A model for the return and referral of all clinically significant secondary findings of genomic sequencing.

Secondary findings (SFs) identified through genomic sequencing (GS) can offer a wide range of health benefits to patients. Resource and capacity constraints pose a challenge to their clinical management; therefore, clinical workflows are needed to optimise the health benefits of SFs. In this paper, we describe a model we created for the return and referral of all clinically significant SFs, beyond medically actionable results, from GS. As part of a randomised controlled trial evaluating the outcomes and costs of disclosing all clinically significant SFs from GS, we consulted genetics and primary care experts to determine a feasible workflow to manage SFs. Consensus was sought to determine appropriate clinical recommendations for each category of SF and which clinician specialist would provide follow-up care. We developed a communication and referral plan for each category of SFs. This involved referrals to specialised clinics, such as an Adult Genetics clinic, for highly penetrant medically actionable findings. Common and non-urgent SFs, such as pharmacogenomics and carrier status results for non-family planning participants, were directed back to the family physician (FP). SF results and recommendations were communicated directly to participants to respect autonomy and to their FPs to support follow-up of SFs. We describe a model for the return and referral of all clinically significant SFs to facilitate the utility of GS and promote the health benefits of SFs. This may serve as a model for others returning GS results transitioning participants from research to clinical settings.

Independent Registries Are Cost-Effective Tools to Provide Mandatory Postauthorization Surveillance for Orphan Medicinal Products.

OBJECTIVES: Orphan medicinal products (OMPs) often receive market authorization under conditions imposed by regulators for ongoing postauthorization surveillance (PAS) to answer questions that remain at the time of market entry. This surveillance may be provided through industry-funded registries (IFRs). Nevertheless, data in these registries may not be of sufficient quality to answer these questions and may not always be accessible for regulatory review. We propose that a mandatory independent registry is an efficient and cost-effective tool for PAS for OMPs. METHODS: Using data from the Canadian Fabry Disease Initiative, we reviewed costs per unique patient from sites participating in both the independent national registry and IFRs for Fabry disease and compared data completeness from the Canadian Fabry Disease Initiative to that in published documents from IFRs. RESULTS: The costs of data collection through the independent registry were 17% to 36% (depending on site) lower than costs to collect data in the IFRs, and completeness of data collected through the independent registry was higher than that through the IFRs. Data from the independent registry were reviewed annually to guide indications for publicly funded Fabry disease therapy. Even when enrollment ceased to be a requirement to receive therapy, 77% of patients continued to enroll in the registry, suggesting the structure was acceptable to patients. CONCLUSIONS: Independent registries are cost-effective and efficient tools and should be mandated by regulatory agencies as the preferred tool for PAS for OMPs. Countries with publicly funded health systems should consider investment in registry infrastructure for OMPs.

Health outcomes, utility and costs of returning incidental results from genomic sequencing in a Canadian cancer population: protocol for a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Genomic sequencing has rapidly transitioned into clinical practice, improving diagnosis and treatment options for patients with hereditary disorders. However, large-scale implementation of genomic sequencing faces challenges, especially with regard to the return of incidental results, which refer to genetic variants uncovered during testing that are unrelated to the primary disease under investigation, but of potential clinical significance. High-quality evidence evaluating health outcomes and costs of receiving incidental results is critical for the adoption of genomic sequencing into clinical care and to understand the unintended consequences of adoption of genomic sequencing. We aim to evaluate the health outcomes and costs of receiving incidental results for patients undergoing genomic sequencing. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will compare health outcomes and costs of receiving, versus not receiving, incidental results for adult patients with cancer undergoing genomic sequencing in a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial. Two hundred and sixty patients who have previously undergone first or second-tier genetic testing for cancer and received uninformative results will be recruited from familial cancer clinics in Toronto, Ontario. Participants in both arms will receive cancer-related results. Participants in the intervention arm have the option to receive incidental results. Our primary outcome is psychological distress at 2 weeks following return of results. Secondary outcomes include behavioural consequences, clinical and personal utility assessed over the 12 months after results are returned and health service use and costs at 12 months and 5 years. A subset of participants and providers will complete qualitative interviews about utility of incidental results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Research Ethics Review System that provides ethical review and oversight for multiple sites participating in the same clinical trial in Ontario.Results from the trial will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences, and peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03597165.