A flexible modeling approach for biomarker-based computation of absolute risk of Alzheimer's disease dementia.

INTRODUCTION: As Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers rapidly develop, tools are needed that accurately and effectively communicate risk of AD dementia. METHODS: We analyzed longitudinal data from >10,000 cognitively unimpaired older adults. Five-year risk of AD dementia was modeled using survival analysis. RESULTS: A demographic model was developed and validated on independent data with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for 5-year prediction of AD dementia of 0.79. Clinical and cognitive variables (AUC = 0.79), and apolipoprotein E genotype (AUC = 0.76) were added to the demographic model. We then incorporated the risk computed from the demographic model with hazard ratios computed from independent data for amyloid positron emission tomography status and magnetic resonance imaging hippocampal volume (AUC = 0.84), and for plasma amyloid beta (Aß)42/Aß40 (AUC = 0.82). DISCUSSION: An adaptive tool was developed and validated to compute absolute risks of AD dementia. This approach allows for improved accuracy and communication of AD risk among cognitively unimpaired older adults.

Impact of returning unsolicited genomic results to nongenetic health care providers in the eMERGE III Network.

PURPOSE: As genomic sequencing becomes more common, medically actionable secondary findings will increasingly be returned to health care providers (HCPs), who will be faced with managing the resulting patient care. These findings are generally unsolicited, ie, unrelated to the sequencing indication and/or ordered by another clinician. METHODS: To understand the impact of receiving unsolicited results, we interviewed HCPs who received genomic results for patients enrolled in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Phase III Network, which returned results on >100 actionable genes to eMERGE participants and HCPs. RESULTS: In total, 16 HCPs across 3 eMERGE sites were interviewed about their experience of receiving a positive (likely pathogenic or pathogenic), negative, or variant of uncertain significance result for a patient enrolled in eMERGE Phase III and about managing their patient on the basis of the result. Although unsolicited, HCPs felt responsible for managing the patient's resulting medical care. HCPs indicated that clinical utility depended on the actionability of results, and whereas comfort levels varied, confidence was improved by the availability of subspecialist consults. HCPs were concerned about patient anxiety, insurability, and missing an actionable result in the electronic health record. CONCLUSION: Our findings help inform best practices for return of unsolicited genomic screening findings in the future.

Physicians' perspectives on receiving unsolicited genomic results.

PURPOSE: Physicians increasingly receive genomic test results they did not order, which we term "unsolicited genomic results" (UGRs). We asked physicians how they think such results will affect them and their patients. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with adult and pediatric primary care and subspecialty physicians at four sites affiliated with a large-scale return-of-results project led by the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network. Twenty-five physicians addressed UGRs and (1) perceived need for actionability, (2) impact on patients, (3) health care workflow, (4) return of results process, and (5) responsibility for results. RESULTS: Physicians prioritize actionability of UGRs and the need for clear, evidence-based "paths" for action coupled with clinical decision support (CDS). They identified potential harms to patients including anxiety, false reassurance, and clinical disutility. Clinicians worried about anticipated workflow issues including responding to UGRs and unreimbursed time. They disagreed about who was responsible for responding to UGRs. CONCLUSION: The prospect of receiving UGRs for otherwise healthy patients raises important concerns for physicians. Their responses informed development of an in-depth survey for physicians following return of UGRs. Strategic workflow integration of UGRs will likely be necessary to empower physicians to serve their patients effectively.

Returning Clinically Relevant Research Results to Participants: Guidelines for Investigators and the IRB.

In 2019, the revised Common Rule required informed consent documents for research to include a statement about whether clinically relevant research results would be returned to research participants. While there are national discussions regarding the return of results, these do not provide specific guidance about how institutional review boards (IRBs) should address this issue. Through a year-long process involving IRB staff and leadership, science and bioethics faculty members, community IRB members, and others, Indiana University's human research protection program created a framework that offers a clear categorization of types of results for researchers to consider returning, provides language for informed consent documents, and describes an active but intentionally limited role for the IRB. In this article, we describe this framework and its rationale as a model for other universities and, more generally, as a model for balancing the need to protect human subjects with efforts to limit the burdens on researchers and the IRB.

Assessment of the Needs of Nephrology Divisions to Implement Return of Clinically Significant Research Genetic Results: A Survey of Nephrotic Syndrome Study Network (NEPTUNE) Investigators.

Introduction: There is an increasing need to return genetic testing results to patients with kidney disease who were first genotyped on a research basis. Operationalizing this process in nephrology clinics is challenged by a limited number of genetic providers with whom to partner and a general lack of support services for all clinicians. Methods: We administered a survey in March 2022 to assess the current ability and ongoing needs of nephrology divisions to return clinically significant research genetic results to patients and to implement clinical genetic testing. This survey was distributed to institutions within the Nephrotic Syndrome Study Network (NEPTUNE) as part of the planning process for return of research genetic results to participants with pathogenic variants in Mendelian nephrotic syndrome genes. Results: Twenty-seven of 28 sites (96%) completed the survey. 59% (n = 16) of sites said they could handle return of research genetic results independently, with the rest expressing hesitation about the volume and complexity of patients and the limited resources and access to genetics services. 81% (n = 22) of these institutions did have a genetics clinic and 26% (n = 7) have a nephrology genetics clinic. However, 70% (n = 10) of these clinics have a waiting time over 1 month. 89% of divisions (n = 24) were conducting genetic testing and 96% of those (n = 23) used a kidney multi-gene panel. In 46% of divisions (n = 11), nephrologists were handling logistics of obtaining genetic testing samples themselves. Conclusion: We identified specific areas of support needed for return of clinically significant genetic results from research studies. While the surveyed nephrologists were conducting genetic testing, there were limitations in the support services available. This survey will help guide other research studies that wish to return genetic results to participants and also highlight the need for increasing support to effectively operationalize genetic testing in nephrology clinics.

How do Hispanics/Latinos Perceive and Value the Return of Research Results?

Introduction: Interest in the return of research results has been increasing; however, little is known about how Hispanics/Latinos perceive and value receiving results. This study examined differences among Hispanics/Latinos by education and income in the experience and expectations about the return of research results, perceived value of specific types of information, and the least and most valuable specific information. Method: Retrospective observational design using a cross-sectional national survey sample of Hispanics/Latinos (n = 327). Results: Higher educational attainment was positively associated with the expectation to receive research results, likelihood to participate in research if given study findings, and likelihood to trust researchers if given results. Higher income was positively associated with the perceived value of getting results. Respondents with higher education specifically perceived greater value in information about how lifestyle and genetics affect their risk of disease, how genetics affect how they respond to medications, their ancestry, available clinical trials near them, and how to connect with other study participants. Respondents with higher income perceived greater value in information about how genetics affect their risk of disease and how they respond to medications. Conclusion: The findings offer important insights for planning research initiatives and for developing culturally targeted educational materials for Hispanics/Latinos.

Ethical Issues in Genetics and Infectious Diseases Research: An Interdisciplinary Expert Review.

PURPOSE: Research in genetics and infectious diseases (ID) presents novel configurations of ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSIs) related to the intersection of genetics with public health regulations and the control of transmissible diseases. Such research includes work both in pathogen genetics and on the ways that human genetics affect responses to ID. This paper identifies and systematizes the unique issues at this intersection, based on an interdisciplinary expert review. BASIC PROCEDURES: This paper presents results of a formal issue-spotting exercise among twenty experts in public health, law and genomics, biobanking, genetic epidemiology, ID medicine and public health, philosophy, ethics and ID, ethics and genomics, and law and ID. The focus of the exercise was on the collection, storage, and sharing of genetic information relating to ID. MAIN FINDINGS: The issue-spotting exercise highlighted the following ELSIs: risks in reporting to government authorities, return of individual research results, and resource allocation - each taking on specific configurations based on the balance between public health and individual privacy/protection. PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS: The public health implications of interactions between genomics and ID frame considerations for equity and justice. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, these issues are especially pressing.

Disclosure of individual research results at federally funded Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers.

INTRODUCTION: This study describes practices for disclosing individual research results to participants in Alzheimer's disease research. METHODS: An online survey of clinical core leaders at National Institutes of Health-funded Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers in the United States (response rate: 30/31, 97%) examined return of results practices across nine different types of research results. RESULTS: Most centers had returned consensus research diagnoses (83%) and neuropsychological test results (73%), with fewer having shared amyloid positron emission tomography (43%), tau imaging (10%), or apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype (7%) results. Centers reported having disclosed a mean of 3.1 types of results (standard deviation = 2.1; range 0-8). The most commonly cited reason for disclosure was to inform participants' medical decision-making (88%). Disclosure involved multiple professionals and modalities, with neurologists (87%) and in-person visits (85%) most commonplace. DISCUSSION: Centers varied widely as to whether and how they disclosed research results. Diagnostic and cognitive test results were more commonly returned than genetic or biomarker results.

Unselected Women's Experiences of Receiving Genetic Research Results for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: A Qualitative Study.

Background: Although there is growing consensus that clinically actionable genetic research results should be returned to participants, research on recipients' experiences and best practices for return of research results is scarce. Objective: This study explored how women in a population-based study (lifepool) experience receiving research results about actionable pathogenic variants (PVs) for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) using a two-step notification process with telephone genetic counseling (TGC) support. Methods: We conducted qualitative interviews with lifepool participants with an HBOC PV. We used team-based codebook thematic analysis to develop findings. Findings: Thirty-one women participated (mean age 62.5 years) on average 2.3 years (range 0.3-5.1 years) after result notification. Notification was unexpected but not traumatic and TGC support helped meet women's information and support needs. Notification with referral to a local genetics service empowered women to make informed decisions about personal and familial health. Adaptation to results over time was facilitated by three main processes: seeking information, family communication, and undertaking risk management and/or risk-reducing strategies. Conclusion: Using a two-step notification process to return clinically actionable HBOC PVs from research was well received by women in a population-based study of breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility. Having genetic counseling support with referral to local genetics services in the notification process facilitated women's feelings of empowerment and adaptation to their genetic information over time. These findings build the basis for future methods for the return of actionable genetic research results and population screening.

Communicating 5-Year Risk of Alzheimer's Disease Dementia: Development and Evaluation of Materials that Incorporate Multiple Genetic and Biomarker Research Results.

BACKGROUND: Cognitively normal (CN) older adults participating in Alzheimer's disease (AD) research increasingly ask for their research results-including genetic and neuroimaging findings-to understand their risk of developing AD dementia. AD research results are typically not returned for multiple reasons, including possible psychosocial harms of knowing one is at risk of a highly feared and untreatable disease. OBJECTIVE: We developed materials that convey information about 5-year absolute risk of developing AD dementia based on research results. METHODS: 20 CN older adults who received a research brain MRI result were interviewed regarding their wishes for research results to inform material development (Pilot 1). Following material development, 17 CN older adults evaluated the materials for clarity and acceptability (Pilot 2). All participants were community-dwelling older adults participating in longitudinal studies of aging at a single site. RESULTS: Participants want information on their risk of developing AD dementia to better understand their own health, satisfy curiosity, inform family, and future planning. Some articulated concerns, but the majority wanted to know their risk despite the limitations of information. Participants found the educational materials and results report clear and acceptable, and the majority would want to know their research results after reviewing them. CONCLUSION: These materials will be used in a clinical study examining the psychosocial and cognitive effects of offering research results to a cohort of CN older adults. Future AD research may incorporate the return of complex risk information to CN older adults, and materials are needed to communicate this information.

Predictive Analytics and the Return of "Research" Information to Participants.

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates older adults aged 60+ will double by 2050 with 80% living in low to moderate income countries. As remote research studies supported by digital devices increase separation between researchers and participants, it is important to maintain participant trust. Research participants have expressed an interest in accessing both group and individual level results, which are not readily available. To bridge this gap, we engaged residents of a local continuing care senior housing community (CCSHC) to co-design documents used to convey information about study results. The process informed the refinement of informational materials for communicating scientific research that the CCSHC community considers accessible and meaningful.

The Duty to Look for Incidental Findings in Imaging Research.

Imaging research regularly yields incidental findings that may have personal medical or reproductive decision-making significance to study participants. It is widely assumed that researchers have a moral obligation to disclose at least some kinds of incidental findings to research participants. However, it is also a widely held view that researchers do not have a moral obligation to actively look for abnormalities irrelevant to the aims of their study. This paper challenges that assumption.

Assessing research participant preferences for receiving study results.

INTRODUCTION: Dissemination of results to research participants is largely missing from the practices of most researchers. Few resources exist that describe best practices for disseminating information to this important stakeholder group. METHODS: Four focus groups were conducted with a diverse group of individuals. All participants were part of a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute-funded survey study. Focus groups aimed to identify participants' preferences about receiving research results and their reactions to three different dissemination platforms. RESULTS: Four focus groups with 37 participants were conducted, including: (1) adults with one comorbidity, at least a college education, and high socioeconomic status (SES); (2) adults with one comorbidity, less than a college education, and lower SES; (3) adults with low health literacy and/or numeracy; and (4) Black or African American adults. Participants discussed their preferences for research results delivery and how each of the platforms met those preferences. This included information needs as they relate to content and scope, including a desire to receive both individual and aggregate results, and study summaries. Email, paper, and website were all popular avenues of presentation. Some desired a written summary, and others preferred videos or visual graphics. Importantly, participants emphasized the desire for having a choice in the timing, frequency, and types of results. CONCLUSION: Research participants prefer to receive research results, including study impact and key findings, disseminated to them in an engaging format that allows choice of when and how the information is presented. The results encourage new standards whereby research participants are considered a critical stakeholder group.

Willingness to Participate in a National Precision Medicine Cohort: Attitudes of Chronic Kidney Disease Patients at a Cleveland Public Hospital.

Multiple ongoing, government-funded national efforts longitudinally collect health data and biospecimens for precision medicine research with ascertainment strategies increasingly emphasizing underrepresented groups in biomedical research. We surveyed chronic kidney disease patients from an academic, public integrated tertiary care system in Cleveland, Ohio, to examine local attitudes toward participation in large-scale government-funded studies. Responses (n = 103) indicate the majority (71%) would participate in a hypothetical national precision medicine cohort and were willing to send biospecimens to a national repository and share de-identified data, but <50% of respondents were willing to install a phone app to track personal data. The majority of participants (62%) indicated that return of research results was very important, and the majority (54%) also wanted all of their research-collected health and genetic data returned. Response patterns did not differ by race/ethnicity. Overall, we found high willingness to participate among this Cleveland patient population already participating in a local genetic study. These data suggest that despite common perceptions, subjects from communities traditionally underrepresented in genetic research will participate and agree to store samples and health data in repositories. Furthermore, most participants want return of research results, which will require a plan to provide these data in a secure, accessible, and understandable manner.

Clinical verification of genetic results returned to research participants: findings from a Colon Cancer Family Registry.

BACKGROUND: The extent to which participants act to clinically verify research results is largely unknown. This study examined whether participants who received Lynch syndrome (LS)-related findings pursued researchers' recommendation to clinically verify results with testing performed by a CLIA-certified laboratory. METHODS: The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center site of the multinational Colon Cancer Family Registry offered non-CLIA individual genetic research results to select registry participants (cases and their enrolled relatives) from 2011 to 2013. Participants who elected to receive results were counseled on the importance of verifying results at a CLIA-certified laboratory. Twenty-six (76.5%) of the 34 participants who received genetic results completed 2- and 12-month postdisclosure surveys; 42.3% of these (11/26) participated in a semistructured follow-up interview. RESULTS: Within 12 months of result disclosure, only 4 (15.4%) of 26 participants reported having verified their results in a CLIA-certified laboratory; of these four cases, all research and clinical results were concordant. Reasons for pursuing clinical verification included acting on the recommendation of the research team and informing future clinical care. Those who did not verify results cited lack of insurance coverage and limited perceived personal benefit of clinical verification as reasons for inaction. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest researchers will need to address barriers to seeking clinical verification in order to ensure that the intended benefits of returning genetic research results are realized.