Allocation of Opportunities to Participate in Clinical Trials during the Covid-19 Pandemic and Other Public Health Emergencies.

Covid-19 raised many novel ethical issues including regarding the allocation of opportunities to participate in clinical trials during a public health emergency. In this article, we explore how hospitals that have a scarcity of trial opportunities, either overall or in a specific trial, can equitably allocate those opportunities in the context of an urgent medical need with limited therapeutic interventions. We assess the three main approaches to allocating trial opportunities discussed in the literature: patient choice, physician referral, and randomization/lottery. As, we argue, none of the three typical approaches are ethically ideal for allocating trial opportunities in the pandemic context, many hospitals have instead implemented hybrid solutions. We offer practical guidance to support those continuing to face these challenges, and we analyze options for the future.

An ethics framework for consolidating and prioritizing COVID-19 clinical trials.

Given the dearth of established safe and effective interventions to respond to COVID-19, there is an urgent ethical imperative to conduct meaningful clinical research. The good news is that interventions to be tested are not in short supply. Unfortunately, the human and material resources needed to conduct these trials are finite. It is essential that trials be robust and meet enrollment targets and that lower-quality studies not be permitted to displace higher-quality studies, delaying answers to critical questions. Yet, with few exceptions, existing research review bodies and processes are not designed to ensure these conditions are satisfied. To meet this challenge, we offer guidance for research institutions about how to ethically consolidate and prioritize COVID-19 clinical trials, while recognizing that consolidation and prioritization should also take place upstream (among manufacturers and funders) and at a higher level (e.g. nationally). In our proposed three-stage process, trials must first meet threshold criteria. Those that do are evaluated in a second stage to determine whether the institution has sufficient capacity to support all proposed trials. If it does not, the third stage entails evaluating studies against two additional sets of comparative prioritization criteria: those specific to the study and those that aim to advance diversification of an institution's research portfolio. To implement these criteria fairly, we propose that research institutions form COVID-19 research prioritization committees. We briefly discuss some important attributes of these committees, drawing on the authors' experiences at our respective institutions. Although we focus on clinical trials of COVID-19 therapeutics, our guidance should prove useful for other kinds of COVID-19 research, as well as non-pandemic research, which can raise similar challenges due to the scarcity of research resources.

The Ethics of Repurposing Previously Collected Research Biospecimens in an Infectious Disease Pandemic.

In the early days of a pandemic, repurposing biospecimens from established research projects could prove to be extraordinarily useful in achieving substantial and timely public health benefits. Nonetheless, there are potential ethical and regulatory uncertainties that may impede access to those valuable biospecimens. In this article, we argue that there should be a presumption in favor of using previously collected identifiable research biospecimens without reconsent to directly address an infectious disease pandemic, assuming certain conditions are met. This argument fills a unique yet critical gap in decision-making where the specific consent accompanying the identifiable biospecimens would not otherwise permit repurposing. Further, it suggests that even if gaining reconsent is feasible, doing so in a fast-moving crisis is not necessary. This analysis also attempts to address the ethical concerns of public health authorities who already may have the power to use such specimens but are reluctant to do so.

The Meaning of Informed Consent: Genome Editing Clinical Trials for Sickle Cell Disease.

BACKGROUND: A first therapeutic target of somatic genome editing (SGE) is sickle cell disease (SCD), the most commonly inherited blood disorders, affecting more than 100,000 individuals in the United States. Advancement of SGE is contingent on patient participation in first in human clinical trials. However, seriously ill patients may be vulnerable to overestimating the benefits of early phase studies while underestimating the risks. Therefore, ensuring potential clinical trial participants are fully informed prior to participating in a SGE clinical trial is critical. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study of adults with SCD as well as parents and physicians of individuals with SCD. Participants were asked to complete a genetic literacy survey, watch an educational video about genome editing, complete a two-part survey, and take part in focus group discussions. Focus groups addressed topics on clinical trials, ethics of gene editing, and what is not understood regarding gene editing. All focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using conventional content analysis techniques to identify major themes. Results: Our study examined the views of SCD stakeholders regarding what they want and need to know about genome editing to make an informed decision to participate in a SGE clinical trial. Prominent themes included stakeholders' desire to understand treatment side effects, mechanism of action of SGE, trial qualification criteria, and the impact of SGE on quality of life. In addition, some physicians expressed concerns about the extent to which their patients would understand concepts related to SGE; however, individuals with SCD demonstrated higher levels of genetic literacy than estimated by physicians. Conclusions: Designing ethically robust genome editing clinical trials for the SCD population will require, at a minimum, addressing the expressed information needs of the community through culturally sensitive engagement, so that they can make informed decisions to consider participation in clinical trials.

Alaska Native genomic research: perspectives from Alaska Native leaders, federal staff, and biomedical researchers.

Meaningful engagement of Alaska Native (AN) tribes and tribal health organizations is essential in the conduct of socially responsible and ethical research. As genomics becomes increasingly important to advancements in medicine, there is a risk that populations not meaningfully included in genomic research will not benefit from the outcomes of that research. AN people have historically been underrepresented in biomedical research; AN underrepresentation in genomics research is compounded by mistrust based on past abuses, concerns about privacy and data ownership, and cultural considerations specific to this type of research. Working together, the National Human Genome Research Institute and two Alaska Native health organizations, Southcentral Foundation and the Alaska Native Health Board, cosponsored a workshop in July 2018 to engage key stakeholders in discussion, strengthen relationships, and facilitate partnership and consideration of participation of AN people in community-driven biomedical and genomic research. AN priorities related to translation of genomics research to health and health care, return of genomic results, design of research studies, and data sharing were discussed. This report summarizes the perspectives that emerged from the dialogue and offers considerations for effective and socially responsible genomic research partnerships with AN communities.

Changing the Conversation about The Ethics of Genomics and Health Disparities Research with American Indian and Alaska Native Communities: A Report from the Field.

"Changing the conversation" around genomic research with U.S. tribal communities may lead to new pathways to address persistent health disparities. Restoring trustworthiness between researchers and communities entails a willingness to listen to Indigenous voices, being flexible, and refining existing policies and frameworks to adapt to communities' needs.

Noninvasive Prenatal Whole Genome Sequencing: Pregnant Women's Views and Preferences.

OBJECTIVE: To assess pregnant women's views and preferences on noninvasive prenatal whole genome sequencing. METHODS: A survey was offered to 805 pregnant women receiving prenatal care in practices affiliated with a large, tertiary care maternity hospital. Respondents were asked to envision undergoing prenatal whole genome sequencing and discuss their preferences and reasons for receiving different categories of genomic results, organized by actionability, severity, prevalence, and age of onset. The survey also queried respondents on their preferred role for clinicians in prenatal whole genome sequencing decision-making, and on their demographics and genetic literacy. RESULTS: From June to August 2017, a total of 553 respondents returned the survey (response rate=68.7%). Respondents were most likely to want information regarding serious treatable childhood-onset conditions (89.7%) and least likely to want to receive information about nonmedical traits from prenatal whole genome sequencing (40%). The most frequently cited reason for wanting medical prenatal whole genome sequencing results was "to prepare financially, medically, or psychologically for a child with special needs." In total, 10.5% of respondents wanted clear recommendations from clinicians about the categories of information that are most appropriate to test for, 44.7% wanted clear recommendations plus all options presented, 26.2% wanted all options presented and joint decision-making, and 13.2% wanted all options presented and independent decision-making. CONCLUSION: Respondents generally preferred to receive all categories of genetic results pertaining to medical conditions and wanted the information to prepare. More than half of respondents wanted (at minimum) clear recommendations from clinicians when deciding which prenatal whole genome sequencing results to receive.

Constructing identities: the implications of DTC ancestry testing for tribal communities.

PURPOSE: Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic ancestry companies have rapidly increased in popularity, with top testing services maintaining genetic databases of several million consumers. While genetic ancestry tests are often characterized as recreational, companies invoke deeply personal concepts of individual identity, group membership, and kinship when marketing their services. In particular, many companies claim to be able to determine Native American heritage, claims that are not supported by the state of the science and may have significant cultural and political consequences for US tribal communities. This study aims to fill the gaps in empirical work on this issue and characterize how genetic ancestry companies articulate indigenous identity through their marketing strategies. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative content analysis of the public facing websites for 25 DTC genetic ancestry companies that offer services measuring Native American ancestry. RESULTS: Our findings describe how genetic ancestry companies promote a causal relationship between genetics and self-identity through marketing language such as "Discover Yourself" and "Are you Native American?" and how this may affect US tribal communities. CONCLUSION: Genetic ancestry company claims regarding genetic ancestry, personal identity, and cultural membership are problematic and challenge how US tribal nations currently identify and create potential obstacles for tribal sovereignty.

Recontacting participants for expanded uses of existing samples and data: a case study.

PURPOSE: Facilitating genomic research may require the use of samples and data collected via consent processes that did not include specific descriptions of secondary uses. We explore whether a waiver of consent with notification and the option to withdraw (WNOW) is a viable alternative to written informed consent for secondary uses of samples and data. METHODS: We developed a retrospective case study of a rare-disease protocol involving 1,978 participants that implemented WNOW for genomic data-sharing activities. We analyzed institutional review board and investigator records and conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with key staff members. RESULTS: WNOW was largely successful at achieving its goals in this case, although the recontact effort, relative to proceeding with a waiver, decreased participation in genomic data sharing by 13.8% (n = 253), primarily because 224 letters were returned as undeliverable. A small number of participants responded (n = 89), and some of them expressed confusion and frustration. In the pediatric arm of the study, the research may have been practicable without a waiver, given the relationship between the pediatric clinicians and families. CONCLUSION: The practicability of conducting research on existing specimens without a waiver of informed consent, and whether WNOW is a viable alternative, depend on contextual factors, including a reliable way to communicate with participants.Genet Med advance online publication 26 January 2017.

Views of American OB/GYNs on the ethics of prenatal whole-genome sequencing.

OBJECTIVE: Given public demand for genetic information, the potential to perform prenatal whole-genome sequencing (PWGS) non-invasively in the future, and decreasing costs of whole-genome sequencing, it is likely that OB/GYN practice will include PWGS. The goal of this project was to explore OB/GYNs' views on the ethical issues surrounding PWGS and their preparedness for counseling patients on its use. METHODS: A national survey was administered to 2500 members of American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. RESULTS: A total of 1114 respondents completed the survey (response rate = 45%). OB/GYNs are most concerned with ordering non-medical fetal genetic information, are worried about increasing parental anxiety, and feel it is appropriate to be directive when counseling parents about PWGS. Furthermore, most OB/GYNs have limited knowledge of genetics, rely heavily on genetic counselors and would like more guidance regarding the clinical adoption of PWGS. CONCLUSION: OB/GYNs do not completely accept or reject PWGS, but a substantial number have significant ethical and practical concerns. They are most concerned with issues that will directly affect their practices and interactions with patients, such as increasing parental anxiety and costs of care. Professional guidance would be instrumental in directing the adoption of PWGS and alleviating the ethical burden posed by PWGS on individual OB/GYNs. Published 2016. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Towards a more representative morphology: clinical and ethical considerations for including diverse populations in diagnostic genetic atlases.

An important gap exists in textbooks (or atlases) of dysmorphology used by health-care professionals to help diagnose genetic syndromes. The lack of varied phenotypic images in available atlases limits the utility of these atlases as diagnostic tools in globally diverse populations, causing geneticists difficulty in diagnosing conditions in individuals of different ancestral backgrounds who may present with variable morphological features. Proposals to address the underinclusion of images from diverse populations in existing atlases can take advantage of the Internet and digital photography to create new resources that take into account the broad global diversity of populations affected by genetic disease. Creating atlases that are more representative of the global population will expand resources available to care for diverse patients with these conditions, many of whom have been historically underserved by the medical system. However, such projects also raise ethical questions that are grounded in the complex intersection of imagery, medicine, history, and race and ethnicity. We consider here the benefits of producing such a resource while also considering ethical and practical concerns, and we offer recommendations for the ethical creation, structure, equitable use, and maintenance of a diverse morphological atlas for clinical diagnosis.Genet Med 18 11, 1069-1074.

A Clinical Service to Support the Return of Secondary Genomic Findings in Human Research.

Human genome and exome sequencing are powerful research tools that can generate secondary findings beyond the scope of the research. Most secondary genomic findings are of low importance, but some (for a current estimate of 1%-3% of individuals) confer high risk of a serious disease that could be mitigated by timely medical intervention. The impact and scope of secondary findings in genome and exome sequencing will only increase in the future. There is considerable agreement that high-impact findings should be returned to participants, but many researchers performing genomic research studies do not have the background, skills, or resources to identify, verify, interpret, and return such variants. Here, we introduce a proposal for the formation of a secondary-genomic-findings service (SGFS) that would support researchers by enabling the return of clinically actionable sequencing results to research participants in a standardized manner. We describe a proposed structure for such a centralized service and evaluate the advantages and challenges of the approach. We suggest that such a service would be of greater benefit to all parties involved than present practice, which is highly variable. We encourage research centers to consider the adoption of a centralized SGFS.

Institutional review board perspectives on obligations to disclose genetic incidental findings to research participants.

PURPOSE: Researchers' obligations to disclose genetic incidental findings (GIFs) have been widely debated, but there has been little empirical study of the engagement of institutional review boards (IRBs) with this issue. METHODS: This article presents data from the first extensive (n = 796) national survey of IRB professionals' understanding of, experience with, and beliefs surrounding GIFs. RESULTS: Most respondents had dealt with questions about GIFs (74%), but only a minority (47%) felt prepared to address them. Although a majority believed that there is an obligation to disclose GIFs (78%), there is still not consensus about the supporting ethical principles. Respondents generally did not endorse the idea that researchers' additional time and effort (7%), and lack of resources (29%), were valid reasons for diminishing a putative obligation. Most (96%) supported a right not to know, but this view became less pronounced (63%) when framed in terms of specific case studies. CONCLUSIONS: IRBs are actively engaged with GIFs but have not yet reached consensus. Respondents were uncomfortable with arguments that could be used to limit an obligation to return GIFs. This could indicate that IRBs are providing some of the impetus for the trend toward returning GIFs, although questions remain about the relative contribution of other stakeholders.Genet Med 18 7, 705-711.