Kathy Hudson

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.

Public Expectations for Return of Results from Large-Cohort Genetic Research

The National Institutes of Health and other federal health agencies are considering establishing a national biobank to study the roles of genes and environment in human health. A preliminary public engagement study was conducted to assess public attitudes and concerns about the proposed biobank, including the expectations for return of individual research results. A total of 141 adults of different ages, incomes, genders, ethnicities, and races participated in 16 focus groups in six locations across the country. Focus group participants voiced a strong desire to be able to access individual research results. Recognizing the wide range of possible research results from a large cohort study, they repeatedly and spontaneously suggested that cohort study participants be given ongoing choices as to which results they received.

The Scientific Foundation for Personal Genomics: Recommendations from a National Institutes of Health–Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Multidisciplinary Workshop

The increasing availability of personal genomic tests has led to discussions about the validity and utility of such tests and the balance of benefits and harms. A multidisciplinary workshop was convened by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to review the scientific foundation for using personal genomics in risk assessment and disease prevention and to develop recommendations for targeted research. The clinical validity and utility of personal genomics is a moving target with rapidly developing discoveries but little translation research to close the gap between discoveries and health impact. Workshop participants made recommendations in five domains: (1) developing and applying scientific standards for assessing personal genomic tests; (2) developing and applying a multidisciplinary research agenda, including observational studies and clinical trials to fill knowledge gaps in clinical validity and utility; (3) enhancing credible knowledge synthesis and information dissemination to clinicians and consumers; (4) linking scientific findings to evidence-based recommendations for use of personal genomics; and (5) assessing how the concept of personal utility can affect health benefits, costs, and risks by developing appropriate metrics for evaluation. To fulfill the promise of personal genomics, a rigorous multidisciplinary research agenda is needed.

Keeping Pace with the Times — The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008

On May 21, President George Bush signed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). Kathy Hudson, M.K. Holohan, and Dr. Francis Collins write that at last, the United States has a federal law that protects consumers from discrimination by health insurers and employers on the basis of genetic information. Dr. Francis Collins discusses the provisions of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act and its likely effects on patient care and clinical research. Dr. Collins is director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institutes of Health.

ASHG Statement* on Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing in the United States

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing has been gaining prominence over the past several years.1 Proponents of DTC testing cite benefits that include increased consumer access to testing, greater consumer autonomy and empowerment, and enhanced privacy of the information obtained. Critics of DTC genetic testing have pointed to the risks that consumers will choose testing without adequate context or counseling, will receive tests from laboratories of dubious quality, and will be misled by unproven claims of benefit.

A Case Study of Personalized Medicine

Inhibitor of Apoptosis (IAP) proteins block programmed cell death and are expressed at high levels in various human cancers, thus making them attractive targets for cancer drug development. Second mitochondrial activator of caspases (Smac) mimetics are small-molecule inhibitors that mimic Smac, an endogenous antagonist of IAP proteins. Preclinical studies have shown that Smac mimetics can directly trigger cancer cell death or, even more importantly, sensitize tumor cells for various cytotoxic therapies, including conventional chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or novel agents. Currently, several Smac mimetics are under evaluation in early clinical trials as monotherapy or in rational combinations (i.e., GDC-0917/CUDC-427, LCL161, AT-406/Debio1143, HGS1029, and TL32711/birinapant). This review discusses the promise as well as some challenges at the translational interface of exploiting Smac mimetics as cancer therapeutics. Clin Cancer Res; 21(22); 5030–6. ©2015 AACR. See all articles in this CCR Focus section, “Cell Death and Cancer Therapy.”

New Models for Large Prospective Studies: Is There a Better Way?

Large prospective cohort studies are critical for identifying etiologic factors for disease, but they require substantial long-term research investment. Such studies can be conducted as multisite consortia of academic medical centers, combinations of smaller ongoing studies, or a single large site such as a dominant regional health-care provider. Still another strategy relies upon centralized conduct of most or all aspects, recruiting through multiple temporary assessment centers. This is the approach used by a large-scale national resource in the United Kingdom known as the “UK Biobank,” which completed recruitment/examination of 503,000 participants between 2007 and 2010 within budget and ahead of schedule. A key lesson from UK Biobank and similar studies is that large studies are not simply small studies made large but, rather, require fundamentally different approaches in which “process” expertise is as important as scientific rigor. Embedding recruitment in a structure that facilitates outcome determination, utilizing comprehensive and flexible information technology, automating biospecimen processing, ensuring broad consent, and establishing essentially autonomous leadership with appropriate oversight are all critical to success. Whether and how these approaches may be transportable to the United States remain to be explored, but their success in studies such as UK Biobank makes a compelling case for such explorations to begin.

Confidentiality, privacy, and security of genetic and genomic test information in electronic health records: points to consider

As clinical genetics evolves, and we embark down the path toward more personalized and effective health care, the amount, detail, and complexity of genetic/genomic test information within the electronic health record will increase. This information should be appropriately protected to secure the trust of patients and to support interoperable electronic health information exchange. This article discusses characteristics of genetic/genomic test information, including predictive capability, immutability, and uniqueness, which should be considered when developing policies about information protection. Issues related to “genetic exceptionalism”; i.e., whether genetic/genomic test information should be treated differently from other medical information for purposes of data access and permissible use, are also considered. These discussions can help guide policy that will facilitate the biological and clinical resource development to support the introduction of this information into health care.

Oversight of US genetic testing laboratories

Despite the boom in genetic tests available in US laboratories, oversight remains patchy. A survey of laboratory directors suggests that mandatory proficiency testing would result in fewer errors.

Ethical implications of including children in a large biobank for genetic-epidemiologic research: A qualitative study of public opinion

The National Institutes of Health and other federal agencies are considering initiating a cohort study of 500,000 people, including 120,000 children, to measure genetic and environmental influences on common diseases. A community engagement pilot study was conducted to identify public attitudes and concerns about the proposed cohort study, including the ethics of involving children. The pilot included 15 focus groups where the inclusion of children in the proposed cohort study was discussed. Focus groups, conducted in six cities, included 141 adults of different ages, incomes, genders, ethnicities, and races. Many of the concerns expressed by participants mirrored those addressed in pediatric research guidelines. These concerns included minimizing childrens fear, pain, and burdens; whether to include young children; and how to obtain childrens assent. There was little agreement about which children can assent. Some voiced concern about childrens privacy, but most expected that parents would have access to childrens study results. Some believed children would not benefit from participating, while others identified personal and societal benefits that might accrue. A few people believed that childrens participation would not advance the studys goals. To successfully include children, proposed cohort study would need to address childrens changing capabilities and rights as they grow and reach the age of consent.