clinical, research, and employment settings has been and continues to be race- or ethnicity-based. Race-based or race-targeted genetic testing refers to genetic testing offered only or primarily to people of particular racial or ethnic groups because of presumed differences among groups. One current example is APOL1 testing of Black kidney donors. Race-based genetic testing raises numerous ethical and policy questions. Given the ongoing reliance on the Black race in genetic testing, it is important to understand the views of people who identify as Black or are identified as Black (including African American, Afro-Caribbean, and Hispanic Black) regarding race-based genetic testing that targets Black people because of their race. We conducted a systematic review of studies and reports of stakeholder-engaged projects that examined how people who identify as or are identified as Black perceive genetic testing that specifically presumes genetic differences exist among racial groups or uses race as a surrogate for ancestral genetic variation and targets Black people. Our review identified 14 studies that explicitly studied this question and another 13 that implicitly or tacitly studied this matter. We found four main factors that contribute to a positive attitude toward race-targeted genetic testing (facilitators) and eight main factors that are associated with concerns regarding race-targeted genetic testing (barriers). This review fills an important gap. These findings should inform future genetic research and the policies and practices developed in clinical, research, public health, or other settings regarding genetic testing.

Are there differences in perceptions, preferences and attitudes towards disclosure of genetic testing for Stroke? A qualitative study among stroke-free SIREN-SIBS genomics study participants

OBJECTIVE

This study explored perceptions, preferences and attitudes towards disclosure of genetic testing results for stroke among stroke-free controls (and their family members) in the SIREN-SIBS Genomics Study, healthcare providers and policymakers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a qualitative thematic analysis of key informant interviews with 61 participants recruited from community advisory boards (30) and health care providers (31) across seven sites in Nigeria and Ghana.

RESULTS

Major findings illustrate differences in the knowledge of genetic testing with superior knowledge among health care professionals. Relatives and religious leaders were opined as the best to receive the disclosure as they would be able to break the news to the patient in a culturally sensitive manner to reduce the likely resultant emotional outburst. Poor level of awareness of national guidelines for disclosing genetic results exist. Key facilitating factors for disclosure are education, enabling environment, involvement of religious and community leaders, campaigns, and possible treatment options. Disclosure inhibitors include inadequate information, fear of marital break-up or family displacement, fear of stigmatization, fear of isolation, religious beliefs, health worker attitude, and lack of preparedness to accept results.

CONCLUSIONS

These necessitate culturally sensitive interventions for continuing education, increased awareness and sustained engagement to equip all stakeholders in genetic testing disclosure process.

A Focused Clinical Review of Lynch Syndrome

Lynch syndrome (LS) is an autosomal dominant condition that increases an individual's risk of a constellation of cancers. LS is defined when an individual has inherited pathogenic variants in the mismatch repair genes. Currently, most people with LS are undiagnosed. Early detection of LS is vital as those with LS can be enrolled in cancer reduction strategies through chemoprophylaxis, risk reducing surgery and cancer surveillance. However, these interventions are often invasive and require refinement. Furthermore, not all LS associated cancers are currently amenable to surveillance. Historically only those with a strong family history suggestive of LS were offered testing; this has proved far too restrictive. New criteria for testing have recently been introduced including the universal screening for LS in associated cancers. This has increased the number of people being diagnosed with LS but has also brought about unique challenges such as when to consent for germline testing and questions over how and who should carry out the consent. The results of germline testing for LS can be complicated and the diagnostic pathway is not always clear. Furthermore, by testing only those with cancer for LS we fail to identify these individuals before they develop potentially fatal pathology. This review will outline these challenges and explore solutions. Furthermore, we consider the potential future of LS care and the related treatments and interventions which are the current focus of research.

Consent Codes: Maintaining Consent in an Ever-expanding Open Science Ecosystem

We previously proposed a structure for recording consent-based data use 'categories' and 'requirements' - Consent Codes - with a view to supporting maximum use and integration of genomic research datasets, and reducing uncertainty about permissible re-use of shared data. Here we discuss clarifications and subsequent updates to the Consent Codes (v4) based on new areas of application (e.g., the neurosciences, biobanking, H3Africa), policy developments (e.g., return of research results), and further practical considerations, including developments in automated approaches to consent management.

Return of individual genomic research results within the PRAEGNANT multicenter registry study

PURPOSE

The PRAEGNANT study is a registry study for metastatic breast cancer patients, focusing on biomarker detection. Recently, within this study, genetic alterations in 37 breast cancer predisposition genes were analyzed and genetic findings were detected for 396 participants. The aim of this project was to return genetic results to the physicians and to analyze actions taken (e.g., disclosure of results to patients, validation of results, clinical impact, and impact on the patient's quality of life) using a questionnaire.

METHODS

235 questionnaires were sent out to the study centers, with each questionnaire representing one patient with a genetic finding. The questionnaire consisted of twelve questions in the German language, referring to the disclosure of results, validation of test results, and their impact on treatment decisions and on the patient's quality of life.

RESULTS

135 (57.5%) questionnaires were completed. Of these, 46 (34.1%) stated that results were returned to the patients. In 80.0% (N = 36) of cases where results were returned, the patient had not been aware of the finding previously. For 27 patients (64.3%), genetic findings had not been validated beforehand. All validation procedures (N = 15) were covered by the patients' health insurance. For 11 (25.0%) patients, physicians reported that the research results influenced current or future decision-making on treatment, and for 37.8% (N = 17) the results influenced whether family members will be genetically tested.

CONCLUSION

This study provides novel insights into the return of research results and into clinical and personal benefits of disclosure of genetic findings within a German registry.

Feedback of individual genetic and genomics research results: A qualitative study involving grassroots communities in Uganda

BACKGROUND

Genetics and genomics research (GGR) is associated with several challenges including, but not limited to, methods and implications of sharing research findings with participants and their family members, issues of confidentiality, and ownership of data obtained from samples. Additionally, GGR holds significant potential risk for social and psychological harms. Considerable research has been conducted globally, and has advanced the debate on return of genetic and genomics testing results. However, such investigations are limited in the African setting, including Uganda where research ethics guidance on return of results is deficient or suboptimal at best. The objective of this study was to assess perceptions of grassroots communities on if and how feedback of individual genetics and genomics testing results should occur in Uganda with a view to improving ethics guidance.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study that employed a qualitative exploratory approach. Five deliberative focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with 42 participants from grassroots communities representing three major ethnic groupings. These were rural settings and the majority of participants were subsistence farmers with limited or no exposure to GGR. Data were analysed through thematic analysis, with both deductive and inductive approaches applied to interrogate predetermined themes and to identify any emerging themes. NVivo software (QSR international 2020) was used to support data analysis and illustrative quotes were extracted.

RESULTS

All the respondents were willing to participate in GGR and receive feedback of results conditional upon a health benefit. The main motivation was diagnostic and therapeutic benefits as well as facilitating future health planning. Thematic analysis identified four themes and several sub-themes including 1) the need-to-know health status 2) paternity information as a benefit and risk; 3) ethical considerations for feedback of findings and 4) extending feedback of genetics findings to family and community.

CONCLUSION

Participation in hypothetical GGR as well as feedback of results is acceptable to individuals in grassroots communities. However, the strong therapeutic and/or diagnostic misconception linked to GGR is concerning given that hopes for therapeutic and/or diagnostic benefit are unfounded. Viewing GGR as an opportunity to confirm or dispute paternity was another interesting perception. These findings carry profound implications for consent processes, genetic counselling and research ethics guidance. Privacy and confidentiality, benefits, risks as well as implications for sharing need to be considered for such feedback of results to be conducted appropriately.

The New Precision Stewards?

The precision health era is likely to reduce and respond to antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Our stewardship and precision efforts share terminology, seeking to deliver the “right drug, at the right dose, at the right time.” Already, rapid diagnostic testing, phylogenetic surveillance, and real-time outbreak response provide just a few examples of molecular advances we dub “precision stewardship.” However, the AMR causal factors range from the molecular to that of global health policy. Mirroring the cross-sectoral nature of AMR science, the research addressing the ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI) of AMR ranges across academic scholarship. As the rise of AMR is accompanied by an escalating sense of its moral and social significance, what is needed is a parallel field of study. In this paper, we offer a gap analysis of this terrain, or an agenda for “the ELSI of precision stewardship.” In the first section, we discuss the accomplishments of a multi-decade U.S. national investment in ELSI research attending to the advances in human genetics. In the next section, we provide an overview of distinct ELSI topics pertinent to AMR. The distinctiveness of an ELSI agenda for precision stewardship suggests new opportunities for collaboration to build the stewardship teams of the future.

Experiences of sharing results of community based serosurvey with participants in a district of Maharashtra, India

A growing number of organisations, including medical associations, recommend that research subjects should be given the option of being informed about the general outcome and results of the study. We recently completed a study involving nine serosurveys from 2018 to 2020 in five districts of India among three age groups (children 9 months to < 5 years; 5 to < 15 years of age, and women 15 to < 50 years of age before and after the measles and rubella (MR) vaccination campaigns). In Palghar district of Maharashtra all individuals in 30 selected clusters were enumerated, and 13 individuals per age group were randomly sampled. We established the procedures to return the results to the respondents for each stage of the survey. Of the 1,166 individuals selected for the measles and rubella serosurvey, 971 (83%) agreed to participate and were enrolled. Participants were informed that they will only be contacted if they test seronegative for measles and/or rubella antibodies. Overall, 140 individuals enrolled in the survey tested seronegative for IgG antibodies to measles and/or rubella viruses; were provided the reports and informed to seek medical advice. Upon follow up by phone, 10% (14) of the 140 participants reported to have been vaccinated. In this paper we discuss the procedures, experiences and considerations in returning results to participants in a community-based measles and rubella serosurvey. Although the lessons learned are specific to post measles-rubella vaccine campaign serosurvey in India, they might be helpful to those contemplating sharing results to participants of large scale survey settings.

Secondary Findings Using Broad Pan Cardiomyopathy and Arrhythmia Panels in Patients With a Personal or Family History of Inherited Cardiomyopathy or Arrhythmia Syndrome

With broad panels and whole exome or genome sequencing, there is the potential for secondary findings, which include pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants or variants of uncertain significance in genes that are unrelated to the primary clinical indication for the testing. No study examined the frequency and implications of secondary findings when using a broad panel for inherited cardiomyopathy or arrhythmia syndromes. We performed a retrospective review of the primary indications for genetic testing, tests performed, and genetic test results to identify secondary findings in patients seen in the Inherited Cardiovascular Disease Clinic for a personal or family history of (possible) inherited cardiomyopathy, inherited arrhythmia syndrome, previous cardiac arrest, or family history of sudden cardiac death. Of 325 probands and 20 family members who had genetic testing, with no-cost broad cardiomyopathy and arrhythmia panel, 4 probands (1.2%) and 4 family members (5%) had pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in autosomal dominant genes, unrelated to the primary reason for testing. In conclusion, the prevalence of secondary findings using broad cardiomyopathy and arrhythmia panel in patients with personal or family history of inherited cardiomyopathy or arrhythmia was ∼2.2%. Our findings suggest that with appropriate genetic counseling, broad panels might be considered over disease-specific panels because of the relatively high prevalence of secondary findings that positively affect patient care and would not have been identified with more targeted testing.

Return of genomic results does not motivate intent to participate in research for all: Perspectives across 22 countries

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine how attitudes toward the return of genomic research results vary internationally.

METHODS

We analyzed the "Your DNA, Your Say" online survey of public perspectives on genomic data sharing including responses from 36,268 individuals across 22 low-, middle-, and high-income countries, and these were gathered in 15 languages. We analyzed how participants responded when asked whether return of results (RoR) would motivate their decision to donate DNA or health data. We examined variation across the study countries and compared the responses of participants from other countries with those from the United States, which has been the subject of the majority of research on return of genomic results to date.

RESULTS

There was substantial variation in the extent to which respondents reported being influenced by RoR. However, only respondents from Russia were more influenced than those from the United States, and respondents from 20 countries had lower odds of being partially or wholly influenced than those from the United States.

CONCLUSION

There is substantial international variation in the extent to which the RoR may motivate people's intent to donate DNA or health data. The United States may not be a clear indicator of global attitudes. Participants' preferences for return of genomic results globally should be considered.

Aducanumab: Appropriate Use Recommendations Update

Aducanumab (Aduhelm) is approved in the United States for the treatment of patients with mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease or mild AD dementia. Aducanumab Appropriate Use Recommendations (AURs) have been published and have helped guide best practices for use of aducanumab. As real-world use has occurred and more information has accrued, the AURs require refinement. We update the AURs to better inform appropriate patient selection and improve shared decision-making, safety monitoring, and risk mitigation in treated patients. Based on evolving experience we emphasize the importance of detecting past medical conditions that may predispose to amyloid related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) or may increase the likelihood of ARIA complications including autoimmune or inflammatory conditions, seizures, or disorders associated with extensive white matter pathology. The apolipoprotein E ε4 (APOE4) genotype is strongly associated with ARIA and exhibits a gene dose effect. We recommend that clinicians perform APOE genotyping to better inform patient care decisions, discussions regarding risk, and clinician vigilance concerning ARIA. As most ARIA occurs during the titration period of aducanumab, we suggest performing MRI before the 5th, 7th, 9th, and 12th infusions to improve detection. Uncommonly, ARIA may be recurrent or serious; we suggest additional parameters for treatment discontinuation taking these observations into account. It is important to continue to learn from the real-world use of aducanumab and the AURs will continue to evolve as new information becomes available. This AUR update does not address efficacy, price, or insurance coverage and is provided to assist clinicians to establish best practices for use of aducanumab in the treatment of patients with mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer's dementia.