Ellen Wright Clayton

Managing Incidental Findings in Human Subjects Research: Analysis and Recommendations

No consensus yet exists on how to handle incidental findings (IFs) in human subjects research. Yet empirical studies document IFs in a wide range of research studies, where IFs are findings beyond the aims of the study that are of potential health or reproductive importance to the individual research participant. This paper reports recommendations of a two-year project group funded by NIH to study how to manage IFs in genetic and genomic research, as well as imaging research. We conclude that researchers have an obligation to address the possibility of discovering IFs in their protocol and communications with the IRB, and in their consent forms and communications with research participants. Researchers should establish a pathway for handling IFs and communicate that to the IRB and research participants. We recommend a pathway and categorize IFs into those that must be disclosed to research participants, those that may be disclosed, and those that should not be disclosed.

Development of a Large-Scale De-Identified DNA Biobank to Enable Personalized Medicine

Our objective was to develop a DNA biobank linked to phenotypic data derived from an electronic medical record (EMR) system. An “opt‐out” model was implemented after significant review and revision. The plan included (i) development and maintenance of a de‐identified mirror image of the EMR, namely, the “synthetic derivative” (SD) and (ii) DNA extracted from discarded blood samples and linked to the SD. Surveys of patients indicated general acceptance of the concept, with only a minority (∼5%) opposing it. As a result, mechanisms to facilitate opt‐out included publicity and revision of a standard “consent to treatment” form. Algorithms for sample handling and procedures for de‐identification were developed and validated in order to ensure acceptable error rates (<0.3 and <0.1%, respectively). The rate of sample accrual is 700–900 samples/week. The advantages of this approach are the rate of sample acquisition and the diversity of phenotypes based on EMRs.

Operational Implementation of Prospective Genotyping for Personalized Medicine: The Design of the Vanderbilt PREDICT Project

The promise of “personalized medicine” guided by an understanding of each individuals genome has been fostered by increasingly powerful and economical methods to acquire clinically relevant information. We describe the operational implementation of prospective genotyping linked to an advanced clinical decision‐support system to guide individualized health care in a large academic health center. This approach to personalized medicine entails engagement between patient and health‐care provider, identification of relevant genetic variations for implementation, assay reliability, point‐of‐care decision support, and necessary institutional investments. In one year, approximately 3,000 patients, most of whom were scheduled for cardiac catheterization, were genotyped on a multiplexed platform that included genotyping for CYP2C19 variants that modulate response to the widely used antiplatelet drug clopidogrel. These data are deposited into the electronic medical record (EMR), and point‐of‐care decision support is deployed when clopidogrel is prescribed for those with variant genotypes. The establishment of programs such as this is a first step toward implementing and evaluating strategies for personalized medicine.

Ethical and Practical Guidelines for Reporting Genetic Research Results to Study Participants: Updated Guidelines From a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group

In January 2009, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a 28-member multidisciplinary Working Group to update the recommendations of a 2004 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group focused on Guidelines to the Return of Genetic Research Results. Changes in the genetic and societal landscape over the intervening 5 years raise multiple questions and challenges. The group noted the complex issues arising from the fact that technological and bioinformatic progress has made it possible to obtain considerable information on individuals that would not have been possible a decade ago. Although unable to reach consensus on a number of issues, the working group produced 5 recommendations. The working group offers 2 recommendations addressing the criteria necessary to determine when genetic results should and may be returned to study participants, respectively. In addition, it suggests that a time limit be established to limit the duration of obligation of investigators to return genetic research results. The group recommends the creation of a central body, or bodies, to provide guidance on when genetic research results are associated with sufficient risk and have established clinical utility to justify their return to study participants. The final recommendation urges investigators to engage the broader community when dealing with identifiable communities to advise them on the return of aggregate and individual research results. Creation of an entity charged to provide guidance to institutional review boards, investigators, research institutions, and research sponsors would provide rigorous review of available data, promote standardization of study policies regarding return of genetic research results, and enable investigators and study participants to clarify and share expectations for the handling of this increasingly valuable information with appropriate respect for the rights and needs of participants.

Recommendations for Returning Genomic Incidental Findings? We Need to Talk!

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics recently issued recommendations for reporting incidental findings from clinical whole-genome sequencing and whole-exome sequencing. The recommendations call for evaluating a specific set of genes as part of all whole-genome sequencing/whole-exome sequencing and reporting all pathogenic variants irrespective of patient age. The genes are associated with highly penetrant disorders for which treatment or prevention is available. The effort to generate a list of genes with actionable findings is commendable, but the recommendations raise several concerns. They constitute a call for opportunistic screening, through intentional effort to identify pathogenic variants in specified genes unrelated to the clinical concern that prompted testing. Yet for most of the genes, we lack evidence about the predictive value of testing, genotype penetrance, spectrum of phenotypes, and efficacy of interventions in unselected populations. Furthermore, the recommendations do not allow patients to decline the additional findings, a position inconsistent with established norms. Finally, the recommendation to return adult-onset disease findings when children are tested is inconsistent with current professional consensus, including other policy statements of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Instead of premature practice recommendations, we call for robust dialogue among stakeholders to define a pathway to normatively sound, evidence-based guidelines.Genet Med 15 11, 854–859.Genetics in Medicine (2013); 15 11, 854–859. doi:10.1038/gim.2013.113

Newborn screening technology: proceed with caution.

The American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) recommends a significant expansion in the number of conditions targeted by newborn screening (NBS) programs.1 In this commentary we advocate a more cautious approach. NBS dates to the early 1960s, when the technology developed to conduct large-scale testing on dried blood spots for phenylketonuria (PKU).2 PKU remains the paradigm condition for NBS because of features of the disease and its treatment, which are particularly advantageous to population screening. It is a condition that silently causes neurologic devastation but is amenable to early detection and effective prevention with a diet of moderate burden and complexity.3 Many children affected with PKU and their families have benefited from state screening programs over the past 4 decades because of collaboration between health departments, families, primary care providers, and metabolic specialists. However, PKU screening is not an unmitigated success.4,5 There was initial uncertainty about whether children with variant forms of hyperphenylalaninemia required treatment and about whether affected children require life-long dietary management.6 Indeed, some children with benign conditions were seriously harmed from unnecessary restrictions in their diets.5 In addition, long-term studies demonstrate decrements in cognitive function for affected children and adolescents who are not fully adherent to the diet,7,8 yet adherence to the diet is challenging because of its poor palatability, high cost, and limits on insurance coverage in many policies. Affected women who are off the diet are at high risk of bearing severely neurologically impaired children.9 Only recently have many programs begun tracking affected women to enable notification, education, and management. These difficulties by no means negate the value of NBS for PKU, but they highlight the problems with the successful implementation of a population-based screening program even when a model condition is targeted. … Address correspondence to Jeffrey R. Botkin, MD, MPH, Research Administration Building, 75 South 2000 East #108, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-8930. E-mail: jeffrey.botkin{at}hsc.utah.edu

Principles of Human Subjects Protections Applied in an Opt-Out, De-identified Biobank

BioVU, the Vanderbilt DNA Databank, is one of few biobanks that qualifies as non‐human subjects research as determined by the local IRB and the federal Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP). BioVU accrues DNA samples extracted from leftover blood remaining from routine clinical testing. The resource is linked to a de‐identified version of data extracted from an Electronic Medical Record (EMR) system, termed the Synthetic Device (SD), in which all personal identifiers have been removed. Thus, there is no identifiable private information attached to the records. The Belmont Report enumerates the importance of the boundary between practice and research, and three principles: Respect for Persons, Beneficence, and Justice, which constitute the essential ethical framework by which IRBs and ethics committees judge the risks and benefi ts of research involving human subjects. BioVU was developed by designing and implementing new procedures, for which there were no previously established methods, which are consistent with the principles of the Belmont Report. These included special oversight and governance, new informatics technologies, provisions to accommodate patients’ preferences, as well as an extensive public education and communications component. Considerations of core principles and protections in the practical implementation of BioVU is the focus of this paper. Clin Trans Sci 2010; Volume #: 1–7

the legal risks of returning results of genomics research

Published guidelines suggest that research results and incidental findings should be offered to study participants under some circumstances. Although some have argued against the return of results in research, many cite an emerging consensus that there is an ethical obligation to return at least some results; the debate quickly turns to issues of mechanics (e.g., which results? who discloses? for how long does the obligation exist?). Although commentators are careful to distinguish this as an ethical rather than legal obligation, we worry that return of results may unjustifiably become standard of care based on this growing “consensus,” which could quickly lead to a legal (negligence-based) duty to offer and return individualized genetic research results. We caution against this and argue in this essay that the debate to date has failed to give adequate weight to a number of fundamental ethical and policy issues that should undergird policy on return of research results in the first instance, many of which go to the fundamental differences between research and clinical care. We confine our comments to research using data from large biobanks, the topic of the guidelines proposed in this symposium issue.Genet Med 2012:14(4):473–477

Informed Consent and Biobanks

Ellen Wright Clayton iomedical research has always relied on access to human biological materials and clinical inforB mation, resources that when combined form biobanks. In the past, it appears that investigators sometimes used these resources with relatively little oversight, and without the consent of the individuals from whom these materials and information were obtained. Several developments in the last ten to fifteen years have converged to place greater emphasis on the role of individual consent in the creation and use of biobanks. The most important by far is the power of information technology, which has transformed our lives in almost every domain. In the research setting, it is now easy to abstract information from electronic medical records. Computers make it possible to analyze enormous datasets and have contributed in essential ways to the dramatic increases in our understanding of genomics and other areas of biomedical science. Information technology, however, has a potential Achilles heel. If inadequate attention is paid to security, others can access electronically stored information and perhaps use it to harm individuals and larger groups. As a result, people are increasingly worried about their privacy and want more control over who has access to information about them, and under what conditions. These desires are often manifested in requests for more stringent requirements for informed consent. The goal of this article is to analyze current ethical and legal guidelines regarding informed consent and biobanks. Until recently, the Common Rule and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations were the major sources of guidance on this issue and were generally consistent on most issues. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule differs in a number of important ways from these rules. These provisions and their differences are summarized below.

Return of individual research results from genome-wide association studies: experience of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network.

Purpose: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.Methods: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.Results: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).Conclusion:The eMERGE experience reveals the complexity of return of results decision making and provides a potential deliberative model for adoption in other collaborative contexts.Genet Med 2012:14(4):424–431