Autoimmune conditions in the World Trade Center general responder cohort: A nested case-control and standardized incidence ratio analysis.

BACKGROUND: The World Trade Center (WTC) general responder cohort (GRC) was exposed to environmental toxins possibly associated with increased risk of developing autoimmune conditions. OBJECTIVES: Two study designs were used to assess incidence and risks of autoimmune conditions in the GRC. METHODS: Three clinically trained professionals established the status of possible GRC cases of autoimmune disorders adhering to diagnostic criteria, supplemented, as needed, by specialists' review of consenting responders' medical records. Nested case-control analyses using conditional logistic regression estimated the risk associated with high WTC exposure (being in the 9/11/2001 dust cloud or ≥median days' response worked) compared with low WTC exposure (all other GRC members'). Four controls were matched to each case on age at case diagnosis (±2 years), sex, race/ethnicity, and year of program enrollment. Sex-specific and sensitivity analyses were performed. GRC age- and sex-adjusted standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were compared with the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP). Complete REP inpatient and outpatient medical records were reviewed by specialists. Conditions meeting standardized criteria on ≥2 visits were classified as REP confirmed cases. RESULTS: Six hundred and twenty-eight responders were diagnosed with autoimmune conditions between 2002 and 2017. In the nested case-control analyses, high WTC exposure was not associated with autoimmune domains and conditions (rheumatologic domain odds ratio [OR] = 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.77, 1.37; rheumatoid arthritis OR = 1.12, 95% CI = 0.70, 1.77). GRC members had lower SIR than REP. Women's risks were generally greater than men's. CONCLUSIONS: The study found no statistically significant increased risk of autoimmune conditions with WTC exposures.

Willingness to participate in genomics research and desire for personal results among underrepresented minority patients: a structured interview study.

Patients from traditionally underrepresented communities need to be involved in discussions around genomics research including attitudes towards participation and receiving personal results. Structured interviews, including open-ended and closed-ended questions, were conducted with 205 patients in an inner-city hospital outpatient clinic: 48 % of participants self-identified as Black or African American, 29 % Hispanic, 10 % White; 49 % had an annual household income of <$20,000. When the potential for personal results to be returned was not mentioned, 82 % of participants were willing to participate in genomics research. Reasons for willingness fell into four themes: altruism; benefit to family members; personal health benefit; personal curiosity and improving understanding. Reasons for being unwilling fell into five themes: negative perception of research; not personally relevant; negative feelings about procedures (e.g., blood draws); practical barriers; and fear of results. Participants were more likely to report that they would participate in genomics research if personal results were offered than if they were not offered (89 vs. 62 % respectively, p < 0.001). Participants were more interested in receiving personal genomic risk results for cancer, heart disease and type 2 diabetes than obesity (89, 89, 91, 80 % respectively, all p < 0.001). The only characteristic consistently associated with interest in receiving personal results was disease-specific worry. There was considerable willingness to participate in and desire for personal results from genomics research in this sample of predominantly low-income, Hispanic and African American patients. When returning results is not practical, or even when it is, alternatively or additionally providing generic information about genomics and health may also be a valuable commodity to underrepresented minority and other populations considering participating in genomics research.

Defining the "community" in community consultation for emergency research: findings from the community VOICES study.

This article explores the application of the concept "community consultation" in the context of emergency medical research. Emergency medicine researchers are permitted, by the World Medical Association regulations and in the United States by U.S. Federal Regulations, to conduct emergency medical research on individuals with a life-threatening condition without obtaining their consent or that of their surrogates if certain conditions are met. Among these conditions is the requirement that researchers observe a number of special protections for the participants, including "community consultation and notification" prior to the initiation of such studies. The term "community" is not defined clearly and the process for conducting community consultations is not specified in these regulations. This study explores the feasibility of conducting community consultation in the context of emergency medical research by examining: research participant's definitions of community in New York, the factors that help shape their definitions of community and the people they would authorize to render participation decisions on their behalves. Findings from this study suggest that participants' definitions of community vary as a function of the purpose of the definition and the demographics of the respondents. Most significantly, this study reveals that although respondents can identify potential spokespersons for their communities, these community spokespersons were rarely identified as those who should have decision-making authority in medical emergencies. Finally, this article explores the implications of these findings for the definition of community as it applies to community consultation for emergency medical research.

Research without consent: community perspectives from the Community VOICES Study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore community attitudes toward the federal regulations that allow investigators to conduct emergency research without obtaining informed consent from participants. METHODS: Focus-group participants were recruited from residential sites in New York City that were enrolled in the Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) Trial. The PAD Trial, a National Institutes of Health-funded, randomized trial in which laypersons were trained to treat cardiac arrest, was granted an exception from informed consent under these rules. Community residents and those who had been trained as lay responders in the PAD Trial were asked about the ethical issues raised by the conduct of research without consent (RWC), their definition of community, and appropriate methods of community consultation regarding RWC studies. Grounded theory content analyses were conducted on focus-group data. RESULTS: Seventeen (40%) men and 25 (60%) women from 15 buildings participated in six focus groups: four in English; two in Spanish. Definitions of "community" varied widely among and across groups; no strategy for community consultation was consistently endorsed by the participants. There were significant support and occasional adamant opposition to conducting RWC; participants often recounted specific personal experiences as the basis for both positive and negative opinions. Individuals with negative attitudes toward RWC often voiced strong support for specific RWC scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: There is no consensus regarding the definition of "community" or appropriate methods of consultation. Community members' attitudes toward RWC are often shaped by their personal experiences, and their general attitudes often differ from their reactions to specific RWC protocols.