Potential corporate uses of polygenic indexes: Starting a conversation about the associated ethics and policy issues.

Some commercial firms currently sell polygenic indexes (PGIs) to individual consumers, despite their relatively low predictive power. It might be tempting to assume that because the predictive power of many PGIs is so modest, other sorts of firms-such as those selling insurance and financial services-will not be interested in using PGIs for their own purposes. We argue to the contrary. We build this argument in two ways. First, we offer a very simple model, rooted in economic theory, of a profit-maximizing firm that can gain information about a single consumer's genome. We use the model to show that, depending on the specific economic environment, a firm would be willing to pay for statistically noisy PGIs, even if they allow for only a small reduction in uncertainty. Second, we describe two plausible scenarios in which these different kinds of firms could conceivably use PGIs to maximize profits. Finally, we briefly discuss some of the associated ethics and policy issues. They deserve more attention, which is unlikely to be given until it is first recognized that firms whose services affect a large swath of the public will indeed have incentives to use PGIs.

An illusion of predictability in scientific results: Even experts confuse inferential uncertainty and outcome variability.

Traditionally, scientists have placed more emphasis on communicating inferential uncertainty (i.e., the precision of statistical estimates) compared to outcome variability (i.e., the predictability of individual outcomes). Here, we show that this can lead to sizable misperceptions about the implications of scientific results. Specifically, we present three preregistered, randomized experiments where participants saw the same scientific findings visualized as showing only inferential uncertainty, only outcome variability, or both and answered questions about the size and importance of findings they were shown. Our results, composed of responses from medical professionals, professional data scientists, and tenure-track faculty, show that the prevalent form of visualizing only inferential uncertainty can lead to significant overestimates of treatment effects, even among highly trained experts. In contrast, we find that depicting both inferential uncertainty and outcome variability leads to more accurate perceptions of results while appearing to leave other subjective impressions of the results unchanged, on average.

A 680,000-person megastudy of nudges to encourage vaccination in pharmacies.

Encouraging vaccination is a pressing policy problem. To assess whether text-based reminders can encourage pharmacy vaccination and what kinds of messages work best, we conducted a megastudy. We randomly assigned 689,693 Walmart pharmacy patients to receive one of 22 different text reminders using a variety of different behavioral science principles to nudge flu vaccination or to a business-as-usual control condition that received no messages. We found that the reminder texts that we tested increased pharmacy vaccination rates by an average of 2.0 percentage points, or 6.8%, over a 3-mo follow-up period. The most-effective messages reminded patients that a flu shot was waiting for them and delivered reminders on multiple days. The top-performing intervention included two texts delivered 3 d apart and communicated to patients that a vaccine was "waiting for you." Neither experts nor lay people anticipated that this would be the best-performing treatment, underscoring the value of simultaneously testing many different nudges in a highly powered megastudy.

Problems with Using Polygenic Scores to Select Embryos.

Companies have recently begun to sell a new service to patients considering in vitro fertilization: embryo selection based on polygenic scores (ESPS). These scores represent individualized predictions of health and other outcomes derived from genomewide association studies in adults to partially predict these outcomes. This article includes a discussion of many factors that lower the predictive power of polygenic scores in the context of embryo selection and quantifies these effects for a variety of clinical and nonclinical traits. Also discussed are potential unintended consequences of ESPS (including selecting for adverse traits, altering population demographics, exacerbating inequalities in society, and devaluing certain traits). Recommendations for the responsible communication about ESPS by practitioners are provided, and a call for a society-wide conversation about this technology is made. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging and others.).

Comparison of Clinical Decision Support Tools to Improve Pediatric Lipid Screening.

OBJECTIVE: To test whether different clinical decision support tools increase clinician orders and patient completions relative to standard practice and each other. STUDY DESIGN: A pragmatic, patient-randomized clinical trial in the electronic health record was conducted between October 2019 and April 2020 at Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania, with 4 arms: care gap-a passive listing recommending screening; alert-a panel promoting and enabling lipid screen orders; both; and a standard practice-no guideline-based notification-control arm. Data were analyzed for 13 346 9- to 11-year-old patients seen within Geisinger primary care, cardiology, urgent care, or nutrition clinics, or who had an endocrinology visit. Principal outcomes were lipid screening orders by clinicians and completions by patients within 1 week of orders. RESULTS: Active (care gap and/or alert) vs control arm patients were significantly more likely (P < .05) to have lipid screening tests ordered and completed, with ORs ranging from 1.67 (95% CI 1.28-2.19) to 5.73 (95% CI 4.46-7.36) for orders and 1.54 (95% CI 1.04-2.27) to 2.90 (95% CI 2.02-4.15) for completions. Alerts, with or without care gaps listed, outperformed care gaps alone on orders, with odds ratios ranging from 2.92 (95% CI 2.32-3.66) to 3.43 (95% CI 2.73-4.29). CONCLUSIONS: Electronic alerts can increase lipid screening orders and completions, suggesting clinical decision support can improve guideline-concordant screening. The study also highlights electronic record-based patient randomization as a way to determine relative effectiveness of support tools. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04118348.

A megastudy of text-based nudges encouraging patients to get vaccinated at an upcoming doctor's appointment.

Many Americans fail to get life-saving vaccines each year, and the availability of a vaccine for COVID-19 makes the challenge of encouraging vaccination more urgent than ever. We present a large field experiment (N = 47,306) testing 19 nudges delivered to patients via text message and designed to boost adoption of the influenza vaccine. Our findings suggest that text messages sent prior to a primary care visit can boost vaccination rates by an average of 5%. Overall, interventions performed better when they were 1) framed as reminders to get flu shots that were already reserved for the patient and 2) congruent with the sort of communications patients expected to receive from their healthcare provider (i.e., not surprising, casual, or interactive). The best-performing intervention in our study reminded patients twice to get their flu shot at their upcoming doctor's appointment and indicated it was reserved for them. This successful script could be used as a template for campaigns to encourage the adoption of life-saving vaccines, including against COVID-19.

Objecting to experiments even while approving of the policies or treatments they compare.

We resolve a controversy over two competing hypotheses about why people object to randomized experiments: 1) People unsurprisingly object to experiments only when they object to a policy or treatment the experiment contains, or 2) people can paradoxically object to experiments even when they approve of implementing either condition for everyone. Using multiple measures of preference and test criteria in five preregistered within-subjects studies with 1,955 participants, we find that people often disapprove of experiments involving randomization despite approving of the policies or treatments to be tested.

Objecting to experiments that compare two unobjectionable policies or treatments.

Randomized experiments have enormous potential to improve human welfare in many domains, including healthcare, education, finance, and public policy. However, such "A/B tests" are often criticized on ethical grounds even as similar, untested interventions are implemented without objection. We find robust evidence across 16 studies of 5,873 participants from three diverse populations spanning nine domains-from healthcare to autonomous vehicle design to poverty reduction-that people frequently rate A/B tests designed to establish the comparative effectiveness of two policies or treatments as inappropriate even when universally implementing either A or B, untested, is seen as appropriate. This "A/B effect" is as strong among those with higher educational attainment and science literacy and among relevant professionals. It persists even when there is no reason to prefer A to B and even when recipients are treated unequally and randomly in all conditions (A, B, and A/B). Several remaining explanations for the effect-a belief that consent is required to impose a policy on half of a population but not on the entire population; an aversion to controlled but not to uncontrolled experiments; and a proxy form of the illusion of knowledge (according to which randomized evaluations are unnecessary because experts already do or should know "what works")-appear to contribute to the effect, but none dominates or fully accounts for it. We conclude that rigorously evaluating policies or treatments via pragmatic randomized trials may provoke greater objection than simply implementing those same policies or treatments untested.

An ethics framework for consolidating and prioritizing COVID-19 clinical trials.

Given the dearth of established safe and effective interventions to respond to COVID-19, there is an urgent ethical imperative to conduct meaningful clinical research. The good news is that interventions to be tested are not in short supply. Unfortunately, the human and material resources needed to conduct these trials are finite. It is essential that trials be robust and meet enrollment targets and that lower-quality studies not be permitted to displace higher-quality studies, delaying answers to critical questions. Yet, with few exceptions, existing research review bodies and processes are not designed to ensure these conditions are satisfied. To meet this challenge, we offer guidance for research institutions about how to ethically consolidate and prioritize COVID-19 clinical trials, while recognizing that consolidation and prioritization should also take place upstream (among manufacturers and funders) and at a higher level (e.g. nationally). In our proposed three-stage process, trials must first meet threshold criteria. Those that do are evaluated in a second stage to determine whether the institution has sufficient capacity to support all proposed trials. If it does not, the third stage entails evaluating studies against two additional sets of comparative prioritization criteria: those specific to the study and those that aim to advance diversification of an institution's research portfolio. To implement these criteria fairly, we propose that research institutions form COVID-19 research prioritization committees. We briefly discuss some important attributes of these committees, drawing on the authors' experiences at our respective institutions. Although we focus on clinical trials of COVID-19 therapeutics, our guidance should prove useful for other kinds of COVID-19 research, as well as non-pandemic research, which can raise similar challenges due to the scarcity of research resources.

Pediatric reporting of genomic results study (PROGRESS): a mixed-methods, longitudinal, observational cohort study protocol to explore disclosure of actionable adult- and pediatric-onset genomic variants to minors and their parents.

BACKGROUND: Exome and genome sequencing are routinely used in clinical care and research. These technologies allow for the detection of pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in clinically actionable genes. However, fueled in part by a lack of empirical evidence, controversy surrounds the provision of genetic results for adult-onset conditions to minors and their parents. We have designed a mixed-methods, longitudinal cohort study to collect empirical evidence to advance this debate. METHODS: Pediatric participants in the Geisinger MyCode® Community Health Initiative with available exome sequence data will have their variant files assessed for pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in 60 genes designated as actionable by MyCode. Eight of these genes are associated with adult-onset conditions (Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome (HBOC), Lynch syndrome, MUTYH-associated polyposis, HFE-Associated Hereditary Hemochromatosis), while the remaining genes have pediatric onset. Prior to clinical confirmation of results, pediatric MyCode participants and their parents/legal guardians will be categorized into three study groups: 1) those with an apparent pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in a gene associated with adult-onset disease, 2) those with an apparent pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in a gene associated with pediatric-onset disease or with risk reduction interventions that begin in childhood, and 3) those with no apparent genomic result who are sex- and age-matched to Groups 1 and 2. Validated and published quantitative measures, semi-structured interviews, and a review of electronic health record data conducted over a 12-month period following disclosure of results will allow for comparison of psychosocial and behavioral outcomes among parents of minors (ages 0-17) and adolescents (ages 11-17) in each group. DISCUSSION: These data will provide guidance about the risks and benefits of informing minors and their family members about clinically actionable, adult-onset genetic conditions and, in turn, help to ensure these patients receive care that promotes physical and psychosocial health. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03832985. Registered 6 February 2019.

Early cancer diagnoses through BRCA1/2 screening of unselected adult biobank participants.

PurposeThe clinical utility of screening unselected individuals for pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants has not been established. Data on cancer risk management behaviors and diagnoses of BRCA1/2-associated cancers can help inform assessments of clinical utility.MethodsWhole-exome sequences of participants in the MyCode Community Health Initiative were reviewed for pathogenic/likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants. Clinically confirmed variants were disclosed to patient-participants and their clinicians. We queried patient-participants' electronic health records for BRCA1/2-associated cancer diagnoses and risk management that occurred within 12 months after results disclosure, and calculated the percentage of patient-participants of eligible age who had begun risk management.ResultsThirty-seven MyCode patient-participants were unaware of their pathogenic/likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 variant, had not had a BRCA1/2-associated cancer, and had 12 months of follow-up. Of the 33 who were of an age to begin BRCA1/2-associated risk management, 26 (79%) had performed at least one such procedure. Three were diagnosed with an early-stage, BRCA1/2-associated cancer-including a stage 1C fallopian tube cancer-via these procedures.ConclusionScreening for pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants among unselected individuals can lead to occult cancer detection shortly after disclosure. Comprehensive outcomes data generated within our learning healthcare system will aid in determining whether population-wide BRCA1/2 genomic screening programs offer clinical utility.

Aversion to pragmatic randomised controlled trials: three survey experiments with clinicians and laypeople in the USA.

OBJECTIVES: Pragmatic randomised controlled trials (pRCTs) are essential for determining the real-world safety and effectiveness of healthcare interventions. However, both laypeople and clinicians often demonstrate experiment aversion: preferring to implement either of two interventions for everyone rather than comparing them to determine which is best. We studied whether clinician and layperson views of pRCTs for COVID-19, as well as non-COVID-19, interventions became more positive during the pandemic, which increased both the urgency and public discussion of pRCTs. DESIGN: Randomised survey experiments. SETTING: Geisinger, a network of hospitals and clinics in central and northeastern Pennsylvania, USA; Amazon Mechanical Turk, a research participant platform used to recruit online participants residing across the USA. Data were collected between August 2020 and February 2021. PARTICIPANTS: 2149 clinicians (the types of people who conduct or make decisions about conducting pRCTs) and 2909 laypeople (the types of people who are included in pRCTs as patients). The clinician sample was primarily female (81%), comprised doctors (15%), physician assistants (9%), registered nurses (54%) and other medical professionals, including other nurses, genetic counsellors and medical students (23%), and the majority of clinicians (62%) had more than 10 years of experience. The layperson sample ranges in age from 18 to 88 years old (mean=38, SD=13) and the majority were white (75%) and female (56%). OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants read vignettes in which a hypothetical decision-maker who sought to improve health could choose to implement intervention A for all, implement intervention B for all, or experimentally compare A and B and implement the superior intervention. Participants rated and ranked the appropriateness of each decision. Experiment aversion was defined as the degree to which a participant rated the experiment below their lowest-rated intervention. RESULTS: In a survey of laypeople administered during the pandemic, we found significant aversion to experiments involving catheterisation checklists and hypertension drugs unrelated to the treatment of COVID-19 (Cohen's d=0.25-0.46, p<0.001). Similarly, among both laypeople and clinicians, we found significant aversion to most (comparing different checklist, proning and mask protocols; Cohen's d=0.17-0.56, p<0.001) but not all (comparing school reopening protocols; Cohen's d=0.03, p=0.64) non-pharmaceutical COVID-19 experiments. Interestingly, we found the lowest experiment aversion to pharmaceutical COVID-19 experiments (comparing new drugs and new vaccine protocols for treating the novel coronavirus; Cohen's d=0.04-0.12, p=0.12-0.55). Across all vignettes and samples, 28%-57% of participants expressed experiment aversion, whereas only 6%-35% expressed experiment appreciation by rating the trial higher than their highest-rated intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Advancing evidence-based medicine through pRCTs will require anticipating and addressing experiment aversion among patients and healthcare professionals. STUDY REGISTRATION: http://osf.io/6p5c7/.

Synthetic Health Data: Real Ethical Promise and Peril.

Researchers and practitioners are increasingly using machine-generated synthetic data as a tool for advancing health science and practice, by expanding access to health data while-potentially-mitigating privacy and related ethical concerns around data sharing. While using synthetic data in this way holds promise, we argue that it also raises significant ethical, legal, and policy concerns, including persistent privacy and security problems, accuracy and reliability issues, worries about fairness and bias, and new regulatory challenges. The virtue of synthetic data is often understood to be its detachment from the data subjects whose measurement data is used to generate it. However, we argue that addressing the ethical issues synthetic data raises might require bringing data subjects back into the picture, finding ways that researchers and data subjects can be more meaningfully engaged in the construction and evaluation of datasets and in the creation of institutional safeguards that promote responsible use.

Public views on polygenic screening of embryos.

Understanding moral acceptability and willingness to use is crucial for informing policy.

Experiment aversion among clinicians and the public - an obstacle to evidence-based medicine and public health.

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are essential for determining the safety and efficacy of healthcare interventions. However, both laypeople and clinicians often demonstrate experiment aversion: preferring to implement either of two interventions for everyone rather than comparing them to determine which is best. We studied whether clinician and layperson views of pragmatic RCTs for Covid-19 or other interventions became more positive early in the pandemic, which increased both the urgency and public discussion of RCTs. Methods: We conducted several survey studies with laypeople (total n=2,909) and two with clinicians (n=895; n=1,254) in 2020 and 2021. Participants read vignettes in which a hypothetical decision-maker who sought to improve health could choose to implement intervention A for all, implement intervention B for all, or experimentally compare A and B and implement the superior intervention. Participants rated and ranked the appropriateness of each decision. Results: Compared to our pre-pandemic results, we found no decrease in laypeople's aversion to non-Covid-19 experiments involving catheterization checklists and hypertension drugs. Nor were either laypeople or clinicians less averse to Covid-19 RCTs (concerning corticosteroid drugs, vaccines, intubation checklists, proning, school reopening, and mask protocols), on average. Across all vignettes and samples, levels of experiment aversion ranged from 28% to 57%, while levels of experiment appreciation (in which the RCT is rated higher than the participant's highest-rated intervention) ranged from only 6% to 35%. Conclusions: Advancing evidence-based medicine through pragmatic RCTs will require anticipating and addressing experiment aversion among both patients and healthcare professionals.