Values and Practices to Strengthen Genetic Research Partnerships with Indigenous Communities.

Genetic datasets lack diversity and include very few data from Indigenous populations. Research models based on equitable partnership have the potential to increase Indigenous participation and have led to successful collaborations. We report here on a meeting of participants in four Indigenous community-university partnerships pursuing research on precision medicine. The goal of the meeting was to define values and practices that strengthen opportunities for genetic research. The group accorded the highest priority to developing trusting relationships, ensuring respect for Indigenous community authority, and pursuing research that has the potential to lead to community benefit. Supporting priorities included incorporation of Indigenous expertise in research planning, transparent communication, and development of community capacity, including capacity to participate in formulating research questions, informing research methodology, and leading research projects. Participants also noted the importance of attention to social determinants of health so that genetic contributors to health are evaluated in the appropriate context.

Is there a way to reduce the inequity in variant interpretation on the basis of ancestry?

The underrepresentation of non-European ancestry groups in current genomic databases complicates interpretation of their genetic test results, yielding a much higher prevalence of variants of uncertain significance (VUSs). Such VUS findings can frustrate the goals of genetic testing, create anxiety in patients, and lead to unnecessary medical interventions. Approaches to addressing underrepresentation of people with genetic ancestries other than European are being undertaken by broad-based recruitment efforts. However, some underrepresented groups have concerns that might preclude participation in such efforts. We describe here two initiatives aimed at meeting the needs of underrepresented ancestry groups in genomic datasets. The two communities, the Sephardi Jewish community in New York and First Peoples of Canada, have very different concerns about contributing to genomic research and datasets. Sephardi concerns focus on the possible negative effects of genetic findings on the marriage prospects of family members. Canadian Indigenous populations seek control over the research uses to which their genetic data would be put. Both cases involve targeted efforts to respond to the groups' concerns; these efforts include governance models aimed at ensuring that the data are used primarily to inform clinical test analyses and at achieving successful engagement and participation of community members. We suggest that these initiatives could provide models for other ancestral groups seeking to improve the accuracy and utility of clinical genetic testing while respecting the underlying preferences and values of community members with regard to the use of their genetic data.

Tribal Deliberations about Precision Medicine Research: Addressing Diversity and Inequity in Democratic Deliberation Design and Evaluation.

Deliberative democratic engagement is used around the globe to gather informed public input on contentious collective questions. Yet, rarely has it been used to convene individuals exclusively from Indigenous communities. The relative novelty of using this approach to engage tribal communities and concerns about diversity and inequities raise important methodological questions. We describe the design and quality outcomes for a 2.5-day deliberation that elicited views of American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) leaders about the potential value and ethical conduct of precision medicine research (PMR), an emerging approach to research that investigates the health effects of individual genetic variation in tandem with variation in health-relevant practices, social determinants, and environmental exposures. The event met key goals, such as relationship and rapport formation, cross-site learning, equality of opportunity to participate, and respect among participants in the context of disagreement.

Diagnosis, Education, and Care of Patients with APOL1-Associated Nephropathy: A Delphi Consensus and Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: APOL1 variants contribute to the markedly higher incidence of ESKD in Blacks compared with Whites. Genetic testing for these variants in patients with African ancestry who have nephropathy is uncommon, and no specific treatment or management protocol for APOL1-associated nephropathy currently exists. METHODS: A multidisciplinary, racially diverse group of 14 experts and patient advocates participated in a Delphi consensus process to establish practical guidance for clinicians caring for patients who may have APOL1-associated nephropathy. Consensus group members took part in three anonymous voting rounds to develop consensus statements relating to the following: (1) counseling, genotyping, and diagnosis; (2) disease awareness and education; and (3) a vision for management of APOL1-associated nephropathy in a future when treatment is available. A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE and Embase databases was conducted to identify relevant evidence published from January 1, 2009 to July 14, 2020. RESULTS: The consensus group agreed on 55 consensus statements covering such topics as demographic and clinical factors that suggest a patient has APOL1-associated nephropathy, as well as key considerations for counseling, testing, and diagnosis in current clinical practice. They achieved consensus on the need to increase awareness among key stakeholders of racial health disparities in kidney disease and of APOL1-associated nephropathy and on features of a successful education program to raise awareness among the patient community. The group also highlighted the unmet need for a specific treatment and agreed on best practice for management of these patients should a treatment become available. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary group of experts and patient advocates defined consensus-based guidance on the care of patients who may have APOL1-associated nephropathy.

Explaining the Black-White Disparity in Preterm Birth: A Consensus Statement From a Multi-Disciplinary Scientific Work Group Convened by the March of Dimes.

In 2017-2019, the March of Dimes convened a workgroup with biomedical, clinical, and epidemiologic expertise to review knowledge of the causes of the persistent Black-White disparity in preterm birth (PTB). Multiple databases were searched to identify hypothesized causes examined in peer-reviewed literature, 33 hypothesized causes were reviewed for whether they plausibly affect PTB and either occur more/less frequently and/or have a larger/smaller effect size among Black women vs. White women. While definitive proof is lacking for most potential causes, most are biologically plausible. No single downstream or midstream factor explains the disparity or its social patterning, however, many likely play limited roles, e.g., while genetic factors likely contribute to PTB, they explain at most a small fraction of the disparity. Research links most hypothesized midstream causes, including socioeconomic factors and stress, with the disparity through their influence on the hypothesized downstream factors. Socioeconomic factors alone cannot explain the disparity's social patterning. Chronic stress could affect PTB through neuroendocrine and immune mechanisms leading to inflammation and immune dysfunction, stress could alter a woman's microbiota, immune response to infection, chronic disease risks, and behaviors, and trigger epigenetic changes influencing PTB risk. As an upstream factor, racism in multiple forms has repeatedly been linked with the plausible midstream/downstream factors, including socioeconomic disadvantage, stress, and toxic exposures. Racism is the only factor identified that directly or indirectly could explain the racial disparities in the plausible midstream/downstream causes and the observed social patterning. Historical and contemporary systemic racism can explain the racial disparities in socioeconomic opportunities that differentially expose African Americans to lifelong financial stress and associated health-harming conditions. Segregation places Black women in stressful surroundings and exposes them to environmental hazards. Race-based discriminatory treatment is a pervasive stressor for Black women of all socioeconomic levels, considering both incidents and the constant vigilance needed to prepare oneself for potential incidents. Racism is a highly plausible, major upstream contributor to the Black-White disparity in PTB through multiple pathways and biological mechanisms. While much is unknown, existing knowledge and core values (equity, justice) support addressing racism in efforts to eliminate the racial disparity in PTB.

Apolipoprotein L1 Testing in African Americans: Involving the Community in Policy Discussions.

BACKGROUND: Apolipoprotein A1 (APOL1) gene variants occurring in people of West African descent contribute to the greater burden of kidney disease among African Americans. These variants are associated with increased risk of nondiabetic nephropathy, more rapid progression of chronic kidney disease, and shorter survival of donor kidneys after transplantation. However, only a minority of people with APOL1-associated risk develops kidney disease and specific clinical measures to address APOL1-associated risk are lacking. Given these uncertainties, we sought to engage members of the African American public in discussions with other stakeholders about the appropriate use of APOL1 testing. METHODS: Formative interviews with community members, researchers, and clinicians in Seattle WA, Nashville TN, and Jackson MS, provided baseline information about views toward APOL1 testing and informed the design of 3 community-based deliberations among African Americans. A national meeting held in March 2018 included 13 community members, 7 scientific advisors and 26 additional researchers, clinicians, bioethicists, patient advocates, and representatives from professional organizations and federal funding agencies. Using small break-out and plenary discussion, the group agreed on recommendations based on current knowledge about APOL1-associated risk. RESULTS: Meeting outcomes included recommendations to develop educational materials about APOL1 for community members and clinicians; to offer APOL1 research results to participants; and on the use of APOL1testing in kidney transplant programs. The group recommended against the routine offer of APOL1 testing in clinical care. Areas of disagreement included whether kidney transplant programs should require APOL1 testing of prospective living donors or bar individuals with APOL1 risk from donating kidneys and whether testing should be available on request in routine clinical care. CONCLUSION: We recommend continued discussion among stakeholders and concerted efforts to ensure active and informed participation of members of the affected community to guide research on APOL1 and kidney disease.

Clinical exome sequencing vs. usual care for hereditary colorectal cancer diagnosis: A pilot comparative effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical exome sequencing (CES) provides the advantage of assessing genetic variation across the human exome compared to a traditional stepwise diagnostic approach or multi-gene panels. Comparative effectiveness research methods offer an approach to better understand the patient-centered and economic outcomes of CES. PURPOSE: To evaluate CES compared to usual care (UC) in the diagnostic work-up of inherited colorectal cancer/polyposis (CRCP) in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: The primary outcome was clinical sensitivity for the diagnosis of inherited CRCP; secondary outcomes included psychosocial outcomes, family communication, and healthcare resource utilization. Participants were surveyed 2 and 4 weeks after results return and at 3-month intervals up to 1 year. RESULTS: Evolving outcome measures and standard of care presented critical challenges. The majority of participants in the UC arm received multi-gene panels [94.73%]. Rates of genetic findings supporting the diagnosis of hereditary CRCP were 7.5% [7/93] vs. 5.4% [5/93] in the CES and UC arms, respectively (P = 0.28). Differences in privacy concerns after receiving CRCP results were identified (0.88 in UC vs 0.38 in CES, P = 0.05); however, healthcare resource utilization, family communication and psychosocial outcomes were similar between the two arms. More participants with positive results (17.7%) intended to change their life insurance 1  month after the first return visit compared to participants returned a variant of uncertain significance (9.1%) or negative result (4.8%) (P = 0.09). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that CES provides similar clinical benefits to multi-gene panels in the diagnosis of hereditary CRCP.

The Precautionary Principle for Shift-Work Research and Decision-Making.

Shift work (working outside of 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM) is a fixture of our 24-hour economy, with approximately 18 per cent of workers in the USA engaging in shift work, many overnight. Since shift work has been linked to an increased risk for an array of serious maladies, including cardiometabolic disorders and cancer, and is done disproportionately by the poor and by minorities, shift work is a highly prevalent economic and occupational health disparity. Here we draw primarily on the state of science around shift work and breast cancer to argue that shift work represents a public health threat serious enough to warrant a precautionary stance. We use the precautionary principle to advance our case and view it as a moral compass for shift work research, empowering public health to cast shift work within the domain of health disparities deserving action despite scientific uncertainty. With the precautionary principle, we call for a deliberative decision-making process and formation of a broad shift work research collaboration to protect the health of many millions who work at night.

Access and Management: Indigenous Perspectives on Genomic Data Sharing.

As genomic researchers are encouraged to engage in broad genomic data sharing, American Indian/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian (AI/AN/NH) leaders have raised questions about ownership of data and biospecimens and concerns over emerging challenges and potential threats to tribal sovereignty. Using a community-engaged research approach, we conducted 42 semi-structured interviews with tribal leaders, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and tribal research review board members about their perspectives on ethical issues related to genetics in AI/AN/NH communities. We report findings related to perspectives on genetic research, data sharing, and envisioning stronger oversight and management of data. In particular, participants voiced concerns about different models of data sharing, infrastructure and logistics for housing data, and who should have authority to grant access to data. The results will ultimately guide policy-making and the creation of guidelines and new strategies for tribes to drive the research agenda and promote ethically and culturally appropriate research.

Responsible Research With Urban American Indians and Alaska Natives.

American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities harbor understandable mistrust of research. Outside researchers have historically controlled processes, promulgating conclusions and recommended policies with virtually no input from the communities studied. Reservation-based communities can apply sovereignty rights conferred by the federal government to change this research trajectory. Many tribes now require review and approval before allowing research activities to occur, in part through the development of regulatory codes and oversight measures. Tribal oversight ensures that research is directed toward questions of importance to the community and that results are returned in ways that optimize problem solving. Unfortunately, tribal governance protections do not always extend to AI/ANs residing in urban environments. Although they represent the majority of AI/ANs, urban Indians face an ongoing struggle for visibility and access to health care. It is against this backdrop that urban Indians suffer disproportionate health problems. Improved efforts to ensure responsible research with urban Indian populations requires attention to community engagement, research oversight, and capacity building. We consider strategies to offset these limitations and develop a foundation for responsible research with urban Indians.

P450 Pharmacogenetics in Indigenous North American Populations.

Indigenous North American populations, including American Indian and Alaska Native peoples in the United States, the First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples in Canada and Amerindians in Mexico, are historically under-represented in biomedical research, including genomic research on drug disposition and response. Without adequate representation in pharmacogenetic studies establishing genotype-phenotype relationships, Indigenous populations may not benefit fully from new innovations in precision medicine testing to tailor and improve the safety and efficacy of drug treatment, resulting in health care disparities. The purpose of this review is to summarize and evaluate what is currently known about cytochrome P450 genetic variation in Indigenous populations in North America and to highlight the importance of including these groups in future pharmacogenetic studies for implementation of personalized drug therapy.

Pathways from autism spectrum disorder diagnosis to genetic testing.

PURPOSE: This study examined challenges faced by families and health providers related to genetic testing for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). METHODS: This qualitative study of 14 parents and 15 health providers identified an unstandardized three-step process for families who pursue ASD genetic testing. RESULTS: Step 1 is the clinical diagnosis of ASD, confirmed by providers practicing alone or in a team. Step 2 is the offer of genetic testing to find an etiology. For those offered testing, step 3 involves the parents' decision whether to pursue testing. Despite professional guidelines and recommendations, interviews describe considerable variability in approaches to genetic testing for ASD, a lack of consensus among providers, and questions about clinical utility. Many families in our study were unaware of the option for genetic testing; testing decisions by parents appear to be influenced by both provider recommendations and insurance coverage. CONCLUSION: Consideration of genetic testing for ASD should take into account different views about the clinical utility of testing and variability in insurance coverage. Ideally, policy makers from the range of clinical specialties involved in ASD care should revisit policies to clarify the purpose of genetic testing for ASD and promote consensus about its appropriate use.

Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium: Accelerating Evidence-Based Practice of Genomic Medicine.

Despite rapid technical progress and demonstrable effectiveness for some types of diagnosis and therapy, much remains to be learned about clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) and its role within the practice of medicine. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium includes 18 extramural research projects, one National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) intramural project, and a coordinating center funded by the NHGRI and National Cancer Institute. The consortium is exploring analytic and clinical validity and utility, as well as the ethical, legal, and social implications of sequencing via multidisciplinary approaches; it has thus far recruited 5,577 participants across a spectrum of symptomatic and healthy children and adults by utilizing both germline and cancer sequencing. The CSER consortium is analyzing data and creating publically available procedures and tools related to participant preferences and consent, variant classification, disclosure and management of primary and secondary findings, health outcomes, and integration with electronic health records. Future research directions will refine measures of clinical utility of CGES in both germline and somatic testing, evaluate the use of CGES for screening in healthy individuals, explore the penetrance of pathogenic variants through extensive phenotyping, reduce discordances in public databases of genes and variants, examine social and ethnic disparities in the provision of genomics services, explore regulatory issues, and estimate the value and downstream costs of sequencing. The CSER consortium has established a shared community of research sites by using diverse approaches to pursue the evidence-based development of best practices in genomic medicine.

Initiation of universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome in colorectal cancer patients as a model for the implementation of genetic information into clinical oncology practice.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome confers a hereditary predisposition to colorectal and other cancers. Universal tumor screening (UTS) for Lynch syndrome is recommended by several professional societies, but the implementation can be complex. This article describes the evaluation, process development, and initiation of Lynch syndrome UTS at a tertiary referral cancer center. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team developed the new process design. Issues in 5 themes were noted: timing, funding, second-opinion patients, result processing, and the role of genetics providers. A committee approach was used to examine each issue for process-improvement development. RESULTS: The issues related to testing were addressed individually for the successful implementation of UTS at the institutional level. In the conventional-care period, 9 of 30 cases (30%) received Lynch syndrome screening, and 4 cases were referred to medical genetics. During the 6 months following the implementation of UTS, 32 of 44 patients (73%) received Lynch syndrome screening. The 13 unscreened patients all had identified reasons for nonscreening (eg, financial limitations). Ten patients were referred to medical genetics, which identified no new cases of Lynch syndrome, but a low-risk adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) variant was detected in 1 individual. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of effective Lynch syndrome UTS can feasibly alter practice at the institutional level. This experience with the assessment and management of issues relevant to the successful implementation of a new clinical care paradigm based on emerging technology has implications for the uptake of advances across molecular oncology into clinical practice, and this is highly relevant in the current era of rapidly evolving genomic technology.

Next-Generation Sequencing Panels for the Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer and Polyposis Syndromes: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer and polyposis (CRCP) syndromes in patients referred to cancer genetics clinics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We developed a decision model to evaluate NGS panel testing compared with current standard of care in patients referred to a cancer genetics clinic. We obtained data on the prevalence of genetic variants from a large academic laboratory and calculated the costs and health benefits of identifying relatives with a pathogenic variant, in life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We classified the CRCP syndromes according to their type of inheritance and penetrance of colorectal cancer. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty. RESULTS: Evaluation with an NGS panel that included Lynch syndrome genes and other genes associated with highly penetrant CRCP syndromes led to an average increase of 0.151 year of life, 0.128 QALY, and $4,650 per patient, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,500 per QALY compared with standard care and a 99% probability that this panel was cost effective at a threshold of $100,000 per QALY. When compared with this panel, the addition of genes with low colorectal cancer penetrance resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $77,300 per QALY. CONCLUSION: The use of an NGS panel that includes genes associated with highly penetrant CRCP syndromes in addition to Lynch syndrome genes as a first-line test is likely to provide meaningful clinical benefits in a cost-effective manner at a $100,000 per QALY threshold.

Community dissemination and genetic research: moving beyond results reporting.

The community-based participatory research (CBPR) literature notes that researchers should share study results with communities. In the case of human genetic research, results may be scientifically interesting but lack clinical relevance. The goals of this study were to learn what kinds of information community members want to receive about genetic research and how such information should be conveyed. We conducted eight focus group discussions with Yup'ik Alaska Native people in southwest Alaska (N = 60) and 6 (N = 61) with members of a large health maintenance organization in Seattle, Washington. Participants wanted to receive genetic information they "could do something about" and wanted clinically actionable information to be shared with their healthcare providers; they also wanted researchers to share knowledge about other topics of importance to the community. Although Alaska Native participants were generally less familiar with western scientific terms and less interested in web-based information sources, the main findings were the same in Alaska and Seattle: participants wished for ongoing dialogue, including opportunities for informal, small-group conversations, and receiving information that had local relevance. Effective community dissemination is more than a matter of presenting study results in lay language. Community members should be involved in both defining culturally appropriate communication strategies and in determining which information should be shared. Reframing dissemination as a two-way dialogue, rather than a one-way broadcast, supports the twin aims of advancing scientific knowledge and achieving community benefit.