Perceived utility and disutility of genomic sequencing for pediatric patients: Perspectives from parents with diverse sociodemographic characteristics.

Given the limited therapeutic options for most rare diseases diagnosed through genomic sequencing (GS) and the proportion of patients who remain undiagnosed even after GS, it is important to characterize a broader range of benefits and potential harms of GS from the perspectives of families with diverse sociodemographic characteristics. We recruited parents of children enrolled in the Undiagnosed Diseases Network. Parents completed an in-depth interview, and we conducted a comparative content analysis of the data. Parents (n = 30) were demographically diverse, with 43.3% identifying as Hispanic, 33.3% primarily Spanish-speaking, and widely variable household income and education. Parents reported minimal changes in their child's health status following GS but did report a range of other forms of perceived utility, including improvements in their child's healthcare management and access, in their own psychological well-being, and in disease-specific social connections and research opportunities. Parents who received a diagnosis more frequently perceived utility across all domains; however, disutility also was reported by both those with and without a diagnosis. Impacts depended on multiple mediating factors, including parents' underlying expectations and beliefs, family sociodemographic characteristics, individual disease characteristics, and prior healthcare access. Our study suggests that the perceived utility of GS varies widely among parents and may depend on multiple individual, sociodemographic, and contextual factors that are relevant for pre- and post-GS counseling, for value assessment of GS, and for policymaking related to access to new genomic technologies.

Ventilator Triage Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic at U.S. Hospitals Associated With Members of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has or threatens to overwhelm health care systems. Many institutions are developing ventilator triage policies. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the development of ventilator triage policies and compare policy content. DESIGN: Survey and mixed-methods content analysis. SETTING: North American hospitals associated with members of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors. PARTICIPANTS: Program directors. MEASUREMENTS: Characteristics of institutions and policies, including triage criteria and triage committee membership. RESULTS: Sixty-seven program directors responded (response rate, 91.8%); 36 (53.7%) hospitals did not yet have a policy, and 7 (10.4%) hospitals' policies could not be shared. The 29 institutions providing policies were relatively evenly distributed among the 4 U.S. geographic regions (range, 5 to 9 policies per region). Among the 26 unique policies analyzed, 3 (11.3%) were produced by state health departments. The most frequently cited triage criteria were benefit (25 policies [96.2%]), need (14 [53.8%]), age (13 [50.0%]), conservation of resources (10 [38.5%]), and lottery (9 [34.6%]). Twenty-one (80.8%) policies use scoring systems, and 20 of these (95.2%) use a version of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. Among the policies that specify the triage team's composition (23 [88.5%]), all require or recommend a physician member, 20 (87.0%) a nurse, 16 (69.6%) an ethicist, 8 (34.8%) a chaplain, and 8 (34.8%) a respiratory therapist. Thirteen (50.0% of all policies) require or recommend that those making triage decisions not be involved in direct patient care, but only 2 (7.7%) require that their decisions be blinded to ethically irrelevant considerations. LIMITATION: The results may not be generalizable to institutions without academic bioethics programs. CONCLUSION: Over one half of respondents did not have ventilator triage policies. Policies have substantial heterogeneity, and many omit guidance on fair implementation. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Perspectives on Spinraza (Nusinersen) Treatment Study: Views of Individuals and Parents of Children Diagnosed with Spinal Muscular Atrophy.

BACKGROUND: Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a genetic disorder characterized by muscle loss. In December 2016 the FDA approved the first and only treatment drug for SMA: Spinraza (nusinersen). Despite excitement and optimism, there are no published data on the perceptions of individuals with SMA and their families about the benefits, risks, and challenges associated with treatment. OBJECTIVE: This qualitative interview study sought to characterize the perspectives of patients/families with SMA who did not want, or were unsure about, receiving this new innovative treatment for a previously untreatable and often fatal condition. METHODS: Individuals and families were recruited via advertisements on Facebook groups related to SMA and through the Stanford Neuromuscular Contact Registry. Participants completed a demographic questionnaire and participated in a semi-structured interview via voice conferencing. Interview questions focused on: 1) experiences with SMA, 2) opinions about Spinraza treatment, and 3) factors considered in decisions regarding treatment. RESULTS: Thirteen people were interviewed: ten adults with SMA (ages 27-48, nine with Type II) and three parents of minor children with SMA (one each of Types I, II and III). Qualitative content analysis identified a range of opinions about Spinraza treatment: five were uninterested (2 adults, 3 parents), four adults were still deciding whether to pursue treatment, three adults were interested or in the process of pursuing treatment, and one adult was currently receiving the drug after overcoming significant reluctance. Participants described several key factors influencing their treatment decisions, including: concerns about risk factors and side effects, high cost, insurance coverage, time involvement, and lack of data about efficacy. Participants reported learning about most of these factors through parent/patient testimonials on SMA-specific social media groups. CONCLUSIONS: Participants reported basing decisions about pursuing Spinraza on a variety of practical and value-based considerations. They described carefully weighing the perceived potential benefits and risks of treatment through the lens of their current quality of life and prognosis. These findings suggest that providers should be aware that some patients and parents, especially those with Types II-IV, may approach treatment decisions differently than parents of children with SMA I. Informed treatment decisions can be supported through: 1) the collection and dissemination of better data on Spinraza treatment in these populations; 2) clear communication about risks, side effects and eligibility; 3) improved access to payment and treatment facilities; and 4) facilitation of discussions between providers and patients/families about identity and disability in the context of goals of care and other life and support challenges.

What Precision Medicine Can Learn from Rare Genetic Disease Research and Translation.

The goal of this article is to examine the intersections of precision health and rare diseases. Specifically, we propose 3 lessons from the last decade of applying genomics to rare diseases: (1) precision can end one odyssey and start another; (2) precise interventions can exacerbate health disparities and create other ethical dilemmas; and (3) democratization of data will transform research and translation. By studying experiences of patients with rare diseases, researchers, clinicians, and policymakers can anticipate similar challenges in precision medicine and hopefully mitigate potential harms or injustices.

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.

Attitudes of non-African American focus group participants toward return of results from exome and whole genome sequencing.

Exome sequencing and whole genome sequencing (ES/WGS) present individuals with the opportunity to benefit from a broad scope of genetic results of clinical and personal utility. Yet, it is unclear which genetic results people want to receive (i.e., what type of genetic information they want to learn about themselves) or conversely not receive, and how they want to receive or manage results over time. Very little is known about whether and how attitudes toward receiving individual results from ES/WGS vary among racial/ethnic populations. We conducted 13 focus groups with a racially and ethnically diverse parent population (n = 76) to investigate attitudes toward return of individual results from WGS. We report on our findings for non-African American (non-AA) participants. Non-AA participants were primarily interested in genetic results on which they could act or "do something about." They defined "actionability" broadly to include individual medical treatment and disease prevention. The ability to plan for the future was both a motivation for and an expected benefit of receiving results. Their concerns focused on the meaning of results, specifically the potential inaccuracy and uncertainty of results. Non-AA participants expected healthcare providers to be involved in results management by helping them interpret results in the context of their own health and by providing counseling support. We compare and contrast these themes with those we previously reported from our analysis of African American (AA) perspectives to highlight the importance of varying preferences for results, characterize the central role of temporal orientation in framing expectations about the possibility of receiving ES/WGS results, and identify potential avenues by which genomic healthcare disparities may be inadvertently perpetuated.