Should secondary pharmacogenomic variants be actively screened and reported when diagnostic genome-wide sequencing is performed in a child?

This white paper was prepared by the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health Regulatory and Ethics Work Stream's Pediatric Task Team to review and provide perspective with respect to ethical, legal, and social issues regarding the return of secondary pharmacogenomic variants in children who have a serious disease or developmental disorder and are undergoing exome or genome sequencing to identify a genetic cause of their condition. We discuss actively searching for and reporting pharmacogenetic/genomic variants in pediatric patients, different methods of returning secondary pharmacogenomic findings to the patient/parents and/or treating clinicians, maintaining these data in the patient's health record over time, decision supports to assist using pharmacogenetic results in future treatment decisions, and sharing information in public databases to improve the clinical interpretation of pharmacogenetic variants identified in other children. We conclude by presenting a series of points to consider for clinicians and policymakers regarding whether, and under what circumstances, routine screening and return of pharmacogenomic variants unrelated to the indications for testing is appropriate in children who are undergoing genome-wide sequencing to assist in the diagnosis of a suspected genetic disease.

A qualitative interview study to determine barriers and facilitators of implementing automated decision support tools for genomic data access.

Data access committees (DAC) gatekeep access to secured genomic and related health datasets yet are challenged to keep pace with the rising volume and complexity of data generation. Automated decision support (ADS) systems have been shown to support consistency, compliance, and coordination of data access review decisions. However, we lack understanding of how DAC members perceive the value add of ADS, if any, on the quality and effectiveness of their reviews. In this qualitative study, we report findings from 13 semi-structured interviews with DAC members from around the world to identify relevant barriers and facilitators to implementing ADS for genomic data access management. Participants generally supported pilot studies that test ADS performance, for example in cataloging data types, verifying user credentials and tagging datasets for use terms. Concerns related to over-automation, lack of human oversight, low prioritization, and misalignment with institutional missions tempered enthusiasm for ADS among the DAC members we engaged. Tensions for change in institutional settings within which DACs operated was a powerful motivator for why DAC members considered the implementation of ADS into their access workflows, as well as perceptions of the relative advantage of ADS over the status quo. Future research is needed to build the evidence base around the comparative effectiveness and decisional outcomes of institutions that do/not use ADS into their workflows.

Ethics Education for Healthcare Professionals in the Era of ChatGPT and Other Large Language Models: Do We Still Need It?

In this paper, we contend with whether we still need traditional ethics education as part of healthcare professional training given the abilities of chatGPT (generative pre-trained transformer) and other large language models (LLM). We reflect on common programmatic goals to assess the current strengths and limitations of LLMs in helping to build ethics competencies among future clinicians. Through an actual case analysis, we highlight areas in which chatGPT and other LLMs are conducive to common bioethics education goals. We also comment on where such technologies remain an imperfect substitute for human-led ethics teaching and learning. Finally, we conclude that the relative strengths of chatGPT warrant its consideration as a teaching and learning tool in ethics education in ways that account for current limitations and build in flexibility as the technology evolves.

A systematic literature review to identify ethical, legal, and social responsibilities of nonprofit organizations when funding clinical trials in pediatric cancer.

Nonprofit organizations (NPOs) play critical roles as funding sources, research partners, and disseminators of drug developments in pediatric cancer. Yet the literature provides limited guidance about ethical best practices when NPOs make trial funding decisions in this space. We conducted a systematic review of the literature indexed in PubMed and Web of Science to identify the ethical, legal, and social responsibilities of NPOs to four key stakeholder groups in funding pediatric cancer trials: (i) patients/families, (ii) researchers, (iii) industry sponsors, and (iv) donors. We applied the lifecycle framework for patient engagement in drug research and development proposed by Geissler and colleagues to analyze themes related to NPOs' responsibilities across 54 articles that met our inclusion criteria. Emergent themes included transparency surrounding conflicts of interest, the rigor of scientific review, and communication with patients/communities about trial progress. Our research identified critical gaps in best practices for negotiating research partnerships, managing competing research priorities, and pursuing alternative financing models including venture philanthropy. Results from our review informed a set of best practices to guide NPOs in making trial funding decisions that align with stakeholder values and interests.

Communication of Pharmacogenomic test results and treatment plans in pediatric oncology: deliberative stakeholder consultations with parents.

BACKGROUND: Effective communication in support of clinical decision-making is central to the pediatric cancer care experience for families. A new laboratory derived pharmacogenetic test (LDT) that can diagnose difficult-to-treat brain cancers has been developed to stratify children based on their ability to respond to available treatment; however, the potential implementation of the LDT may make effective communication challenging since it can potentially remove the option for curative treatment in those children identified as non-responders, i.e. those with a catastrophic diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: We solicited the perspectives of parents of children with difficult-to-treat brain cancer on communication preferences surrounding the potential implementation of the LDT in standard care using deliberative stakeholder consultations. METHODS: Eight bereaved parents of children who succumbed to difficult-to-treat brain cancer, and four parents of children currently undergoing treatment for similar cancers attended separate small-group deliberative consultations - a stakeholder engagement method that enables the co-creation of recommendations following the consideration of competing arguments and diverse opinions of parents with different experiences. In the small-group consultations (Phase I), parents discussed four questions about potential communication issues that may arise with the LDT in practice. In Phase II, a total of five parents from both stakeholder groups (4 bereaved and 1 in current treatment) attended a consultation, known as the 'mixed' consultation, with the purpose of co-developing concrete recommendations for implementation of the LDT. RESULTS: Explaining the risks, benefits, and accuracy of the LDT were considered essential to parents. Once an LDT-based diagnosis/prognosis can be made, parents valued honesty, empathy, and clarity in communication. Parents also requested that all results and treatment options be presented to them in measured doses, and in an unbiased manner over the course of several meetings. This communication strategy allowed sufficient time to understand and accept the diagnosis/prognosis, particularly if it was catastrophic. Continuous access to the appropriate psychological and social support or counselling at and post-diagnosis was also strongly recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Deliberants co-created family-centered recommendations surrounding communication issues of the LDT, providing guidance to pediatric oncologists that could implement the test in practice.

A policy Delphi study to validate the key implications of data sharing (KIDS) framework for pediatric genomics in Canada.

BACKGROUND: The highly sensitive nature of genomic and associated clinical data, coupled with the consent-related vulnerabilities of children together accentuate ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI) concerning data sharing. The Key Implications of Data Sharing (KIDS) framework was therefore developed to address a need for institutional guidance on genomic data governance but has yet to be validated among data sharing practitioners in practice settings. This study qualitatively explored areas of consensus and dissensus of the KIDS Framework from the perspectives of Canadian clinician-scientists, genomic researchers, IRB members, and pediatric ethicists. METHODS: Twelve panelists participated in a three-round online policy Delphi to determine the desirability, feasibility, relative importance and confidence of twelve individual statements of the KIDS Framework. Mean and IQR were calculated from panelists' ratings to determine the strength of consensus and polarity. Qualitative content analysis of panelists' written responses was used to assess degree of support. Statements were validated when their combined ratings and qualitative rationales indicated high-moderate consensus (at least 70% agreement across two contiguous categories), low to no polarity (IQR at least 1.0) and strong support. RESULTS: Nine original, and one new statement reached consensus. These statements outlined essential elements of the informed consent process, including a realistic evaluation of benefits and risks and assurance of future ethics oversight for secondary data use. Discrepant views on appropriate protections for anonymized and coded i.e. de-identified genomic data were primary sources of dissensus. CONCLUSIONS: The validated statements provide institutions with empirically supported best practices for sharing genomic and associated clinical data involving children from the perspectives of key stakeholders. Concerted efforts to quantify informational risks that can be conveyed to patients and families are further needed to align data sharing policy with stakeholder priorities.

Assessing the quality of deliberative stakeholder consultations involving allied health professionals in pediatric palliative care and hematology/oncology in Canada.

BACKGROUND: In this paper we assess the quality of six deliberative stakeholder consultations regarding the implementation of a precision diagnostic for life-threatening pediatric brain tumors. Decision makers who base policy recommendations on the outputs of consultative exercises can presuppose that all deliberants are well informed of the policy issue, that participation in the deliberative process was fair, and that overcoming implementation barriers will necessarily result in practice change. Additional evidence is therefore needed to substantiate the informational quality of the deliberation, measure the equality of participation and study the effects on stakeholder reasoning to appropriately guide uptake of proposed recommendation(s). METHODS: Using the DeVries framework for assessing the deliberative quality, we analyzed data from 44 post-consultation evaluation surveys completed by pediatric oncology and palliative care teams at two tertiary pediatric healthcare centers in Canada. We also conducted turn-taking and word-contribution analyses from the text transcriptions of each deliberation to assess equality of participation using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Deliberants agreed the quality of the deliberative process was fair (median ratings ranging from 9-10 out of 10) and the opportunities to receive expert information and discuss with others about the implementation of a new LDT were helpful (9.5 out of 10). While the session improved understanding of the implementation barriers and opportunities, it had marginal effects on deliberants' reasoning about whether LDTs would change their own clinical practice (3-10 out of 10). Participation was proportionate in at least four of the six deliberations, where no deliberant took more than 20% of total turns and contributed equal to, or less than 20% of total words. CONCLUSION: The quality assessment we performed demonstrates high informational value and perceived fairness of two deliberative stakeholder consultations involving pediatric palliative care and oncology teams in Canada. Quality assessments can reveal how the process of deliberation unfolds, whether deliberative outputs are the result of equitable participation among deliberants and what, if any, stakeholder voices may be missing. Such assessments should be routinely reported as a condition of methodological rigor and trustworthiness of deliberative stakeholder engagement research.

Pros and cons of prosent as an alternative to traditional consent in medical research.

In their recent article, Porsdam Mann et al propose to share biomedical research data more widely, securely and efficiently using blockchain technologies.1 They present compelling arguments for how the blockchain presents both a technological innovation, and a deontologically grounded policy innovation to traditional research consent. Their proposal can be read in conversation with a rich body of evidence to suggest current consent processes are problematic on at least one of tripartite bases in biomedical research: that it be fully informed. This response attempts to further the author's discussion of social justice discourse in, and of their proposed prosent model to enhance engagement among under-represented and vulnerable populations in research, specifically. Motivating this response is the view that advancing technological capabilities is no doubt necessary, but on its own insufficient to reinvigorate distributive, procedural and social justice as guiding principles for con/prosent processes. I offer three pros and cons to consider in effort to deepen the model's commitments to social justice to historically marginalised groups in the biomedical research enterprise.

Statement of principles on the return of research results and incidental findings in paediatric research: a multi-site consultative process.

This paper proposes a set of recommendations for the return of research results and incidental findings in paediatrics. The Network of Applied Genetic Medicine of Quebec spearheaded the initiative to develop the Statement of Principles on the Return of Research Results and Incidental Findings, which was the result of a consultation process with clinical and research experts in the field. To formulate the Statement of Principles, the authors (i) reviewed empirical and grey literature on the return of research results and incidental findings in Europe and Canada, (ii) conducted a qualitative study of stakeholder groups, (iii) developed, and (iv) validated the recommendations through consultations with the stakeholder groups. The Statement of Principles provides a useful disclosure tool for deciding when, and under what circumstances to return research results and incidental findings. It addresses the issue of return of results in genetic research generally, and has also specific principles for various research contexts, including paediatric research. It delineates ethical issues unique to paediatric research, and provides a framework to guide research ethics committees as well as the research community in addressing these issues.

Promoting an ethic of engagement in pediatric palliative care research.

BACKGROUND: This paper defends the ethical and empirical significance of direct engagement with terminally ill children and adolescents in PPC research on health-related quality of life. Clinical trials and other forms of health research have resulted in tremendous progress for improving clinical outcomes among children and adolescents diagnosed with a life-threatening illness. Less attention has been paid, however, to engaging this patient population directly in studies aimed at optimizing health-related quality of life in PPC. Though not restricted to care at the end of life, PPC--and by extension PPC research--is in part dependent on recognizing the social complexities of death and dying and where health-related quality of life is a fundamental element. To explore these complexities in depth requires partnership with terminally ill children and adolescents, and acknowledgement of their active social and moral agency in research. DISCUSSION: Principles of pediatric research ethics, theoretical tenets of the "new sociology of the child(hood)," and human rights codified in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) underpin the position that a more engagement-centered approach is needed in PPC research. The ethics, sociologies and human rights of engagement will each be discussed as they relate to research with terminally ill children and adolescents in PPC. Qualitative method(ologies) presented in this paper, such as deliberative stakeholder consultations and phenomenology of practice can serve as meaningful vehicles for achieving i) participation among terminally ill children and adolescents; ii) evidence-bases for PPC best practices; and iii) fulfillment of research ethics principles. CONCLUSION: PPC research based on direct engagement with PPC patients better reflects their unique expertise and social epistemologies of terminal illness. Such an approach to research would strengthen both the ethical and methodological soundness of HRQoL inquiry in PPC.

Genetics and primary care: where are we headed?

Since first sequencing the human genome in 2003, emerging genetic/genomic technologies have ushered in a revolutionary era of medicine that purports to bridge molecular biology and clinical care. The field of translational medicine is charged with mediating this revolution. Sequencing innovations are far outpacing guidelines intended to ease their practice-based applications, including in primary care. As a result, genomic medicine's full integration in primary care settings especially, has been slow to materialize. Researchers and clinicians alike face substantial challenges in navigating contentious ethical issues raised in translation and implementation, namely preserving the spirit of whole-person approaches to care; maintaining respect for persons and communities; and translating genetic risk into clinical actionability. This commentary therefore explores practical barriers to, and ethical implications of, incorporating genomic technologies in the primary care sector. These ethical challenges are both philosophical and infrastructural. From a primary care perspective, the commentary further reviews the ethical, legal and social implications of the Center for Disease Control's proposed model for assessing the validity and utility of genomic testing and family health history applications. Lastly, the authors provide recommendations for future translational initiatives that aim to maximize the capacities of genomic medicine, without compromising primary care philosophies and foundations of practice.

Investigating the Roles and Responsibilities of Institutional Signing Officials After Data Sharing Policy Reform for Federally Funded Research in the United States: National Survey.

BACKGROUND: New federal policies along with rapid growth in data generation, storage, and analysis tools are together driving scientific data sharing in the United States. At the same, triangulating human research data from diverse sources can also create situations where data are used for future research in ways that individuals and communities may consider objectionable. Institutional gatekeepers, namely, signing officials (SOs), are therefore at the helm of compliant management and sharing of human data for research. Of those with data governance responsibilities, SOs most often serve as signatories for investigators who deposit, access, and share research data between institutions. Although SOs play important leadership roles in compliant data sharing, we know surprisingly little about their scope of work, roles, and oversight responsibilities. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe existing institutional policies and practices of US SOs who manage human genomic data access, as well as how these may change in the wake of new Data Management and Sharing requirements for National Institutes of Health-funded research in the United States. METHODS: We administered an anonymous survey to institutional SOs recruited from biomedical research institutions across the United States. Survey items probed where data generated from extramurally funded research are deposited, how researchers outside the institution access these data, and what happens to these data after extramural funding ends. RESULTS: In total, 56 institutional SOs participated in the survey. We found that SOs frequently approve duplicate data deposits and impose stricter access controls when data use limitations are unclear or unspecified. In addition, 21% (n=12) of SOs knew where data from federally funded projects are deposited after project funding sunsets. As a consequence, most investigators deposit their scientific data into "a National Institutes of Health-funded repository" to meet the Data Management and Sharing requirements but also within the "institution's own repository" or a third-party repository. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings inform 5 policy recommendations and best practices for US SOs to improve coordination and develop comprehensive and consistent data governance policies that balance the need for scientific progress with effective human data protections.

Achieving Procedural Parity in Managing Access to Genomic and Related Health Data: A Global Survey of Data Access Committee Members.

Data access committees (DACs) are critical players in the data sharing ecosystem. DACs review requests for access to data held in one or more repositories and where specific constraints determine how the data may be used and by whom. Our team surveyed DAC members affiliated with genomic data repositories worldwide to understand standard processes and procedures, operational metrics, bottlenecks, and efficiencies, as well as their perspectives on possible improvements to quality review. We found that DAC operations and systemic issues were common across repositories globally. In general, DAC members endeavored to achieve an appropriate balance of review efficiency, quality, and compliance. Our results suggest a similarly proportionate path forward that helps DACs pursue mutual improvements to efficiency and compliance without sacrificing review quality.