A 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel to prevent adverse drug reactions: an open-label, multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised crossover implementation study.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of pharmacogenetic testing before starting drug therapy has been well documented for several single gene-drug combinations. However, the clinical utility of a pre-emptive genotyping strategy using a pharmacogenetic panel has not been rigorously assessed. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised, crossover implementation study of a 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel in 18 hospitals, nine community health centres, and 28 community pharmacies in seven European countries (Austria, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, and the UK). Patients aged 18 years or older receiving a first prescription for a drug clinically recommended in the guidelines of the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (ie, the index drug) as part of routine care were eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included previous genetic testing for a gene relevant to the index drug, a planned duration of treatment of less than 7 consecutive days, and severe renal or liver insufficiency. All patients gave written informed consent before taking part in the study. Participants were genotyped for 50 germline variants in 12 genes, and those with an actionable variant (ie, a drug-gene interaction test result for which the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group [DPWG] recommended a change to standard-of-care drug treatment) were treated according to DPWG recommendations. Patients in the control group received standard treatment. To prepare clinicians for pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing, local teams were educated during a site-initiation visit and online educational material was made available. The primary outcome was the occurrence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions within the 12-week follow-up period. Analyses were irrespective of patient adherence to the DPWG guidelines. The primary analysis was done using a gatekeeping analysis, in which outcomes in people with an actionable drug-gene interaction in the study group versus the control group were compared, and only if the difference was statistically significant was an analysis done that included all of the patients in the study. Outcomes were compared between the study and control groups, both for patients with an actionable drug-gene interaction test result (ie, a result for which the DPWG recommended a change to standard-of-care drug treatment) and for all patients who received at least one dose of index drug. The safety analysis included all participants who received at least one dose of a study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03093818 and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between March 7, 2017, and June 30, 2020, 41 696 patients were assessed for eligibility and 6944 (51·4 % female, 48·6% male; 97·7% self-reported European, Mediterranean, or Middle Eastern ethnicity) were enrolled and assigned to receive genotype-guided drug treatment (n=3342) or standard care (n=3602). 99 patients (52 [1·6%] of the study group and 47 [1·3%] of the control group) withdrew consent after group assignment. 652 participants (367 [11·0%] in the study group and 285 [7·9%] in the control group) were lost to follow-up. In patients with an actionable test result for the index drug (n=1558), a clinically relevant adverse drug reaction occurred in 152 (21·0%) of 725 patients in the study group and 231 (27·7%) of 833 patients in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·54-0·91]; p=0·0075), whereas for all patients, the incidence was 628 (21·5%) of 2923 patients in the study group and 934 (28·6%) of 3270 patients in the control group (OR 0·70 [95% CI 0·61-0·79]; p <0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Genotype-guided treatment using a 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel significantly reduced the incidence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions and was feasible across diverse European health-care system organisations and settings. Large-scale implementation could help to make drug therapy increasingly safe. FUNDING: European Union Horizon 2020.

Concordance of International Regulation of Pediatric Health Research.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the comparability of international ethics principles and practices used in regulating pediatric research as a first step in determining whether reciprocal deference for international ethics review is feasible. Prior studies by the authors focused on other aspects of international health research, such as biobanks and direct-to-participant genomic research. The unique nature of pediatric research and its distinctive regulation by many countries warranted a separate study. STUDY DESIGN: A representative sample of 21 countries was selected, with geographical, ethnic, cultural, political, and economic diversity. A leading expert on pediatric research ethics and law was selected to summarize the ethics review of pediatric research in each country. To ensure the comparability of the responses, a 5-part summary of pediatric research ethics principles in the US was developed by the investigators and distributed to all country representatives. The international experts were asked to assess and describe whether principles in their country and the US were congruent. Results were obtained and compiled in the spring and summer of 2022. RESULTS: Some of the countries varied in their conceptualization or description of one or more ethical principles for pediatric research, but overall, the countries in the study demonstrated a fundamental concordance. CONCLUSIONS: Similar regulation of pediatric research in 21 countries suggests that international reciprocity is a viable strategy.

Public Preferences for Digital Health Data Sharing: Discrete Choice Experiment Study in 12 European Countries.

BACKGROUND: With new technologies, health data can be collected in a variety of different clinical, research, and public health contexts, and then can be used for a range of new purposes. Establishing the public's views about digital health data sharing is essential for policy makers to develop effective harmonization initiatives for digital health data governance at the European level. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated public preferences for digital health data sharing. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment survey was administered to a sample of European residents in 12 European countries (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) from August 2020 to August 2021. Respondents answered whether hypothetical situations of data sharing were acceptable for them. Each hypothetical scenario was defined by 5 attributes ("data collector," "data user," "reason for data use," "information on data sharing and consent," and "availability of review process"), which had 3 to 4 attribute levels each. A latent class model was run across the whole data set and separately for different European regions (Northern, Central, and Southern Europe). Attribute relative importance was calculated for each latent class's pooled and regional data sets. RESULTS: A total of 5015 completed surveys were analyzed. In general, the most important attribute for respondents was the availability of information and consent during health data sharing. In the latent class model, 4 classes of preference patterns were identified. While respondents in 2 classes strongly expressed their preferences for data sharing with opposing positions, respondents in the other 2 classes preferred not to share their data, but attribute levels of the situation could have had an impact on their preferences. Respondents generally found the following to be the most acceptable: a national authority or academic research project as the data user; being informed and asked to consent; and a review process for data transfer and use, or transfer only. On the other hand, collection of their data by a technological company and data use for commercial communication were the least acceptable. There was preference heterogeneity across Europe and within European regions. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed the importance of transparency in data use and oversight of health-related data sharing for European respondents. Regional and intraregional preference heterogeneity for "data collector," "data user," "reason," "type of consent," and "review" calls for governance solutions that would grant data subjects the ability to control their digital health data being shared within different contexts. These results suggest that the use of data without consent will demand weighty and exceptional reasons. An interactive and dynamic informed consent model combined with oversight mechanisms may be a solution for policy initiatives aiming to harmonize health data use across Europe.

Generating evidence for precision medicine: considerations made by the Ubiquitous Pharmacogenomics Consortium when designing and operationalizing the PREPARE study.

OBJECTIVES: Pharmacogenetic panel-based testing represents a new model for precision medicine. A sufficiently powered prospective study assessing the (cost-)effectiveness of a panel-based pharmacogenomics approach to guide pharmacotherapy is lacking. Therefore, the Ubiquitous Pharmacogenomics Consortium initiated the PREemptive Pharmacogenomic testing for prevention of Adverse drug Reactions (PREPARE) study. Here, we provide an overview of considerations made to mitigate multiple methodological challenges that emerged during the design. METHODS: An evaluation of considerations made when designing the PREPARE study across six domains: study aims and design, primary endpoint definition and collection of adverse drug events, inclusion and exclusion criteria, target population, pharmacogenomics intervention strategy, and statistical analyses. RESULTS: Challenges and respective solutions included: (1) defining and operationalizing a composite primary endpoint enabling measurement of the anticipated effect, by including only severe, causal, and drug genotype-associated adverse drug reactions; (2) avoiding overrepresentation of frequently prescribed drugs within the patient sample while maintaining external validity, by capping drugs of enrolment; (3) designing the pharmacogenomics intervention strategy to be applicable across ethnicities and healthcare settings; and (4) designing a statistical analysis plan to avoid dilution of effect by initially excluding patients without a gene-drug interaction in a gatekeeping analysis. CONCLUSION: Our design considerations will enable quantification of the collective clinical utility of a panel of pharmacogenomics-markers within one trial as a proof-of-concept for pharmacogenomics-guided pharmacotherapy across multiple actionable gene-drug interactions. These considerations may prove useful to other investigators aiming to generate evidence for precision medicine.

Including all voices in international data-sharing governance.

BACKGROUND: Governments, funding bodies, institutions, and publishers have developed a number of strategies to encourage researchers to facilitate access to datasets. The rationale behind this approach is that this will bring a number of benefits and enable advances in healthcare and medicine by allowing the maximum returns from the investment in research, as well as reducing waste and promoting transparency. As this approach gains momentum, these data-sharing practices have implications for many kinds of research as they become standard practice across the world. MAIN TEXT: The governance frameworks that have been developed to support biomedical research are not well equipped to deal with the complexities of international data sharing. This system is nationally based and is dependent upon expert committees for oversight and compliance, which has often led to piece-meal decision-making. This system tends to perpetuate inequalities by obscuring the contributions and the important role of different data providers along the data stream, whether they be low- or middle-income country researchers, patients, research participants, groups, or communities. As research and data-sharing activities are largely publicly funded, there is a strong moral argument for including the people who provide the data in decision-making and to develop governance systems for their continued participation. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that governance of science becomes more transparent, representative, and responsive to the voices of many constituencies by conducting public consultations about data-sharing addressing issues of access and use; including all data providers in decision-making about the use and sharing of data along the whole of the data stream; and using digital technologies to encourage accessibility, transparency, and accountability. We anticipate that this approach could enhance the legitimacy of the research process, generate insights that may otherwise be overlooked or ignored, and help to bring valuable perspectives into the decision-making around international data sharing.

International network of cancer genome projects.

The International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) was launched to coordinate large-scale cancer genome studies in tumours from 50 different cancer types and/or subtypes that are of clinical and societal importance across the globe. Systematic studies of more than 25,000 cancer genomes at the genomic, epigenomic and transcriptomic levels will reveal the repertoire of oncogenic mutations, uncover traces of the mutagenic influences, define clinically relevant subtypes for prognosis and therapeutic management, and enable the development of new cancer therapies.

[Personalized medicine, privatized medicine? legal and public health stakes]. / Médecine personnalisée, médecine privatisée ? - Enjeux juridiques et de santé publique.

Personalized medicine is booming. It tends to provide a medical management "tailored" for groups of patients, or for one unique patient, but also to identify risk groups to develop public health strategies. In this context, some radicalization phenomenon can emerge, leading to not only personalized medicine but also privatized medicine, which can lead to a capture of the medical public resource. If the "privatization" of medicine is not limited to producing adverse effects, several potentially destabilizing phenomena for patients still remain. First, some objective factors, like the adjustment of scientific prerequisites, are emerging from personalized medicine practices (clinical trial, public health policy) and are interfering with the medical doctor/patient relationship. Another risk emerges for patients concomitantly to their demand for controlling their own health, in terms of patients' security although these risks are not clearly identified and not effectively communicated. These practices, related to a privatized medicine, develop within the healthcare system but also outside, and the government and legislators will have to take into account these new dimensions in drafting their future regulations and policies.

[Academic cell therapy facilities are challenged by European regulation on advanced therapy medicinal products]. / Les unités de thérapie cellulaire à l'épreuve de la réglementation sur les médicaments de thérapie innovante.

Regulation (EC) n° 1394/2007 from the European Parliament and the Council describes a new category of health products termed « Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products ¼ (ATMPs). ATMPs derive from cell engineering, tissue engineering or genetic manipulations, and can in some instances be combined with medical devices. ATMPs are distributed and administered to patients, after biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies have obtained a marketing authorization that is granted by the European Commission on the basis of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) assessment. Seven years after the publication of the regulation, few of these therapies have received a marketing authorization, and even fewer have met commercial success, suggesting that a number of medical and economic issues still need to be sorted out in order to achieve sustainability in this field. The coexistence of three sets of rules for three categories of health products that are biologically and medically related - ATMPs, ATMPs produced under the hospital exemption rule, and cell therapy products (CTPs) (a specific legal category in France) that have long been used in hematopoietic cell transplantation - constitutes a complex regulatory framework. This situation raises significant issues for historical as well as emerging operators in this moving field that are discussed thereafter.

Chapitre 5. From individuals to social: The needs for a global ethics overview in pharmacogenomics.

As a part of personalized medicine, pharmacogenomics (PGx) allows practitioners to provide the right drug for a given patient, in accordance with the result of a genetic test. This practice raises many ethical issues that are discussed in the literature, sometimes within the larger context of personalized medicine. This article is based on a literature review that is original insofar as it is interdisciplinary and based on an approach that articulates individual and social rights. Here, we propose to reconsider some classic ethical issues, such as informed consent, incidental findings and data protection which are raised by genetic testing and also by PGx in the same or in a different way. We also analyse broader collective issues around racialization and health equality. Our purpose is to contribute in drawing links and parallels between individual rights and collective rights using a social approach. This analysis discusses these ethical issues in research and in clinical setting, understanding the treatment of the individual in his dual quality of patient and research participant.

Reconciling the biomedical data commons and the GDPR: three lessons from the EUCAN ELSI collaboratory.

The coming-into-force of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a watershed moment in the legal recognition of enforceable rights to informational self-determination. The rapid evolution of legal requirements applicable to data use, however, has the potential to outstrip the capabilities of networks of biomedical data users to respond to the shifting norms. It can also delegitimate established institutional bodies that are responsible for assessing and authorising the downstream use of data, including research ethics committees and institutional data custodians. These burdens are especially pronounced for clinical and research networks that are of transnational scale, because the legal compliance burden for outbound international data transfers from the EEA is especially high. Legislatures, courts, and regulators in the EU should therefore implement the following three legal changes. First, the responsibilities of particular actors in a data sharing network should be delimited through the contractual allocation of responsibilities between collaborators. Second, the use of data through secure data processing environments should not trigger the international transfer provisions of the GDPR. Third, the use of federated data analysis methodologies that do not provide analysis nodes or downstream users access to identifiable personal data as part of the outputs of those analyses should not be considered circumstances of joint controllership, nor lead to the users of non-identifiable data to be considered controllers or processors. These small clarifications of, or modifications to, the GDPR would facilitate the exchange of biomedical data amongst clinicians and researchers.

Communication of results and disclosure of incidental findings in longitudinal paediatric research.

BACKGROUND: Communicating results to research participants is an issue frequently discussed in terms of ethics. It has specific features when involving large-scale paediatric cohorts. High-throughput biological explorations reveal also incidental findings of medical relevance. This work analyses existing frameworks for managing such issues and proposes a policy grounded in the experience acquired in the FP7 EU project MeDALL-Mechanisms of the Development of ALLergy. METHODS: A bibliographical analysis was performed using law, ethics and academic documentation. Empirical data were acquired through informed consent forms from 9 of the 13 cohorts used in MeDALL and from replies to a general questionnaire (n = 10) on ethical issues sent to consortium members. Group discussions and expert consultations were conducted during project meetings. RESULTS: The notions of research results and incidental findings remain ambiguous as no agreed definition exists. The most appropriate terms are communication of results and disclosure of incidental findings. No legal norm and no specific guidance govern these issues in paediatric research at European level. Relevant policies depend on decisions in each cohort or project. The policy proposed states that these issues should be discussed during the informed consent process, with due attention to involvement of children, and a balance of interests between children, parents and society. A moral duty for researchers to communicate such information only applies if certain medical and social criteria are met. CONCLUSIONS: As there is no consensus within European Birth cohorts how to deal with results and incidental findings, we propose a general policy.

Chapitre 6. Le déploiement de la médecine génomique : la place de l'autonomie du patient dans la réutilisation des données génétiques au profit de la recherche.

Genetic research today is largely based on the reuse of data from care for the benefit of research. This evolution of practices, which involves an increasingly marked communication between care and research, questions the place given to the patient seen as a potential participant in research. In order to promote the circulation of genetic data generated and to allow their reuse for the benefit of different research, the French legislator reaffirmed the use of the opt-out mechanism (“non-opposition”) in the last bioethics law of the 2 August 2021. If the reasons that led the legislator to make this shift from the concept of consent to the opt-out mechanism are legitimate, the conditions of implementation of this mechanism seem to need to be questioned in order to ensure the effectivity of the balance sought by the legislator between preserving the autonomy of the individual with regard to the sharing of his/her genetic data and encouraging the development of medical knowledge; one should not be to the detriment of the other.

The European Medicines Agency: a public health European agency?

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is a European Agency as it is a decentralized body governed by European public law; it has its own legal personality and is also distinct from the European Union institutions (Council, Parliament, Commission, etc.). The EMA presents itself, and is commonly recognised, as a public health agency. This is notably supported by its recent transition from the Regional Direction of Research to the Regional Direction of Public Health. Four recognized principles of public health can be identified as such: assessment, transparency, precaution and independence. These principles appear to be closely linked to those forming the basis of good European governance regarding agencies: efficacy, coherence, openness, participation and responsibility. Thus, it is interesting to study how these principles are applied by the EMA in order to assess the reality of its qualification as a Public Health European Agency. The principles of assessment and transparency seem to be largely applied whereas the principles of precaution and independence are more problematic.

The emergence of biobanks in the legal landscape: towards a new model of governance.

Biobanks are increasingly seen as new tools for medical research. Their main purpose is to collect, store, and distribute human body materials. These activities are regulated by legal instruments which are heterogeneous in source (national and international), and in form (binding and non-binding). We analyse these to underline the need for a new model of governance for modern biobanks. The protection initially ensured by respect for fundamental rights will need to focus on more interactions with society in order to ensure biobanks' sustainability. International regulation is more oriented on ethical principles and traces the limits of the uses of genetics, while European regulation is more concerned with the protection of fundamental rights and the elaboration of standards for biobanks' quality assurance. But is this protection adequate and sufficient? Do we need to move from the biomedical research analogy to new forms of legal protection, and governance systems which involve citizens?

The legal landscape for advanced therapies: material and institutional implementation of European Union rules in France and the United Kingdom.

In 2007, the European Union adopted a lex specialis, Regulation (EC) No. 1394/2007 on advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), a new legal category of medical product in regenerative medicine. The regulation applies to ATMPs prepared industrially or manufactured by a method involving an industrial process. It also provides a hospital exemption, which means that medicinal products not regulated by EU law do not benefit from a harmonized regime across the European Union but have to respect national laws. This article describes the recent EU laws, and contrasts two national regimes, asking how France and the United Kingdom regulate ATMPs which do and do not fall under the scope of Regulation (EC) No. 1394/2007. What are the different legal categories and their enforceable regimes, and how does the evolution of these highly complex regimes interact with the material world of regenerative medicine and the regulatory bodies and socioeconomic actors participating in it?

[Direct-to-consumer genetic testing through Internet: marketing, ethical and social issues]. / Tests génétiques en accès libre sur Internet: stratégies commerciales et enjeux éthiques et sociétaux.

We probably did not anticipate all the consequences of the direct to consumer genetic tests on Internet, resulting from the combined skills of communication and genomic advances. What are the commercial strategies used by the companies offering direct-to-consumer genetic tests on Internet and what are the different social expectations on which they focus? Through a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the web sites offering such tests, it seems that these companies target a triple market based on: the "healthism" which raises health and hygiene to the top of the social values; the contemporary demands of the users to become actual actors of health decisions; and finally on the need for bio-social relationships. These three commercial strategies underlie various ethical and societal issues justifying a general analysis.

[The foundation of research ethics in community law]. / Les fondements de l'éthique de la recherche en droit communautaire.

The creation of the European Community by the Treaty of Rome in 1957 marked the beginning of the efforts to coordinate and harmonize national policies in many strategic sectors with high economic value, among them several aspects of scientific research. The European Union Law, formerly known as European Community law, now includes a range of ethical principles that apply to research projects developed with the financial support of the European Union. Which were the steps in the integration of the ethics of sciences in the context of the Union? This article aims to study first, what were, and what are the legal bases of the integration of the ethical dimension of researches in life sciences by the European Union and, secondly, the institutional organisation that has been set up in order to discuss the development of common ethical norms, especially bioethics one, and in order to apply these rules which respect national particularities. In this regard, we analyse the relevant legal texts providing a foundation for the creation of a European bio-law and we give an overview of the European institutions' activity in the field of bioethics by looking particularly the health research field.

Opportunistic genomic screening. Recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics.

If genome sequencing is performed in health care, in theory the opportunity arises to take a further look at the data: opportunistic genomic screening (OGS). The European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) in 2013 recommended that genome analysis should be restricted to the original health problem at least for the time being. Other organizations have argued that 'actionable' genetic variants should or could be reported (including American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, French Society of Predictive and Personalized Medicine, Genomics England). They argue that the opportunity should be used to routinely and systematically look for secondary findings-so-called opportunistic screening. From a normative perspective, the distinguishing characteristic of screening is not so much its context (whether public health or health care), but the lack of an indication for having this specific test or investigation in those to whom screening is offered. Screening entails a more precarious benefits-to-risks balance. The ESHG continues to recommend a cautious approach to opportunistic screening. Proportionality and autonomy must be guaranteed, and in collectively funded health-care systems the potential benefits must be balanced against health care expenditures. With regard to genome sequencing in pediatrics, ESHG argues that it is premature to look for later-onset conditions in children. Counseling should be offered and informed consent is and should be a central ethical norm. Depending on developing evidence on penetrance, actionability, and available resources, OGS pilots may be justified to generate data for a future, informed, comparative analysis of OGS and its main alternatives, such as cascade testing.

Recontacting patients in clinical genetics services: recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics.

Technological advances have increased the availability of genomic data in research and the clinic. If, over time, interpretation of the significance of the data changes, or new information becomes available, the question arises as to whether recontacting the patient and/or family is indicated. The Public and Professional Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG), together with research groups from the UK and the Netherlands, developed recommendations on recontacting which, after public consultation, have been endorsed by ESHG Board. In clinical genetics, recontacting for updating patients with new, clinically significant information related to their diagnosis or previous genetic testing may be justifiable and, where possible, desirable. Consensus about the type of information that should trigger recontacting converges around its clinical and personal utility. The organization of recontacting procedures and policies in current health care systems is challenging. It should be sustainable, commensurate with previously obtained consent, and a shared responsibility between healthcare providers, laboratories, patients, and other stakeholders. Optimal use of the limited clinical resources currently available is needed. Allocation of dedicated resources for recontacting should be considered. Finally, there is a need for more evidence, including economic and utility of information for people, to inform which strategies provide the most cost-effective use of healthcare resources for recontacting.