Challenges and potential solutions to health disparities in genomic medicine.

Significant disparities in the clinical usefulness of genomic information across diverse groups are due to underrepresentation in genetic databases and inequitable access to genetic services. Remedying disparities is immediately needed to ensure that genomic medicine is more equitable but will take a long-term commitment and active engagement of diverse communities.

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.

Understanding individualised genetic interventions as research-treatment hybrids.

Until recently, medicine has had little to offer most of the millions of patients suffering from rare and ultrarare genetic conditions. But the development in 2019 of Milasen, the first genetic intervention developed for and administered to a single patient suffering from an ultrarare genetic disorder, has offered hope to patients and families. In addition, Milasen raised a series of conceptual and ethical questions about how individualised genetic interventions should be developed, assessed for safety and efficacy and financially supported. The answers to these questions depend in large part on whether individualised therapies are understood as human subjects research or clinical innovation, different domains of biomedicine that are regulated by different modes of oversight, funding and professional norms. In this article, with development and administration of the drug Milasen as our case study, we argue that at least some individualised genetic therapies are not, as some have argued, either research or treatment. Instead, they are research-treatment hybrids, a category that has both epistemological and pragmatic repercussions for funding, ethics oversight and regulation.

Cases in Precision Medicine: Is There an Obligation to Return Reinterpreted Genetic Results to Former Patients?

Interpretation of many genetic test results can change over time as new data accumulate. Hence, physicians who order genetic tests may subsequently receive revised reports with important implications for patients' medical treatment-even for patients who are no longer in their care. Several of the ethical principles underlying medical practice suggest an obligation to reach out to former patients with this information. Discharging that obligation can be accomplished, at a minimum, by attempting to contact the former patient with their last known contact information.

Parents' views of benefits and limitations of receiving genetic diagnoses for their offspring.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with autism with intellectual disabilities (ID) are increasingly undergoing genetic testing, posing questions of how parents view/respond to such results. METHODS: Twenty-eight parents whose offspring had received genetic diagnoses of de novo pathogenic variants associated with autism were interviewed. RESULTS: Genetic diagnoses parents receive concerning their offspring's autism/intellectual disabilities can be 'double-edged' in several ways, having advantages, but also certain disadvantages and limitations. Benefits were medical/scientific (e.g., ending diagnostic odysseys and potentially contributing to research), emotional (e.g., relief, peace of mind and less self-blame), cognitive, social (e.g., validation and confirmation with others - it's 'not just in our head') and financial (e.g., estate planning), now and in the future (e.g., preparing for possible future symptoms, development and availability of treatment and setting realistic expectations). Limitations included a lack of medical treatments related to the genetic diagnosis, a sense of finality and heightened uncertainties which can increase anxieties (e.g., concerning additional symptoms associated with genetic diagnoses and offspring's ability to live independently in the future). Overall, parents were glad to receive the results, seeing the pros outweighing the cons. Parents responded to these tensions in various ways, having mixed feelings, recognizing the trade-offs and/or focusing on their offspring's present needs. Factors such as age of offspring at receipt of genetic diagnosis, parent's scientific background and prior views and degrees of self-blame affected these responses. CONCLUSIONS: These data, the first to examine how parents perceive genetic diagnoses received for offspring with autism and ID through whole exome/whole genome sequencing, highlight practical medical and psychological benefits as well as limitations. These findings thus have important implications for future education, engagement of families and research. Providers should be aware of these issues, to inform and assist families, who are considering such testing, about these potential pros and cons and responses.

Individualized interventions for rare genetic conditions and the research-treatment spectrum: Stakeholder perspectives.

PURPOSE: Advances in the study of ultrarare genetic conditions are leading to the development of targeted interventions developed for single or very small numbers of patients. Owing to the experimental but also highly individualized nature of these interventions, they are difficult to classify cleanly as either research or clinical care. Our goal was to understand how parents, institutional review board members, and clinical geneticists familiar with individualized genetic interventions conceptualize these activities and their implications for the relationship between research and clinical care. METHODS: We conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 28 parents, institutional review board members, and clinical geneticists and derived themes from those interviews through content analysis. RESULTS: Individuals described individualized interventions as blurring the lines between research and clinical care and focused on hopes for therapeutic benefit and expectations for generalizability of knowledge and benefit to future patients. CONCLUSION: Individualized interventions aimed at one or few patients reveal the limitations of a binary framing of research and clinical care. As a hybrid set of activities, individualized interventions suggest the need for flexibility and new frameworks that acknowledge these activities across the spectrum of research and clinical care.

The Ethics of Risk Prediction for Psychosis and Suicide Attempt in Youth Mental Health.

OBJECTIVE: To identify potential clinical utility of polygenic risk scores (PRS) and exposomic risk scores (ERS) for psychosis and suicide attempt in youth and assess the ethical implications of these tools. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a narrative literature review of emerging findings on PRS and ERS for suicide and psychosis as well as a literature review on the ethics of PRS. We discuss the ethical implications of the emerging findings for the clinical potential of PRS and ERS. RESULTS: Emerging evidence suggests that PRS and ERS may offer clinical utility in the relatively near future but that this utility will be limited to specific, narrow clinical questions, in contrast to the suggestion that population-level screening will have sweeping impact. Combining PRS and ERS might optimize prediction. This clinical utility would change the risk-benefit balance of PRS, and further empirical assessment of proposed risks would be necessary. Some concerns for PRS, such as those about counseling, privacy, and inequities, apply to ERS. ERS raise distinct ethical challenges as well, including some that involve informed consent and direct-to-consumer advertising. Both raise questions about the ethics of machine-learning/artificial intelligence approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Predictive analytics using PRS and ERS may soon play a role in youth mental health settings. Our findings help educate clinicians about potential capabilities, limitations, and ethical implications of these tools. We suggest that a broader discussion with the public is needed to avoid overenthusiasm and determine regulations and guidelines for use of predictive scores.

An Ethical Framework for Research Using Genetic Ancestry.

A wide range of research uses patterns of genetic variation to infer genetic similarity between individuals, typically referred to as genetic ancestry. This research includes inference of human demographic history, understanding the genetic architecture of traits, and predicting disease risk. Researchers are not just structuring an intellectual inquiry when using genetic ancestry, they are also creating analytical frameworks with broader societal ramifications. This essay presents an ethics framework in the spirit of virtue ethics for these researchers: rather than focus on rule following, the framework is designed to build researchers' capacities to react to the ethical dimensions of their work. The authors identify one overarching principle of intellectual freedom and responsibility, noting that freedom in all its guises comes with responsibility, and they identify and define four principles that collectively uphold researchers' intellectual responsibility: truthfulness, justice and fairness, anti-racism, and public beneficence. Researchers should bring their practices into alignment with these principles, and to aid this, the authors name three common ways research practices infringe these principles, suggest a step-by-step process for aligning research choices with the principles, provide rules of thumb for achieving alignment, and give a worked case. The essay concludes by identifying support needed by researchers to act in accord with the proposed framework.

The Challenge of Genetic Variants of Uncertain Clinical Significance : A Narrative Review.

Genomic tests expand diagnostic and screening opportunities but also identify genetic variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUSs). Only a minority of VUSs are likely to prove pathogenic when later reassessed, but resolution of the uncertainty is rarely timely. That uncertainty adds complexity to clinical decision making and can result in harms and costs to patients and the health care system, including the time-consuming analysis required to interpret a VUS and the potential for unnecessary treatment and adverse psychological effects. Current efforts to improve variant interpretation will help reduce the scope of the problem, but the high prevalence of rare and novel variants in the human genome points to VUSs as an ongoing challenge. Additional strategies can help mitigate the potential harms of VUSs, including testing protocols that limit identification or reporting of VUSs, subclassification of VUSs according to the likelihood of pathogenicity, routine family-based evaluation of variants, and enhanced counseling efforts. All involve tradeoffs, and the appropriate balance of measures is likely to vary for different test uses and clinical settings. Cross-specialty deliberation and public input could contribute to systematic and broadly supported policies for managing VUSs.

Victimology of Mass Shootings and Mass Murders Not Involving Firearms.

Most research to date has focused on perpetrators of mass murder incidents. Hence, there is little information on victims. We examined 973 mass murders that occurred in the United States between 1900 and 2019 resulting in 5,273 total fatalities and 4,498 nonfatal injuries for a total of 9,771 victims (on average 10 victims per incident). Approximately 64% of victims of mass murder were White individuals, 13% were Black individuals, 6% were Asian individuals, and 14% were Latinx individuals. Given the higher number of nonfatal injuries per non-firearm mass murder event (11.0 vs. 2.8, p < .001), the total number of victims was only 50% higher for mass shootings (5,855 victims) vs. non-firearm mass murder events (3,916 victims). Among the 421 incidents of mass murder in the United States since 2000, Black, Asian, and Native American individuals were overrepresented among victims of mass shootings compared with their representation in the general U.S. population, and White individuals were underrepresented (all p ≤ .002). Findings of racial/ethnic differences were similar among victims of mass murder committed with means other than firearms for Black, Asian, and White individuals. These findings highlight different areas of victimology within the context of these incidents.

Asymmetric Causal Attributions to Environmental Influences for Prosocial Versus Antisocial Behavior.

Several recent studies have explored how people may favor different explanations for others' behavior depending on the moral or evaluative valence of the behavior in question. This research tested whether people would be less willing to believe that a person's environment played a role in causing her to exhibit antisocial (as compared to prosocial) behavior. In three experiments, participants read a description of a person engaging in either antisocial or prosocial behavior. Participants were less willing to endorse environmental causes of antisocial (versus prosocial) behavior when the environmental influence in question was witnessing others behaving similarly, either during childhood (Experiment 1) or recently (Experiment 2), or being directly encouraged by others to engage in the behavior described (Experiment 3). These results could be relevant to understanding why people resist attributing wrongdoing to causes outside of individual control in some cases.

Increasing inclusivity in precision medicine research: Views of deaf and hard of hearing individuals.

PURPOSE: Deaf/hard of hearing (HoH) individuals can benefit from precision medicine research (PMR) but are underrepresented in mainstream health research and may experience barriers to participation. Understanding their views and concerns about PMR can inform processes to foster inclusion in future studies and reduce health disparities. METHODS: We administered an online disability-accessible survey to explore perceptions of PMR among, inter alia, deaf/HoH individuals. Questions included willingness to participate, interest in results, and barriers and facilitators to participation. Analyses describe results for participants who self-identified their primary condition as being deaf/HoH and compared results for key demographic characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 267 deaf/HoH participants completed the survey. Interest in PMR was high, although many reported inaccessible facilities and information about medical research; 51% reported that communication with health professionals is a barrier. Concerns about harm, lack of access to benefits, misinformed allocation decisions, and limited disability-relevant knowledge among researchers and health care providers were significant. Differences across racial, ethnic, and sex groups were observed and are discussed. CONCLUSION: Strategies to remove barriers to participation of deaf/HoH individuals in PMR are suggested. Distrust is a major challenge for cohort diversity, and research is needed to identify measures to increase the trustworthiness of PMR endeavors.

Challenges of variant reinterpretation: Opinions of stakeholders and need for guidelines.

PURPOSE: The knowledge used to classify genetic variants is continually evolving, and the classification can change on the basis of newly available data. Although up-to-date variant classification is essential for clinical management, reproductive planning, and identifying at-risk family members, there is no consistent practice across laboratories or clinicians on how or under what circumstances to perform variant reinterpretation. METHODS: We conducted exploratory focus groups (N = 142) and surveys (N = 1753) with stakeholders involved in the process of variant reinterpretation (laboratory directors, clinical geneticists, genetic counselors, nongenetic providers, and patients/parents) to assess opinions on key issues, including initiation of reinterpretation, variants to report, termination of the responsibility to reinterpret, and concerns about consent, cost, and liability. RESULTS: Stakeholders widely agreed that there should be no fixed termination point to the responsibility to reinterpret a previously reported genetic variant. There were significant concerns about liability and lack of agreement about many logistical aspects of variant reinterpretation. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest a need to (1) develop consensus and (2) create transparency and awareness about the roles and responsibilities of parties involved in variant reinterpretation. These data provide a foundation for developing guidelines on variant reinterpretation that can aid in the development of a low-cost, scalable, and accessible approach.

The reckoning: The return of genomic results to 1444 participants across the eMERGE3 Network.

PURPOSE: The goal of Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Phase III Network was to return actionable sequence variants to 25,084 consenting participants from 10 different health care institutions across the United States. The purpose of this study was to evaluate system-based issues relating to the return of results (RoR) disclosure process for clinical grade research genomic tests to eMERGE3 participants. METHODS: RoR processes were developed and approved by each eMERGE institution's internal review board. Investigators at each eMERGE3 site were surveyed for RoR processes related to the participant's disclosure of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and engagement with genetic counseling. Standard statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of the 25,084 eMERGE participants, 1444 had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant identified on the eMERGEseq panel of 67 genes and 14 single nucleotide variants. Of these, 1077 (74.6%) participants had results disclosed, with 562 (38.9%) participants provided with variant-specific genetic counseling. Site-specific processes that either offered or required genetic counseling in their RoR process had an effect on whether a participant ultimately engaged with genetic counseling (P = .0052). CONCLUSION: The real-life experience of the multiarm eMERGE3 RoR study for returning actionable genomic results to consented research participants showed the impact of consent, method of disclosure, and genetic counseling on RoR.

A Participant-Centered Approach to Understanding Risks and Benefits of Participation in Research Informed by the Kidney Precision Medicine Project.

An understanding of the ethical underpinnings of human subjects research that involves some risk to participants without anticipated direct clinical benefit-such as the kidney biopsy procedure as part of the Kidney Precision Medicine Project (KPMP)-requires a critical examination of the risks as well as the diverse set of countervailing potential benefits to participants. This kind of deliberation has been foundational to the development and conduct of the KPMP. Herein, we use illustrative features of this research paradigm to develop a more comprehensive conceptualization of the types of benefits that may be important to research participants, including respecting pluralistic values, supporting the opportunity to act altruistically, and enhancing benefits to a participant's community. This approach may serve as a model to help researchers, ethicists, and regulators to identify opportunities to better respect and support participants in future research that entails some risk to these participants as well as to improve the quality of research for people with kidney disease.

Do research participants share genomic screening results with family members?

The public health impact of genomic screening can be enhanced by cascade testing. However, cascade testing depends on communication of results to family members. While the barriers and facilitators of family communication have been researched following clinical genetic testing, the factors impacting the dissemination of genomic screening results are unknown. Using the pragmatic Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network-3 (eMERGE-3) study, we explored the reported sharing practices of participants who underwent genomic screening across the United States. Six eMERGE-3 sites returned genomic screening results for mostly dominant medically actionable disorders and surveyed adult participants regarding communication of results with first-degree relatives. Across the sites, 279 participants completed a 1-month and/or 6-month post-results survey. By 6 months, only 34% of the 156 respondents shared their results with all first-degree relatives and 4% did not share with any. Over a third (39%) first-degree relatives were not notified of the results. Half (53%) of participants who received their results from a genetics provider shared them with all first-degree relatives compared with 11% of participants who received their results from a non-genetics provider. The most frequent reasons for sharing were a feeling of obligation (72%) and that the information could help family members make medical decisions (72%). The most common reasons indicated for not sharing were that the family members were too young (38%), or they were not in contact (25%) or not close to them (25%). These data indicate that the professional returning the results may impact sharing patterns, suggesting that there is a need to continue to educate healthcare providers regarding approaches to facilitate sharing of genetic results within families. Finally, these data suggest that interventions to increase sharing may be universally effective regardless of the origin of the genetic result.

Feasibility and Utility of Different Approaches to Violence Risk Assessment for Young Adults Receiving Treatment for Early Psychosis.

This pilot study examined violence risk assessment among a sample of young adults receiving treatment for early psychosis. In this study, thirty participants were assessed for violence risk at baseline. Participants completed follow-up assessments at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months to ascertain prevalence of violent behavior. Individuals were on average 24.1 years old (SD = 3.3 years) and predominantly male (n = 24, 80%). In this sample, six people (20%) reported engaging in violence during the study period. Individuals who engaged in violence had higher levels of negative urgency (t(28) = 2.21, p = 0.035) This study sought to establish the feasibility, acceptability, and clinical utility of violence risk assessment for clients in treatment for early psychosis. Overall, this study found that most individuals with early psychosis in this study (who are in treatment) were not at risk of violence. Findings suggest that violent behavior among young adults with early psychosis is associated with increased negative urgency.

Psychotic symptoms in mass shootings v. mass murders not involving firearms: findings from the Columbia mass murder database.

BACKGROUND: Mass shootings account for a small fraction of annual worldwide murders, yet disproportionately affect society and influence policy. Evidence suggesting a link between mass shootings and severe mental illness (i.e. involving psychosis) is often misrepresented, generating stigma. Thus, the actual prevalence constitutes a key public health concern. METHODS: We examined global personal-cause mass murders from 1900 to 2019, amassed by review of 14 785 murders publicly described in English in print or online, and collected information regarding perpetrator, demographics, legal history, drug use and alcohol misuse, and history of symptoms of psychiatric or neurologic illness using standardized methods. We distinguished whether firearms were or were not used, and, if so, the type (non-automatic v. semi- or fully-automatic). RESULTS: We identified 1315 mass murders, 65% of which involved firearms. Lifetime psychotic symptoms were noted among 11% of perpetrators, consistent with previous reports, including 18% of mass murderers who did not use firearms and 8% of those who did (χ2 = 28.0, p < 0.01). US-based mass shooters were more likely to have legal histories, use recreational drugs or misuse alcohol, or have histories of non-psychotic psychiatric or neurologic symptoms. US-based mass shooters with symptoms of any psychiatric or neurologic illness more frequently used semi-or fully-automatic firearms. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that policies aimed at preventing mass shootings by focusing on serious mental illness, characterized by psychotic symptoms, may have limited impact. Policies such as those targeting firearm access, recreational drug use and alcohol misuse, legal history, and non-psychotic psychopathology might yield more substantial results.

Violence in Psychiatric Settings: Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Patients Who Were Targets of Aggression.

ABSTRACT: Violence is a serious concern in the psychiatric inpatient and emergency setting. Much of the research on victims of inpatient violence has focused on identifying and supporting staff who are at risk of being victimized when working in psychiatric settings. This article presents an analysis of 72 patients who were targeted during incidents of patient-on-patient physical aggression in hospital-based psychiatric settings (both inpatient and emergency) from 2014 to 2018. Results suggest that patients who are at risk of being targeted by another patient while in the hospital tend to be younger, are more likely to be male, and present with manic symptoms and recent cannabis use. These variables have all been identified as risk factors for perpetration of violence by patients with mental illness. This study adds to a literature demonstrating a consistent overlap between individuals with mental illness who are victimized and those who initiate violence.