Participant choices for return of genomic results in the eMERGE Network.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Purpose
Secondary findings are typically offered in an all or none fashion when sequencing is used for clinical purposes. This study aims to describe the process of offering categorical and granular choices for results in a large research consortium.Methods
Within the third phase of the electronic MEdical Records and GEnomics (eMERGE) Network, several sites implemented studies that allowed participants to choose the type of results they wanted to receive from a multigene sequencing panel. Sites were surveyed to capture the details of the implementation protocols and results of these choices.Results
Across the ten eMERGE sites, 4664 participants including adolescents and adults were offered some type of choice. Categories of choices offered and methods for selecting categories varied. Most participants (94.5%) chose to learn all genetic results, while 5.5% chose subsets of results. Several sites allowed participants to change their choices at various time points, and 0.5% of participants made changes.Conclusion
Offering choices that include learning some results is important and should be a dynamic process to allow for changes in scientific knowledge, participant age group, and individual preference.
SUBMITTER: Hoell C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8477450 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) (Phase I) network was established in 2007 to further genomic discovery using biorepositories linked to the electronic health record (EHR). In Phase II, which began in 2011, genomic discovery efforts continue and in addition the network is investigating best practices for implementing genomic medicine, in particular, the return of genomic results in the EHR for use by physicians at point-of-care. To develop strategies for addressing the challenges of implementing genomic medicine in the clinical setting, the eMERGE network is conducting studies that return clinically-relevant genomic results to research participants and their health care providers. These genomic medicine pilot studies include returning individual genetic variants associated with disease susceptibility or drug response, as well as genetic risk scores for common "complex" disorders. Additionally, as part of a network-wide pharmacogenomics-related project, targeted resequencing of 84 pharmacogenes is being performed and select genotypes of pharmacogenetic relevance are being placed in the EHR to guide individualized drug therapy. Individual sites within the eMERGE network are exploring mechanisms to address incidental findings generated by resequencing of the 84 pharmacogenes. In this paper, we describe studies being conducted within the eMERGE network to develop best practices for integrating genomic findings into the EHR, and the challenges associated with such work.
| S-EPMC3972474 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Return of individual genetic results to research participants, including participants in archives and biorepositories, is receiving increased attention. However, few groups have deliberated on specific results or weighed deliberations against relevant local contextual factors.The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network, which includes five biorepositories conducting genome-wide association studies, convened a return of results oversight committee to identify potentially returnable results. Network-wide deliberations were then brought to local constituencies for final decision making.Defining results that should be considered for return required input from clinicians with relevant expertise and much deliberation. The return of results oversight committee identified two sex chromosomal anomalies, Klinefelter syndrome and Turner syndrome, as well as homozygosity for factor V Leiden, as findings that could warrant reporting. Views about returning findings of HFE gene mutations associated with hemochromatosis were mixed due to low penetrance. Review of electronic medical records suggested that most participants with detected abnormalities were unaware of these findings. Local considerations relevant to return varied and, to date, four sites have elected not to return findings (return was not possible at one site).The eMERGE experience reveals the complexity of return of results decision making and provides a potential deliberative model for adoption in other collaborative contexts.
| S-EPMC3723451 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose: Discovering an incidental finding (IF) or secondary finding (SF) is a potential result of genomic testing, but few data exist describing types and frequencies of SFs likely to appear in broader clinical populations.Methods: The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network Phase III (eMERGE III) developed a CLIA-compliant sequencing panel of 109 genes and 1551 variants of clinical relevance or research interest and deployed this panel at ten clinical sites. We evaluated medically actionable SFs across 67 genes and 14 single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) in a diverse cohort of 21,915 participants drawn from a variety of settings (e.g., primary care, biobanks, specialty clinics).Results: Correcting for testing indication, we found a 3.02% overall frequency of SFs; 2.54% from 59 genes the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics recommends for SF return, and 0.48% in other genes, primarily HFE and PALB2. SFs associated with cancer susceptibility were most frequent (1.38%), followed by cardiovascular diseases (0.87%), and lipid disorders (0.50%). After removing HFE, the frequency of SFs and proportion of pathogenic versus likely pathogenic SFs did not differ in those self-identifying as White versus others.Conclusion: Here we present frequencies and types of medically actionable secondary findings to support informed decision making by patients, participants, and practitioners engaged in genomic medicine.
| S-EPMC7713503 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn an effort to return actionable results from variant data to electronic health records (EHRs), participants in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network are being sequenced with the targeted Pharmacogenomics Research Network sequence platform (PGRNseq). This cost-effective, highly-scalable, and highly-accurate platform was created to explore rare variation in 84 key pharmacogenetic genes with strong drug phenotype associations.MethodsTo return Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) results to our participants at the Group Health Cooperative, we sequenced the DNA of 900 participants (61 % female) with non-CLIA biobanked samples. We then selected 450 of those to be re-consented, to redraw blood, and ultimately to validate CLIA variants in anticipation of returning the results to the participant and EHR. These 450 were selected using an algorithm we designed to harness data from self-reported race, diagnosis and procedure codes, medical notes, laboratory results, and variant-level bioinformatics to ensure selection of an informative sample. We annotated the multi-sample variant call format by a combination of SeattleSeq and SnpEff tools, with additional custom variables including evidence from ClinVar, OMIM, HGMD, and prior clinical associations.ResultsWe focused our analyses on 27 actionable genes, largely driven by the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium. We derived a ranking system based on the total number of coding variants per participant (75.2±14.7), and the number of coding variants with high or moderate impact (11.5±3.9). Notably, we identified 11 stop-gained (1 %) and 519 missense (20 %) variants out of a total of 1785 in these 27 genes. Finally, we prioritized variants to be returned to the EHR with prior clinical evidence of pathogenicity or annotated as stop-gain for the following genes: CACNA1S and RYR1 (malignant hyperthermia); SCN5A, KCNH2, and RYR2 (arrhythmia); and LDLR (high cholesterol).ConclusionsThe incorporation of genetics into the EHR for clinical decision support is a complex undertaking for many reasons including lack of prior consent for return of results, lack of biospecimens collected in a CLIA environment, and EHR integration. Our study design accounts for these hurdles and is an example of a pilot system that can be utilized before expanding to an entire health system.
| S-EPMC4517371 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesPublic access databases such as clinicaltrials.gov achieve dissemination of clinical trial design and aggregated study results. However, return of participant-level data is rarely done. A key barrier includes the proprietary ownership of data by the sponsor. Additionally, investigators may not have access to centralised data, and per International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) Good Clinical Practice, must maintain the confidentiality of participants. This study piloted an approach to return both individual and aggregate clinical trial data to parents of children participating in a series of open-label clinical trials.Setting and designA small biotech company obtained central ethics approval (centralised institutional review board [IRB], non-exempt). The study was advertised via parent advocacy groups. Parents of trial participants were offered the option to contact an employee (coordinator) within the company, requesting return of their child's study results. Ethics approval covered participation in six countries. The study focused on the sequential clinical trials of vamorolone VBP15-002 (NCT02760264) and VBP15-003 (NCT02760277) (post-results).InterventionsContact initiated by the parent enabled the coordinator to obtain informed consent (and separate General Data Protection Regulations consent), with phone translation when needed. Using date of birth and study site location provided by the parent, the data manager reported the participant number to the coordinator. The coordinator retrieved and compiled data, along with an aggregate summary, which was mailed via a password protected and encrypted memory device to the parent. Prereturn and postreturn surveys were sent to consented parents (n=19; 40% of 48 total trial participants) and investigators.ResultsPrereturn surveys indicated a request for as much data as offered, in all formats offered. Postreturn survey showed high satisfaction with the process and data returned. Survey of the physician site investigators (n=10; 100% participation of investigators) voiced general satisfaction with the process, with some reservations.ConclusionsThis pilot study demonstrates an innovative, cost-effective, centralised and labour conservative approach to return of participant-level and aggregate data to participants in studies.
| S-EPMC10961551 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The informed consent process for genetic testing does not commonly address preferences regarding disclosure of results in the event of the patient's death. Adults being tested for familial colorectal cancer were asked whether they want their exome sequencing results disclosed to another person in the event of their death prior to receiving the results. Of 78 participants, 92% designated an individual and 8% declined to. Further research will help refine practices for informed consent.
| S-EPMC4617192 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The increased use of genomic sequencing in clinical diagnostics and therapeutics makes imperative the development of guidelines and policies about how to handle secondary findings. For reasons both practical and ethical, the creation of these guidelines must take into consideration the informed opinions of the lay public. As part of a larger Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium project, we organized a deliberative democracy (DD) session that engaged 66 participants in dialogue about the benefits and risks associated with the return of secondary findings from clinical genomic sequencing. Participants were educated about the scientific and ethical aspects of the disclosure of secondary findings by experts in medical genetics and bioethics, and then engaged in facilitated discussion of policy options for the disclosure of three types of secondary findings: 1) medically actionable results; 2) adult onset disorders found in children; and 3) carrier status. Participants' opinions were collected via surveys administered one month before, immediately following, and one month after the DD session. Post DD session, participants were significantly more willing to support policies that do not allow access to secondary findings related to adult onset conditions in children (? 2 (2, N = 62) = 13.300, p = 0.001) or carrier status (? 2 (2, N = 60) = 11.375, p = 0.003). After one month, the level of support for the policy denying access to secondary findings regarding adult-onset conditions remained significantly higher than the pre-DD level, although less than immediately post-DD (? 2 (1, N = 60) = 2.465, p = 0.041). Our findings suggest that education and deliberation enhance public appreciation of the scientific and ethical complexities of genome sequencing.
| S-EPMC5161735 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders' perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.
| S-EPMC8575249 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Genomics researchers are increasingly interested in what constitutes effective engagement of individuals from underrepresented groups. This is critical for longitudinal projects needed to inform the implementation of precision medicine. Return of results is one opportunity for engagement. The aims of this study were to determine participant perspectives on optimal engagement strategies and priorities for return of results and the extent to which focus groups were an effective modality for gathering input on these topics. We conducted six professionally moderated focus groups with 49 participants in a genomics research study. Transcripts from audio-recorded sessions were coded by two researchers and themes were discussed with the wider research team. All groups raised the issue of mistrust. Individuals participated nonetheless to contribute their perspectives and benefit their community. Many group members preferred engagement modalities that are offered to all participants and allow them to share the nuances of their perspectives over the use of participant representatives and surveys. All groups created a consensus ranking for result return priorities. Results for life-threatening conditions were the highest priority to return, followed by those related to treatable conditions that affect physical or mental health. We advocate for engagement strategies that reach as many participants as possible and allow them to share their perspectives in detail. Such strategies are valued by participants, can be effective for developing return of results policies, and may help institutions become more trustworthy.
| S-EPMC8206196 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Research on polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for common, genetically complex chronic diseases aims to improve health-related predictions, tailor risk-reducing interventions, and improve health outcomes. Yet, the study and use of PRSs in clinical settings raise equity, clinical, and regulatory challenges that can be greater for individuals from historically marginalized racial, ethnic, and other minoritized communities. As part of the National Human Genome Research Institute-funded Electronic Medical Records and Genomics IV Network, we conducted online focus groups with patients/community members, clinicians, and members of institutional review boards to explore their views on key issues, including PRS research, return of PRS results, clinical translation, and barriers and facilitators to health behavioral changes in response to PRS results. Across stakeholder groups, our findings indicate support for PRS development and a strong interest in having PRS results returned to research participants. However, we also found multi-level barriers and significant differences in stakeholders' views about what is needed and possible for successful implementation. These include researcher-participant interaction formats, health and genomic literacy, and a range of structural barriers, such as financial instability, insurance coverage, and the absence of health-supporting infrastructure and affordable healthy food options in poorer neighborhoods. Our findings highlight the need to revisit and implement measures in PRS studies (e.g., incentives and resources for follow-up care), as well as system-level policies to promote equity in genomic research and health outcomes.
| S-EPMC10950748 | biostudies-literature