Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 61
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Eur J Hum Genet ; 2020 May 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32424322

RESUMO

There is growing impetus to include measures of personal utility, the nonmedical value of information, in addition to clinical utility in health technology assessment (HTA) of genomic tests such as genomic sequencing (GS). However, personal utility and clinical utility are challenging to define and measure. This study aimed to explore what drives patients' preferences for hypothetically learning medically actionable and non-medically actionable secondary findings (SF), capturing clinical and personal utility; this may inform development of measures to evaluate patient outcomes following return of SF. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with adults with a personal or family cancer history participating in a trial of a decision aid for selection of SF from genomic sequencing (GS) (www.GenomicsADvISER.com). Interviews were analyzed thematically using constant comparison. Preserving health-related and non-health-related quality of life was an overarching motivator for both learning and not learning SF. Some participants perceived that learning SF would help them "have a good quality of life" through informing actions to maintain physical health or leading to psychological benefits such as emotional preparation for disease. Other participants preferred not to learn SF because results "could ruin your quality of life," such as by causing negative psychological impacts. Measuring health-related and non-health-related quality of life may capture outcomes related to clinical and personal utility of GS and SF, which have previously been challenging to measure. Without appropriate measures, generating and synthesizing evidence to evaluate genomic technologies such as GS will continue to be a challenge, and will undervalue potential benefits of GS and SF.

2.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32383420

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: While involving patients in health technology assessment (HTA) has become increasingly common and important around the world, little is known about the optimal methods of evaluating patients' involvement (PI) in HTA. This scoping review was undertaken to provide an overview of currently available methods for the evaluation of PI, specifically the impact of PI on HTA recommendations. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using nine databases as well as a grey literature search of the websites of 26 organizations related to the conduct, practice or research of HTA to identify articles, reports and abstracts related to the evaluation of PI impact in HTA. RESULTS: We identified 1,248 unique citations, six of which met our eligibility criteria. These six records (five articles, and one report) were all published after 2012. Four assessed the impact of patient experience submissions on final HTA recommendations; one evaluated the impact of direct involvement on HTA committees, and one assessed impact of multiple forms of involvement. Methods of evaluation included quantitative analyses of reimbursement decisions, qualitative interviews with those directly involved in an assessment, surveys of patient groups and committee members, and the review of HTA reports. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative evaluation of PI based on associations with funding decisions may not be feasible or fully capture the relevant impact of PI in the assessment of health technologies. Rather, a combination of both qualitative and quantitative strategies may allow for the most comprehensive assessment of the impact of PI on HTA recommendations when possible.

4.
Eur J Hum Genet ; 2019 Dec 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31804631

RESUMO

Genome sequencing (GS) studies involving healthy children can advance scientific knowledge of genetic variation. Little research has examined primary care providers' views on using GS in this context. This study explored primary care provider perspectives on the use of GS in research and the care of healthy children. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 16 providers discussing their views on GS research and receiving results. Interviews were analyzed by thematic analysis and constant comparison. Participants were family physicians (11/16) and primary care pediatricians (5/16) in practice for >10 years (11/16). Participants valued GS in healthy children for research purposes; however, opinions diverged on using the results in primary care. Proponents valued using results for surveillance and prevention in healthy children. Skeptics questioned the clinical utility of results and the appropriateness of applying research data in primary care. Both groups shared concerns over opportunistic screening, validity, and interpretation of results, increased health system costs and inequities, and genetic discrimination. Primary care providers were ambivalent about the appropriateness and utility of GS in the care of healthy children. Providers feel unprepared and unsure of their obligations in disclosing these results. Providers do not feel they are equipped with the necessary resources and training to support their patients in using GS results in their care.

5.
Genet Med ; 2019 Dec 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31822848

RESUMO

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER (www.genomicsadviser.com) decision aid (DA) for selection of secondary findings (SF), compared with genetic counseling alone. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to evaluate whether the Genomics ADvISER is superior to genetic counseling when hypothetically selecting SF. Participants were randomized to use the DA followed by discussion with a genetic counselor, or to genetic counseling alone. Surveys were administered at baseline and post-intervention. Primary outcome was decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes were knowledge, preparation for, and satisfaction with decision-making, anxiety, and length of counseling session. RESULTS: Participants (n = 133) were predominantly White/European (74%), female (90%), and ≥50 years old (60%). Decisional conflict (mean difference 0.05; P = 0.60), preparation for decision-making (0.17; P = 0.95), satisfaction with decision (-2.18; P = 0.06), anxiety (0.72; P = 0.56), and knowledge of sequencing limitations (0.14; P = 0.70) did not significantly differ between groups. However, intervention participants had significantly higher knowledge of SF (0.39; P < 0.001) and sequencing benefits (0.97; P = 0.01), and significantly shorter counseling time (24.40 minutes less; P < 0.001) CONCLUSIONS: The Genomics ADvISER did not decrease decisional conflict but reduced counseling time and improved knowledge. This decision aid could serve as an educational tool, reducing in-clinic time and potentially health care costs.

6.
BMJ Open ; 9(10): e031092, 2019 Oct 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31594892

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Genomic sequencing has rapidly transitioned into clinical practice, improving diagnosis and treatment options for patients with hereditary disorders. However, large-scale implementation of genomic sequencing faces challenges, especially with regard to the return of incidental results, which refer to genetic variants uncovered during testing that are unrelated to the primary disease under investigation, but of potential clinical significance. High-quality evidence evaluating health outcomes and costs of receiving incidental results is critical for the adoption of genomic sequencing into clinical care and to understand the unintended consequences of adoption of genomic sequencing. We aim to evaluate the health outcomes and costs of receiving incidental results for patients undergoing genomic sequencing. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will compare health outcomes and costs of receiving, versus not receiving, incidental results for adult patients with cancer undergoing genomic sequencing in a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial. Two hundred and sixty patients who have previously undergone first or second-tier genetic testing for cancer and received uninformative results will be recruited from familial cancer clinics in Toronto, Ontario. Participants in both arms will receive cancer-related results. Participants in the intervention arm have the option to receive incidental results. Our primary outcome is psychological distress at 2 weeks following return of results. Secondary outcomes include behavioural consequences, clinical and personal utility assessed over the 12 months after results are returned and health service use and costs at 12 months and 5 years. A subset of participants and providers will complete qualitative interviews about utility of incidental results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Research Ethics Review System that provides ethical review and oversight for multiple sites participating in the same clinical trial in Ontario.Results from the trial will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences, and peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03597165.

7.
CRISPR J ; 2(5): 331-339, 2019 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31599688

RESUMO

Gene-editing technologies have improved in ease, efficiency, and precision. Although discussions are occurring around acceptable uses of human gene editing, limited data exist on the views of genetics-trained individuals. In 2017, we distributed an anonymous online survey to assess the attitudes of members of genetics professional societies toward gene editing (N = 500). Virtually all respondents were supportive of somatic editing in basic-science (99.2%) and clinical (87.4%) research on nonreproductive human cells. Only 57.2% were supportive of germline-editing basic-science research; 31.9% supported the transfer of viable embryos to humans for clinical research. While most favored future therapeutic uses of somatic (96.6%) and germline (77.8%) editing, there was little support for enhancement in somatic (13.0%) or germline (8.6%) cells. This study describes attitudes toward gene editing from genetics professionals worldwide and contributes to ongoing discourse and policy guidance in this domain.

8.
Per Med ; 16(4): 337-350, 2019 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31331245

RESUMO

Gene-editing techniques have progressed rapidly in the past 5 years. There are already ongoing human somatic gene-editing clinical trials for multiple diseases. And there has been one purported scenario of human germline gene editing in late 2018. In this paper, we will review the current state of the technology, discuss the ethical and social issues that surround the various forms of gene editing, as well as review emerging stakeholder data from professionals, the 'general public' and individuals and families dealing with genetic diseases potentially treatable by gene editing.

9.
Genet Med ; 21(10): 2406-2407, 2019 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31043710

RESUMO

In the original version of this Article, the affiliation details for Drs. Jordan Lerner-Ellis and George Charames did not include the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at the University of Toronto. In addition, Drs. Jordan Lerner-Ellis and George Charames were incorrectly affiliated with the Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation at the University of Toronto. These errors have now been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.

10.
Genet Med ; 21(10): 2248-2254, 2019 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30971832

RESUMO

PURPOSE: To report BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) variant reassessments and reclassifications between 2012 and 2017 at the Advanced Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory (AMDL) in Toronto, Canada, which provides BRCA1/2 testing for patients in Ontario, and to compare AMDL variant classifications with submissions in ClinVar. METHODS: Variants were assessed using a standardized variant assessment tool based on the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Molecular Pathology's guidelines and tracked in an in-house database. Variants were shared through the Canadian Open Genetics Repository and submitted to ClinVar for comparison against other laboratories. RESULTS: AMDL identified 1209 BRCA1/2 variants between 2012 and 2017. During this period, 32.9% (398/1209) of variants were reassessed and 12.4% (150/1209) were reclassified. The majority of reclassified variants were downgraded (112/150, 74.7%). Of the reclassified variants, 63.3% (95/150) were reclassified to benign, 20.7% (31/150) to likely benign, 10.0% (15/150) to variant of uncertain significance, 2.0% (3/150) to likely pathogenic, and 4.0% (6/150) to pathogenic. Discordant ClinVar submissions were found for 40.4% (488/1209) of variants. CONCLUSION: BRCA1/2 variants may be reclassified over time. Reclassification presents ethical and practical challenges related to recontacting patients. Data sharing is essential to improve variant interpretation, to help patients receive appropriate care based on their genetic results.

11.
Am J Hum Genet ; 104(4): 578-595, 2019 04 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30951675

RESUMO

The evidence base supporting genetic and genomic sequence-variant interpretations is continuously evolving. An inherent consequence is that a variant's clinical significance might be reinterpreted over time as new evidence emerges regarding its pathogenicity or lack thereof. This raises ethical, legal, and financial issues as to whether there is a responsibility to recontact research participants to provide updates on reinterpretations of variants after the initial analysis. There has been discussion concerning the extent of this obligation in the context of both research and clinical care. Although clinical recommendations have begun to emerge, guidance is lacking on the responsibilities of researchers to inform participants of reinterpreted results. To respond, an American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) workgroup developed this position statement, which was approved by the ASHG Board in November 2018. The workgroup included representatives from the National Society of Genetic Counselors, the Canadian College of Medical Genetics, and the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors. The final statement includes twelve position statements that were endorsed or supported by the following organizations: Genetic Alliance, European Society of Human Genetics, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, American Association of Anthropological Genetics, Executive Committee of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Canadian College of Medical Genetics, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, and National Society of Genetic Counselors.


Assuntos
Dever de Recontatar , Responsabilidade pela Informação/legislação & jurisprudência , Testes Genéticos/normas , Genética Médica/normas , Genômica/normas , Austrália , Canadá , Ética em Pesquisa , Europa (Continente) , Genética Médica/educação , Genética Médica/ética , Humanos , Responsabilidade Legal , Sujeitos da Pesquisa , Sociedades Médicas , Estados Unidos
13.
Eur J Hum Genet ; 27(7): 1008-1017, 2019 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30846854

RESUMO

Guidelines recommend that providers engage patients in shared decision-making about receiving incidental results (IR) prior to genomic sequencing (GS), but this can be time-consuming, given the myriad of IR and variation in patients' preferences. We aimed to develop patient profiles to inform pre-test counseling for IR. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants as a part of a randomized trial of the GenomicsADvISER.com, a decision aid for selecting IR. Interviews explored factors participants considered when deliberating over learning IR. Interviews were analyzed by thematic analysis and constant comparison. Participants were mostly female (28/31) and about half of them were over the age of 50 (16/31). We identified five patient profiles that reflect common contextual factors, attitudes, concerns, and perceived utility of IR. Information Enthusiasts self-identified as "planners" and valued learning most or all IR to enable planning and disease prevention because "knowledge is power". Concerned Individuals defined themselves as "anxious," and were reluctant to learn IR, anticipating negative psychological impacts from IR. Contemplators were discerning about the value and limitations of IR, weighing health benefits with the impacts of not being able to "un-know" information. Individuals of Advanced Life Stage did not consider IR relevant for themselves and primarily considered their implications for family members. Reassurance Seekers were reassured by previous negative genetic test results which shaped their expectations for receiving no IR: "hopefully [GS will] be negative, too. And then I can rest easy". These profiles could inform targeted counseling for IR by providing a framework to address common values, concerns. and misconceptions.

14.
Genet Med ; 21(2): 498-504, 2019 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29895853

RESUMO

Diagnostic genome-wide sequencing (exome or genome sequencing and data analysis for high-penetrance disease-causing variants) in acutely ill infants appears to be clinically useful, but the value of this diagnostic test should be rigorously demonstrated before it is accepted as a standard of care. This white paper was developed by the Paediatric Task Team of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health's Regulatory and Ethics Work Stream to address the question of how we can determine the clinical value of genome-wide sequencing in infants in an intensive care setting. After reviewing available clinical and ethics literature on this question, we conclude that evaluating diagnostic genome-wide sequencing as a comprehensive scan for major genetic disease (rather than as a large panel of single-gene tests) provides a practical approach to assessing its clinical value in acutely ill infants. Comparing the clinical value of diagnostic genome-wide sequencing to chromosomal microarray analysis, the current evidence-based standard of care, per case of serious genetic disease diagnosed provides a practical means of assessing clinical value. Scientifically rigorous studies of this kind are needed to determine if clinical genome-wide sequencing should be established as a standard of care supported by healthcare systems and insurers for diagnosis of genetic disease in seriously ill newborn infants.


Assuntos
Testes Diagnósticos de Rotina , Testes Genéticos , Doenças do Recém-Nascido/genética , Terapia Intensiva Neonatal , Sequenciamento Completo do Genoma , Doença Aguda , Humanos , Lactente , Recém-Nascido , Doenças do Recém-Nascido/diagnóstico , Penetrância
16.
Implement Sci ; 13(1): 98, 2018 07 26.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30045735

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: To identify the strategies and contextual factors that enable optimal engagement of patients in the design, delivery, and evaluation of health services. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus, PsychINFO, Social Science Abstracts, EBSCO, and ISI Web of Science from 1990 to 2016 for empirical studies addressing the active participation of patients, caregivers, or families in the design, delivery and evaluation of health services to improve quality of care. Thematic analysis was used to identify (1) strategies and contextual factors that enable optimal engagement of patients, (2) outcomes of patient engagement, and (3) patients' experiences of being engaged. RESULTS: Forty-eight studies were included. Strategies and contextual factors that enable patient engagement were thematically grouped and related to techniques to enhance design, recruitment, involvement and leadership action, and those aimed to creating a receptive context. Reported outcomes ranged from educational or tool development and informed policy or planning documents (discrete products) to enhanced care processes or service delivery and governance (care process or structural outcomes). The level of engagement appears to influence the outcomes of service redesign-discrete products largely derived from low-level engagement (consultative unidirectional feedback)-whereas care process or structural outcomes mainly derived from high-level engagement (co-design or partnership strategies). A minority of studies formally evaluated patients' experiences of the engagement process (n = 12; 25%). While most experiences were positive-increased self-esteem, feeling empowered, or independent-some patients sought greater involvement and felt that their involvement was important but tokenistic, especially when their requests were denied or decisions had already been made. CONCLUSIONS: Patient engagement can inform patient and provider education and policies, as well as enhance service delivery and governance. Additional evidence is needed to understand patients' experiences of the engagement process and whether these outcomes translate into improved quality of care. REGISTRATION: N/A (data extraction completed prior to registration on PROSPERO).


Assuntos
Participação do Paciente , Melhoria de Qualidade , Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde , Tomada de Decisões , Humanos
18.
BMJ Open ; 8(4): e021876, 2018 04 26.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29700101

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Genome sequencing, a novel genetic diagnostic technology that analyses the billions of base pairs of DNA, promises to optimise healthcare through personalised diagnosis and treatment. However, implementation of genome sequencing faces challenges including the lack of consensus on disclosure of incidental results, gene changes unrelated to the disease under investigation, but of potential clinical significance to the patient and their provider. Current recommendations encourage clinicians to return medically actionable incidental results and stress the importance of education and informed consent. Given the shortage of genetics professionals and genomics expertise among healthcare providers, decision aids (DAs) can help fill a critical gap in the clinical delivery of genome sequencing. We aim to assess the effectiveness of an interactive DA developed for selection of incidental results. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will compare the DA in combination with a brief Q&A session with a genetic counsellor to genetic counselling alone in a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial. Patients who received negative standard cancer genetic results for their personal and family history of cancer and are thus eligible for sequencing will be recruited from cancer genetics clinics in Toronto. Our primary outcome is decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes are knowledge, satisfaction, preparation for decision-making, anxiety and length of session with the genetic counsellor. A subset of participants will complete a qualitative interview about preferences for incidental results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by research ethics boards of St. Michael's Hospital, Mount Sinai Hospital and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. This research poses no significant risk to participants. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a novel patient-centred tool to support clinical delivery of incidental results. Results will be shared through national and international conferences, and at a stakeholder workshop to develop a consensus statement to optimise implementation of the DA in practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03244202; Pre-results.


Assuntos
Técnicas de Apoio para a Decisão , Aconselhamento Genético , Achados Incidentais , Adolescente , Adulto , Aconselhamento , Tomada de Decisões , Genômica , Humanos , Consentimento Livre e Esclarecido , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto
19.
Eur J Hum Genet ; 26(7): 984-995, 2018 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29703952

RESUMO

Guidelines recommend patients be informed of their incidental results (IR) when undergoing genomic sequencing (GS), yet there are limited tools to support patients' decisions about learning IR. The aim of this study is to develop and test the usability of a decision aid (DA) to guide patients' selection of IR, and to describe patients' preferences for learning IR following use of the DA. We developed and evaluated a DA using an iterative, mixed-methods process consisting of (1) prototype development, (2) feasibility testing, (3) cognitive interviews, (4) design and programming, and (5) usability testing. We created an interactive online DA called the Genomics ADvISER, a genomics decision AiD about Incidental SEquencing Results. The Genomics ADvISER begins with an educational whiteboard video, and then engages users in a values clarification exercise, knowledge quiz and final choice step, based on a 'binning' framework. Participants found the DA acceptable and intuitive to use. They were enthusiastic towards GS and IR; all selected multiple categories of IR. The Genomics ADvISER is a new patient-centered tool to support the clinical delivery of incidental GS results. The Genomics ADvISER fills critical care gaps, given the health care system's limited genomics expertise and capacity to convey the large volume of IR and their myriad of implications.


Assuntos
Tomada de Decisões , Genômica/tendências , Software , Interface Usuário-Computador , Técnicas de Apoio para a Decisão , Humanos , Preferência do Paciente
20.
CMAJ ; 190(5): E126-E136, 2018 02 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29431110

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The Personal Genome Project Canada is a comprehensive public data resource that integrates whole genome sequencing data and health information. We describe genomic variation identified in the initial recruitment cohort of 56 volunteers. METHODS: Volunteers were screened for eligibility and provided informed consent for open data sharing. Using blood DNA, we performed whole genome sequencing and identified all possible classes of DNA variants. A genetic counsellor explained the implication of the results to each participant. RESULTS: Whole genome sequencing of the first 56 participants identified 207 662 805 sequence variants and 27 494 copy number variations. We analyzed a prioritized disease-associated data set (n = 1606 variants) according to standardized guidelines, and interpreted 19 variants in 14 participants (25%) as having obvious health implications. Six of these variants (e.g., in BRCA1 or mosaic loss of an X chromosome) were pathogenic or likely pathogenic. Seven were risk factors for cancer, cardiovascular or neurobehavioural conditions. Four other variants - associated with cancer, cardiac or neurodegenerative phenotypes - remained of uncertain significance because of discrepancies among databases. We also identified a large structural chromosome aberration and a likely pathogenic mitochondrial variant. There were 172 recessive disease alleles (e.g., 5 individuals carried mutations for cystic fibrosis). Pharmacogenomics analyses revealed another 3.9 potentially relevant genotypes per individual. INTERPRETATION: Our analyses identified a spectrum of genetic variants with potential health impact in 25% of participants. When also considering recessive alleles and variants with potential pharmacologic relevance, all 56 participants had medically relevant findings. Although access is mostly limited to research, whole genome sequencing can provide specific and novel information with the potential of major impact for health care.


Assuntos
Variação Genética/genética , Genoma Humano/genética , Análise de Sequência de DNA/métodos , Sequenciamento Completo do Genoma/métodos , Canadá , Feminino , Genes Recessivos/genética , Predisposição Genética para Doença/genética , Humanos , Masculino
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA