Returning Individual Research Results from Digital Phenotyping in Psychiatry.

Psychiatry is rapidly adopting digital phenotyping and artificial intelligence/machine learning tools to study mental illness based on tracking participants' locations, online activity, phone and text message usage, heart rate, sleep, physical activity, and more. Existing ethical frameworks for return of individual research results (IRRs) are inadequate to guide researchers for when, if, and how to return this unprecedented number of potentially sensitive results about each participant's real-world behavior. To address this gap, we convened an interdisciplinary expert working group, supported by a National Institute of Mental Health grant. Building on established guidelines and the emerging norm of returning results in participant-centered research, we present a novel framework specific to the ethical, legal, and social implications of returning IRRs in digital phenotyping research. Our framework offers researchers, clinicians, and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) urgently needed guidance, and the principles developed here in the context of psychiatry will be readily adaptable to other therapeutic areas.

Returning incidentally discovered Hepatitis C RNA-seq results to COPDGene study participants.

The consequences of returning infectious pathogen test results identified incidentally in research studies have not been well-studied. Concerns include identification of an important health issue for individuals, accuracy of research test results, public health impact, potential emotional distress for participants, and need for IRB permissions. Blood RNA-sequencing analysis for non-human RNA in 3984 participants from the COPDGene study identified 228 participants with evidence suggestive for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. We hypothesized that incidentally discovered HCV results could be effectively returned to COPDGene participants with attention to the identified concerns. In conjunction with a COPDGene Participant Advisory Panel, we developed and obtained IRB approval for a process of returning HCV research results and an HCV Follow-Up Study questionnaire to capture information about previous HCV diagnosis and treatment information and participant reactions to return of HCV results. During phone calls following the initial HCV notification letter, 84 of 124 participants who could be contacted (67.7%) volunteered that they had been previously diagnosed with HCV infection. Thirty-one of these 124 COPDGene participants were enrolled in the HCV Follow-Up Study. Five of the 31 HCV Follow-Up Study participants did not report a previous diagnosis of HCV. For four of these participants, subsequent clinical HCV testing confirmed HCV infection. Thus, 30/31 Follow-Up Study participants had confirmed HCV diagnoses, supporting the accuracy of the HCV research test results. However, the limited number of participants in the Follow-Up Study precludes an accurate assessment of the false-positive and false-negative rates of the research RNA sequencing evidence for HCV. Most HCV Follow-Up Study participants (29/31) were supportive of returning HCV research results, and most participants found the process for returning HCV results to be informative and not upsetting. Newly diagnosed participants were more likely to be pleased to learn about a potentially curable infection (p = 0.027) and showed a trend toward being more frightened by the potential health risks of HCV (p = 0.11). We conclude that HCV results identified incidentally during transcriptomic research studies can be successfully returned to research study participants with a carefully designed process.

Clarifying the Ethics and Oversight of Chimeric Research.

This article is the lead piece in a special report that presents the results of a bioethical investigation into chimeric research, which involves the insertion of human cells into nonhuman animals and nonhuman animal embryos, including into their brains. Rapid scientific developments in this field may advance knowledge and could lead to new therapies for humans. They also reveal the conceptual, ethical, and procedural limitations of existing ethics guidance for human-nonhuman chimeric research. Led by bioethics researchers working closely with an interdisciplinary work group, the investigation focused on generating conceptual clarity and identifying improvements to governance approaches, with the goal of helping scholars, funders, scientists, institutional leaders, and oversight bodies (embryonic stem cell research oversight [ESCRO] committees and institutional animal care and use committees [IACUCs]) deliver principled and trustworthy oversight of this area of science. The article, which focuses on human-nonhuman animal chimeric research that is stem cell based, identifies key ethical issues in and offers ten recommendations regarding the ethics and oversight of this research. Turning from bioethics' previous focus on human-centered questions about the ethics of "humanization" and this research's potential impact on concepts like human dignity, this article emphasizes the importance of nonhuman animal welfare concerns in chimeric research and argues for less-siloed governance and oversight and more-comprehensive public communication.

Responding to signals of mental and behavioral health risk in pragmatic clinical trials: Ethical obligations in a healthcare ecosystem.

BACKGROUND: Ethical responsibilities for monitoring and responding to signals of behavioral and mental health risk (such as suicidal ideation, opioid use disorder, or depression) in general clinical research have been described; however, pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) raise new contextual challenges. METHODS: We use our experience with the PRISM (Pragmatic and Implementation Studies for the Management of Pain to Reduce Opioid Prescribing) program, which is a component of the Helping End Addiction Long-Term (HEAL) Initiative, to provide examples of research studying nonpharmacologic interventions for pain that collect sensitive data. Members of the PRISM Ethics and Regulatory Core and Patient-Centered Outcome Core Working Group discussed and refined considerations and recommendations. RESULTS: PCT researchers can help identify the extent of their ethical obligations to monitor and respond to signals of potential behavioral and mental health risks by understanding and aligning stakeholder expectations; considering characteristics of the trial and study population; defining triggers, thresholds, and responsibilities for action; identifying appropriate response mechanisms and capabilities; integrating responses with health systems; and addressing privacy. Based on such an assessment, researchers should proactively identify if, when, and how a response will be triggered. Doing so necessitates that stakeholders understand their roles in managing such risks. Finally, consent forms and other study disclosures should clearly state what if any responses might be taken. CONCLUSION: Early and ongoing bi-directional communication with relevant stakeholders is critical to identifying and meeting the ethical challenges for PCTs when managing and responding to behavioral and mental health data that potentially signal elevated risk to individuals.

Expert Perspectives on Oversight for Unregulated mHealth Research: Empirical Data and Commentary.

In qualitative interviews with a diverse group of experts, the vast majority believed unregulated researchers should seek out independent oversight. Reasons included the need for objectivity, protecting app users from research risks, and consistency in standards for the ethical conduct of research. Concerns included burdening minimal risk research and limitations in current systems of oversight. Literature and analysis supports the use of IRBs even when not required by regulations, and the need for evidence-based improvements in IRB processes.

The Final Rule: When the Rubber Meets the Road.

The Common Rule originally issued in 1991 and last amended in 2005 is scheduled to be replaced on January 19, 2018 by a revised Common Rule (the final rule). The goal of the revisions is to modernize and improve applicability of the rule to a research landscape that has dramatically changed since 1991. Translating these changes into action will require comprehensive understanding of the final rule and detailed implementation planning by Human Research Protection Programs. This paper presents select changes that require substantial attention; including for example: expansion of the exempt category, changes to continuing review requirements, changes to the informed consent form and the use of single IRBs for domestic multi-site research. In addition, myriad policies, procedures and workflows will have to be developed, drastically rewritten, or just mildly tweaked.

Implementation of Electronic Consent at a Biobank: An Opportunity for Precision Medicine Research.

The purpose of this study is to characterize the potential benefits and challenges of electronic informed consent (eIC) as a strategy for rapidly expanding the reach of large biobanks while reducing costs and potentially enhancing participant engagement. The Partners HealthCare Biobank (Partners Biobank) implemented eIC tools and processes to complement traditional recruitment strategies in June 2014. Since then, the Partners Biobank has rigorously collected and tracked a variety of metrics relating to this novel recruitment method. From June 2014 through January 2016, the Partners Biobank sent email invitations to 184,387 patients at Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital. During the same time period, 7078 patients provided their consent via eIC. The rate of consent of emailed patients was 3.5%, and the rate of consent of patients who log into the eIC website at Partners Biobank was 30%. Banking of biospecimens linked to electronic health records has become a critical element of genomic research and a foundation for the NIH's Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI). eIC is a feasible and potentially game-changing strategy for these large research studies that depend on patient recruitment.

Returning a Research Participant's Genomic Results to Relatives: Analysis and Recommendations.

Genomic research results and incidental findings with health implications for a research participant are of potential interest not only to the participant, but also to the participant's family. Yet investigators lack guidance on return of results to relatives, including after the participant's death. In this paper, a national working group offers consensus analysis and recommendations, including an ethical framework to guide investigators in managing this challenging issue, before and after the participant's death.

Return of Genetic Research Results to Participants and Families: IRB Perspectives and Roles.

We surveyed IRB chairs' perspectives on offering individual genetic research results to participants and families, including family members of deceased participants, and the IRB's role in addressing these issues. Given a particular hypothetical scenario, respondents favored offering results to participants but not family members, giving choices at the time of initial consent, and honoring elicited choices. They felt IRBs should have authority regarding the process issues, but a more limited role in medical and scientific issues.

Canadian Research Ethics Board Leadership Attitudes to the Return of Genetic Research Results to Individuals and Their Families.

Genomic research may uncover results that have direct actionable benefit to the individual. An emerging debate is the degree to which researchers may have responsibility to offer results to the biological relatives of the research participant. In a companion study to one carried out in the United States, we describe the attitudes of Canadian Research Ethics Board (REB) chairs to this issue and their opinions as to the role of the REB in developing related policy.

Harmonization and streamlining of research oversight for pragmatic clinical trials.

The oversight of research involving human participants is a complex process that requires institutional review board review as well as multiple non-institutional review board institutional reviews. This multifaceted process is particularly challenging for multisite research when each site independently completes all required local reviews. The lack of inter-institutional standardization can result in different review outcomes for the same protocol, which can delay study operations from start-up to study completion. Hence, there have been strong calls to harmonize and thus streamline the research oversight process. Although the institutional review board is only one of the required reviews, it is often identified as the target for harmonization and streamlining. Data regarding variability in decision-making and interpretation of the regulations across institutional review boards have led to a perception that variability among institutional review boards is a primary contributor to the problems with review of multisite research. In response, many researchers and policymakers have proposed the use of a single institutional review board of record, also called a central institutional review board, as an important remedy. While this proposal has merit, the use of a central institutional review board for multisite research does not address the larger problem of completing non-institutional review board institutional review in addition to institutional review board review­and coordinating the interdependence of these reviews. In this article, we describe the overall research oversight process, distinguish between institutional review board and institutional responsibilities, and identify challenges and opportunities for harmonization and streamlining. We focus on procedural and organizational issues and presume that the protection of human subjects remains the paramount concern. Suggested modifications of institutional review board processes that focus on time, efficiency, and consistency of review must also address what effect such changes have on the quality of review. We acknowledge that assessment of quality is difficult in that quality metrics for institutional review board review remain elusive. At best, we may be able to assess the time it takes to review protocols and the consistency across institutions.

Global implementation of genomic medicine: We are not alone.

Around the world, innovative genomic-medicine programs capitalize on singular capabilities arising from local health care systems, cultural or political milieus, and unusual selected risk alleles or disease burdens. Such individual efforts might benefit from the sharing of approaches and lessons learned in other locales. The U.S. National Human Genome Research Institute and the National Academy of Medicine recently brought together 25 of these groups to compare projects, to examine the current state of implementation and desired near-term capabilities, and to identify opportunities for collaboration that promote the responsible practice of genomic medicine. Efforts to coalesce these groups around concrete but compelling signature projects should accelerate the responsible implementation of genomic medicine in efforts to improve clinical care worldwide.

Central institutional review board review for an academic trial network.

PROBLEM: Translating discoveries into therapeutics is often delayed by lengthy start-up periods for multicenter clinical trials. One cause of delay can be multiple institutional review board (IRB) reviews of the same protocol. APPROACH: When developing the Network for Excellence in Neuroscience Clinical Trials (NeuroNEXT; hereafter, NN), the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) established a central IRB (CIRB) based at Massachusetts General Hospital, the academic medical center that received the NN clinical coordinating center grant. The 25 NN sites, located at U.S. academic institutions, agreed to required CIRB use for NN trials. OUTCOMES: To delineate roles and establish legal relationships between the NN sites and the CIRB, the CIRB executed reliance agreements with the sites and their affiliates that hold federalwide assurance for the protection of human subjects (FWA); this took, on average, 84 days. The first NN protocol reviewed by the CIRB achieved full approval to allow participant enrollment within 56 days and went from grant award to the first patient visit in less than four months. The authors describe anticipated challenges related to institutional oversight responsibilities versus regulatory CIRB review as well as unanticipated challenges related to working with complex organizations that include multiple FWA-holding affiliates. NEXT STEPS: The authors anticipate that CIRB use will decrease NN trial start-up time and thus promote efficient trial implementation. They plan to collect data on timelines and costs associated with CIRB use. The NINDS plans to promote CIRB use in future initiatives.

Framework for development of physician competencies in genomic medicine: report of the Competencies Working Group of the Inter-Society Coordinating Committee for Physician Education in Genomics.

Completion of the Human Genome Project, in conjunction with dramatic reductions in the cost of DNA sequencing and advances in translational research, is gradually ushering genomic discoveries and technologies into the practice of medicine. The rapid pace of these advances is opening up a gap between the knowledge available about the clinical relevance of genomic information and the ability of clinicians to include such information in their medical practices. This educational gap threatens to be rate limiting to the clinical adoption of genomics in medicine. Solutions will require not only a better understanding of the clinical implications of genetic discoveries but also training in genomics at all levels of professional development, including for individuals in formal training and others who long ago completed such training. The National Human Genome Research Institute has convened the Inter-Society Coordinating Committee for Physician Education in Genomics (ISCC) to develop and share best practices in the use of genomics in medicine. The ISCC has developed a framework for development of genomics practice competencies that may serve as a starting point for formulation of competencies for physicians in various medical disciplines.

Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants: updated guidelines from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group.

In January 2009, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a 28-member multidisciplinary Working Group to update the recommendations of a 2004 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group focused on Guidelines to the Return of Genetic Research Results. Changes in the genetic and societal landscape over the intervening 5 years raise multiple questions and challenges. The group noted the complex issues arising from the fact that technological and bioinformatic progress has made it possible to obtain considerable information on individuals that would not have been possible a decade ago. Although unable to reach consensus on a number of issues, the working group produced 5 recommendations. The working group offers 2 recommendations addressing the criteria necessary to determine when genetic results should and may be returned to study participants, respectively. In addition, it suggests that a time limit be established to limit the duration of obligation of investigators to return genetic research results. The group recommends the creation of a central body, or bodies, to provide guidance on when genetic research results are associated with sufficient risk and have established clinical utility to justify their return to study participants. The final recommendation urges investigators to engage the broader community when dealing with identifiable communities to advise them on the return of aggregate and individual research results. Creation of an entity charged to provide guidance to institutional review boards, investigators, research institutions, and research sponsors would provide rigorous review of available data, promote standardization of study policies regarding return of genetic research results, and enable investigators and study participants to clarify and share expectations for the handling of this increasingly valuable information with appropriate respect for the rights and needs of participants.