Search

Genetic researchers' selection of a database can have scientific, regulatory, and ethical implications. It is important to understand what is driving database selection such that database stewards can be responsive to user needs while balancing the interests of communities in equitably benefiting from advances.We conducted 23 semistructured interviews with US academic genetic researchers working with private, government, and collaboratory data stewards to explore factors that they consider when selecting a genetic database.Interviewees used existing databases to avoid burdens of primary data collection, which was described as expensive and time-consuming. They highlighted ease of access as the most important selection factor, integrating concepts of familiarity and efficiency. Data features, such as size and available phenotype, were also important. Demographic diversity was not originally cited by any interviewee as a pivotal factor; when probed, most stated that the option to consider diversity in database selection was limited. Database features, including integrity, harmonization, and storage were also described as key components of efficient use.There is a growing market and competition between genetic data stewards. Data need to be accessible, harmonized, and administratively supported for their existence to be translated into use and, in turn, result in scientific advancements across diverse communities.

Recent advancements in gene-targeted therapies have highlighted the critical role data sharing plays in successful translational drug development for people with rare diseases. To scale these efforts, we need to systematize these sharing principles, creating opportunities for more rapid, efficient, and scalable drug discovery/testing including long-term and transparent assessment of clinical safety and efficacy. A number of challenges will need to be addressed, including the logistical difficulties of studying rare diseases affecting individuals who may be scattered across the globe, scientific, technical, regulatory, and ethical complexities of data collection, and harmonization and integration across multiple platforms and contexts. The NCATS/NIH Gene-Targeted Therapies: Early Diagnosis and Equitable Delivery meeting series held during June 2021 included data sharing models that address these issues and framed discussions of areas that require improvement. This article describes these discussions and provides a series of considerations for future data sharing.

Background: Routine genome-wide screening for cardiovascular disease risk may inform clinical decision-making. However, little is known about whether clinicians and patients would find such testing useful or acceptable within the context of a genomics-enabled learning health system. Methods: We conducted surveys with patients and their clinicians who were participating in the HeartCare Study, a precision cardiology care project that returned results from a next-generation sequencing panel of 158 genes associated with cardiovascular disease risk. Six weeks after return of results, we assessed patients’ and clinicians’ perceived utility and disutility of HeartCare, the effect of the test on clinical recommendations, and patients’ attitudes toward integration of research and clinical care. Results: Among 666 HeartCare patients with a result returned during the survey study period, 42.0% completed a full or partial survey. Patient-participants who completed a full survey (n=224) generally had positive perceptions of HeartCare independent of whether they received a positive or negative result. Most patient-participants considered genetic testing for cardiovascular disease risk to have more benefit than risk (88.3%) and agreed that it provided information that they wanted to know (81.2%), while most disagreed that the test caused them to feel confused (77.7%) or overwhelmed (78.0%). For 122 of their patients with positive results, clinicians (n=13) reported making changes in clinical care for 66.4% of patients, recommending changes in health behaviors for 36.9% of patients, and recommending to 33.6% of patients that their family members have clinical testing. Conclusions: Both patients and clinicians thought the HeartCare panel screen for cardiovascular disease risk provided information that was useful in terms of personal or health benefits to the patient and that informed clinical care without causing patients to be confused or overwhelmed. Further research is needed to assess perceptions of genome-wide screening among the US cardiology clinic population.

Much emphasis has been placed on participant's psychological safety within genomic research studies; however, few studies have addressed parental psychological health effects associated with their child's participation in genomic studies, particularly when parents meet the threshold for clinical concern for depression. We aimed to determine if parents' depressive symptoms were associated with their child's participation in a randomized-controlled trial of newborn exome sequencing. Parents completed the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) at baseline, immediately post-disclosure, and 3 months post-disclosure. Mothers and fathers scoring at or above thresholds for clinical concern on the EPDS, 12 and 10, respectively, indicating possible Major Depressive Disorder with Peripartum Onset, were contacted by study staff for mental health screening. Parental concerns identified in follow-up conversations were coded for themes. Forty-five parents had EPDS scores above the clinical threshold at baseline, which decreased by an average of 2.9 points immediately post-disclosure and another 1.1 points 3 months post-disclosure (both p ≤ .014). For 28 parents, EPDS scores were below the threshold for clinical concern at baseline, increased by an average of 4.7 points into the elevated range immediately post-disclosure, and decreased by 3.8 points at 3 months post-disclosure (both p < .001). Nine parents scored above thresholds only at 3 months post-disclosure after increasing an average of 5.7 points from immediately post-disclosure (p < .001). Of the 82 parents who scored above the threshold at any time point, 43 (52.4%) were reached and 30 (69.7%) of these 43 parents attributed their elevated scores to parenting stress, balancing work and family responsibilities, and/or child health concerns. Only three parents (7.0%) raised concerns about their participation in the trial, particularly their randomization to the control arm. Elevated scores on the EPDS were typically transient and parents attributed their symptomatology to life stressors in the postpartum period rather than participation in a trial of newborn exome sequencing.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Successful clinical integration of genomic sequencing (GS) requires evidence of its utility. While GS potentially has benefits (utilities) or harms (disutilities) across multiple domains of life for both patients and their families, there is yet no empirically informed conceptual model of these effects. Our objective was to develop an empirically informed conceptual model of perceived utility of GS that captures utilities and disutilities for patients and their families across diverse backgrounds. METHODS: We took a patient-centered approach in which we began with a review of existing literature followed by collection of primary interview data. We conducted semi-structured interviews to explore types of utility in a clinically and sociopolitically diverse sample of 60 adults from seven Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium projects. Interviewees had either personally received, or were parents of a child who had received, GS results. Qualitative data was analysed using thematic analysis. Findings from interviews were integrated with existing literature on clinical and personal utility to form the basis of an initial conceptual model that was refined based on expert review and feedback. RESULTS: Five key utility types that have been previously identified in qualitative literature held up as primary domains of utility and disutility in our diverse sample. Interview data were used to specify and organize subdomains of an initial conceptual model. After expert refinement, the five primary domains included in the final model are: clinical, emotional, behavioral, cognitive, and social, and several sub-domains are specified within each. CONCLUSION: We present an empirically-informed conceptual model of perceived utility of GS. This model can be used to guide development of instruments for patient-centered outcome measurement that capture the range of relevant utilities and disutilities and inform clinical implementation of GS.

PURPOSE The use of genomic sequencing (GS) in military settings poses unique considerations, including the potential for GS to impact service members' careers. The MilSeq Project investigated the use of GS in clinical care of active duty Airmen in the United States Air Force (USAF). METHODS We assessed perceived risks, benefits, and attitudes toward use of GS in the USAF among patient participants (n = 93) and health-care provider participants (HCPs) (n = 12) prior to receiving or disclosing GS results. RESULTS Participants agreed that there are health benefits associated with GS (90% patients, 75% HCPs), though more HCPs (75%) than patients (40%) agreed that there are risks (p = 0.048). The majority of both groups (67% HCPs, 77% patients) agreed that they trust the USAF with genetic information, but far fewer agreed that genetic information should be used to make decisions about deployment (5% patients, 17% HCPs) or duty assignments (3% patients, 17% HCPs). Despite their hesitancy, patients were supportive of the USAF testing for nondisease traits that could impact their duty performance. Eighty-seven percent of patients did not think their GS results would influence their career. CONCLUSION Results suggest favorable attitudes toward the use of GS in the USAF when not used for deployment or assignment decisions.

Genomic citizen science initiatives that promote public involvement in the study or manipulation of genetic information are flourishing. These initiatives are diverse and range from data donation studies, to biological experimentation conducted in home and community laboratories, to self-experimentation. Understanding the values that citizen scientists associate with their activities and communities can be useful to policy development for citizen science. Here, we report values-relevant data from qualitative interviews with 38 stakeholders in genomic citizen science. Applying a theoretical framework that describes values as transcendent beliefs about desirable end states or behaviors that can be categorized according to the motivational goals they express and the interests they serve, we identified nine core values of genomic citizen science: altruism, autonomy, fun, inclusivity, openness, reciprocity, respect, safety, and solidarity.

Direct to consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription drugs has increased dramatically in the past two decades. The effect of this increase in advertising on the frequency of inappropriate prescribing is poorly understood, as are the factors that may underly inappropriate prescribing. A review of existing observational and experimental studies that address advertising-related prescription requests and contain some measure of prescription appropriateness demonstrate that DTCA increases prescription requests, increases the likelihood of prescription, and increases both appropriate and inappropriate prescribing. Patient expectations, insufficient information sharing, and patient satisfaction surveys are proposed contributors to potentially inappropriate prescribing in response to DTCA.

In celebration of the 20th anniversary of Nature Reviews Genetics, we asked 12 leading researchers to reflect on the key challenges and opportunities faced by the field of genetics and genomics. Keeping their particular research area in mind, they take stock of the current state of play and emphasize the work that remains to be done over the next few years so that, ultimately, the benefits of genetic and genomic research can be felt by everyone., To celebrate the first 20 years of Nature Reviews Genetics, we asked 12 leading scientists to reflect on the key challenges and opportunities faced by the field of genetics and genomics., The contributors Amy L. McGuire is the Leon Jaworski Professor of Biomedical Ethics and Director of the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine. She has received numerous teaching awards at Baylor College of Medicine, was recognized by the Texas Executive Women as a Woman on the Move in 2016 and was invited to give a TedMed talk titled “There is No Genome for the Human Spirit” in 2014. In 2020, she was elected as a Hastings Center Fellow. Her research focuses on ethical and policy issues related to emerging technologies, with a particular focus on genomic research, personalized medicine and the clinical integration of novel neurotechnologies. Stacey Gabriel is the Senior Director of the Genomics Platform at the Broad Institute since 2012 and has led platform development, execution and operation since its founding. She is Chair of Institute Scientists and serves on the institute’s executive leadership team. She is widely recognized as a leader in genomic technology and project execution. She has led the Broad’s contributions to numerous flagship projects in human genetics, including the International HapMap Project, the 1000 Genomes Project, The Cancer Genome Atlas, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Exome Sequencing Project and the TOPMed programme. She is Principal Investigator of the Broad’s All of Us (AoU) Genomics Center and serves on the AoU Program Steering Committee. Sarah A. Tishkoff is the David and Lyn Silfen University Associate Professor in Genetics and Biology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA, and holds appointments in the School of Medicine and the School of Arts and Sciences. She is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences and a recipient of an NIH Pioneer Award, a David and Lucile Packard Career Award, a Burroughs/Wellcome Fund Career Award and an American Society of Human Genetics Curt Stern Award. Her work focuses on genomic variation in Africa, human evolutionary history, the genetic basis of adaptation and phenotypic variation in Africa, and the genetic basis of susceptibility to infectious disease in Africa. Ambroise Wonkam is Professor of Medical Genetics, Director of GeneMAP (Genetic Medicine of African Populations Research Centre) and Deputy Dean Research in the Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, South Africa. He has successfully led numerous NIH- and Wellcome Trust-funded projects over the past decade to investigate clinical variability in sickle cell disease, hearing impairment genetics and the return of individual findings in genetic research in Africa. He won the competitive Clinical Genetics Society International Award for 2014 from the British Society of Genetic Medicine. He is president of the African Society of Human Genetics. Aravinda Chakravarti is Director of the Center for Human Genetics and Genomics, the Muriel G. and George W. Singer Professor of Neuroscience and Physiology, and Professor of Medicine at New York University School of Medicine. He is an elected member of the US National Academy of Sciences, the US National Academy of Medicine and the Indian National Science Academy. He has been a key participant in the Human Genome Project, the International HapMap Project and the 1000 Genomes Project. His research attempts to understand the molecular basis of multifactorial disease. He was awarded the 2013 William Allan Award by the American Society of Human Genetics and the 2018 Chen Award by the Human Genome Organization. Eileen E. M. Furlong is Head of the Genome Biology Department at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) and a member of the EMBL Directorate. She is an elected member of the European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO) and the Academia Europaea, and a European Research Council (ERC) advanced investigator. Her group dissects fundamental principles of how the genome is regulated and how it drives cell fate decisions during embryonic development, including how developmental enhancers are organized and function within the 3D nucleus. Her work combines genetics, (single-cell) genomics, imaging and computational approaches to understand these processes. Her research has advanced the development of genomic methods for use in complex multicellular organisms. Barbara Treutlein is Associate Professor of Quantitative Developmental Biology in the Department of Biosystems Science and Engineering of ETH Zurich in Basel, Switzerland. Her group uses and develops single-cell genomics approaches in combination with stem cell-based 2D and 3D culture systems to study how human organs develop and regenerate and how cell fate is regulated. For her work, Barbara has received multiple awards, including the Friedmund Neumann Prize of the Schering Foundation, the Dr. Susan Lim Award for Outstanding Young Investigator of the International Society of Stem Cell Research and the EMBO Young Investigator Award. Alexander Meissner is a scientific member of the Max Planck Society and currently Managing Director of the Max Planck Institute (MPI) for Molecular Genetics in Berlin, Germany. He heads the Department of Genome Regulation and is a visiting scientist in the Department of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology at Harvard University. Before his move to the MPI, he was a tenured professor at Harvard University and a senior associate member of the Broad Institute, where he co-directed the epigenomics programme. In 2018, he was elected as an EMBO member. His laboratory uses genomic tools to study developmental and disease biology with a particular focus on epigenetic regulation. Howard Y. Chang is the Virginia and D. K. Ludwig Professor of Cancer Genomics at Stanford University and an investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. He is a physician–scientist who has focused on deciphering the hidden information in the non-coding genome. His laboratory is best known for studies of long non-coding RNAs in gene regulation and development of new epigenomic technologies. He is an elected member of the US National Academy of Sciences, the US National Academy of Medicine, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Núria López-Bigas is ICREA research Professor at the Institute for Research in Biomedicine and Associate Professor at the University Pompeu Fabra. She obtained an ERC Consolidator Grant in 2015 and was elected as an EMBO member in 2016. Her work has been recognized with the prestigious Banc de Sabadell Award for Research in Biomedicine, the Catalan National Award for Young Research Talent and the Career Development Award from the Human Frontier Science Program. Her research focuses on the identification of cancer driver mutations, genes and pathways across tumour types and in understanding the mutational processes that lead to the accumulation of mutations in cancer cells. Eran Segal is Professor in the Department of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics at the Weizmann Institute of Science, heading a multidisciplinary laboratory with extensive experience in machine learning, computational biology and analysis of heterogeneous high-throughput genomic data. His research focuses on the microbiome, nutrition and genetics, and their effect on health and disease and aims to develop personalized medicine based on big data from human cohorts. He has published more than 150 publications and received several awards and honours for his work, including the Overton and the Michael Bruno awards. He was recently elected as an EMBO member and as a member of the Israel Young Academy. Jin-Soo Kim is Director of the Center for Genome Engineering in the Institute for Basic Science in Daejon, South Korea. He has received numerous awards, including the 2017 Asan Award in Medicine, the 2017 Yumin Award in Science and the 2019 Research Excellence Award (Federation of Asian and Oceanian Biochemists and Molecular Biologists). He was featured as one of ten Science Stars of East Asia in Nature (558, 502–510 (2018)) and has been recognized as a highly cited researcher by Clarivate Analytics since 2018. His work focuses on developing tools for genome editing in biomedical research.

Objectives The challenges of understanding how interventions influence follow-up medical care are magnified during genomic testing because few patients have received it to date and because the scope of information it provides is complex and often unexpected. We tested a novel strategy for quantifying downstream healthcare utilization after genomic testing to more comprehensively and efficiently identify related services. We also evaluated the effectiveness of different methods for collecting these data. Methods We developed a risk-based approach for a trial of newborn genomic sequencing in which we defined primary conditions based on existing diagnoses and family histories of disease and defined secondary conditions based on unexpected findings. We then created patient-specific lists of services associated with managing primary and secondary conditions. Services were quantified based on medical record reviews, surveys, and telephone check-ins with parents. Results By focusing on services that genomic testing would most likely influence in the short-term, we reduced the number of services in our analyses by more than 90% compared with analyses of all observed services. We also identified the same services that were ordered in response to unexpected findings as were identified during expert review and by confirming whether recommendations were completed. Data also showed that quantifying healthcare utilization with surveys and telephone check-ins alone would have missed the majority of attributable services. Conclusions Our risk-based strategy provides an improved approach for assessing the short-term impact of genomic testing and other interventions on healthcare utilization while conforming as much as possible to existing best-practice recommendations.

In recent decades, genetic genealogy has become popular as a result of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing. Some DTC genetic testing companies offer genetic relative-finder (GRF) services that compare the DNA of consenting participants to identify genetic relatives among them and provide each participant a list of their relative matches. We surveyed a convenience sample of GRF service participants to understand the prevalence of discoveries and associated experiences. Almost half (46%) of the 23,196 respondents had participated in GRF services only for non-specific reasons that included interest in building family trees and general curiosity. However, most (82%) also learned the identity of at least one genetic relative. Separately, most respondents (61%) reported learning something new about themselves or their relatives, including potentially disruptive information such as that a person they believed to be their biological parent is in fact not or that they have a sibling they had not known about. Respondents generally reported that discovering this new information had a neutral or positive impact on their lives, and most had low regret regarding their decision to participate in GRF services. Yet some reported making life changes as a result of their discoveries. Compared to respondents making other types of discoveries, those who learned that they were donor conceived reported the highest decisional regret and represented the largest proportion reporting net-negative consequences for themselves. Our findings indicate that discoveries from GRF services may be common and that the consequences for individuals, while generally positive, can be far-reaching and complex.

Most professional guidelines recommend against genetic screening for adult-onset only conditions until adulthood, yet others argue there may be benefit to disclosing such results. We explored parents' decision-making on this issue in the BabySeq Project, a clinical trial of newborn genomic sequencing.We conducted interviews with parents (n=24) who were given the option to receive actionable adult-onset only results for their children. Interviews explored parents' motivations to receive and reasons to decline adult-onset only genetic disease risk information, their decision-making process, and their suggestions for supporting parents in making this decision.Parents noted several motivations to receive and reasons to decline adult-onset only results. Most commonly, parents cited early intervention/surveillance (n=11), implications for family heath (n=7), and the ability to prepare (n=6) as motivations to receive these results. The most common reasons to decline were protection of the child's future autonomy (n=4), negative impact on parenting (n=3), and anxiety about future disease (n=3). Parents identified a number of ways to support parents in making this decision.Results demonstrate considerations to better support parental decision-making that aligns with their values when offering adult-onset only genetic information as it is more commonly integrated into pediatric clinical care.

Personal (sometimes called “protected”) health information (PHI) is highly valued (1) and will become centrally important as big data and machine learning move to the forefront of health care and translational research. The current health information exchange (HIE) market is dominated by commercial and (to a lesser extent) not-for-profit entities and typically excludes patients. This can serve to undermine trust and create incentives for sharing data (2). Patients have limited agency in deciding which of their data is shared, with whom, and under what conditions. Within this context, new forms of digital ownership can inspire a digital marketplace for patient-controlled health data. We argue that nonfungible tokens (NFTs) or NFT-like frameworks can help incentivize a more democratized, transparent, and efficient system for HIE in which patients participate in decisions about how and with whom their PHI is shared.

Background and ObjectivesGenetic variants affect both Parkinson disease (PD) risk and manifestations. Although genetic information is of potential interest to patients and clinicians, genetic testing is rarely performed during routine PD clinical care. The goal of this study was to examine interest in comprehensive genetic testing among patients with PD and document reactions to possible findings from genome sequencing in 2 academic movement disorder clinics.MethodsIn 203 subjects with PD (age = 63 years, 67% male), genome sequencing was performed and filtered using a custom panel, including 49 genes associated with PD, parkinsonism, or related disorders, as well as a 90-variant PD genetic risk score. Based on the results, 231 patients (age = 67 years, 63% male) were surveyed on interest in genetic testing and responses to vignettes covering (1) familial risk of PD (LRRK2); (2) risk of PD dementia (GBA); (3) PD genetic risk score; and (4) secondary, medically actionable variants (BRCA1).ResultsGenome sequencing revealed a LRRK2 variant in 3% and a GBA risk variant in 10% of our clinical sample. The genetic risk score was normally distributed, identifying 41 subjects with a high risk of PD. Medically actionable findings were discovered in 2 subjects (1%). In our survey, the majority (82%) responded that they would share a LRRK2 variant with relatives. Most registered unchanged or increased interest in testing when confronted with a potential risk for dementia or medically actionable findings, and most (75%) expressed interest in learning their PD genetic risk score.DiscussionOur results highlight broad interest in comprehensive genetic testing among patients with PD and may facilitate integration of genome sequencing in clinical practice.

Background and ObjectivesGenetic variants impact both Parkinson’s disease (PD) risk and manifestations. While genetic information is of potential interest to patients and clinicians, genetic testing is rarely performed during routine PD clinical care. The goal of this study was to perform genome sequencing and examine patient interest in comprehensive genetic testing for PD in 2 academic movement disorder clinics.MethodsIn 208 subjects with PD (age=63 years, 67% male), genome sequencing was performed and filtered using a custom panel, including 49 genes associated with PD, parkinsonism, or related disorders, as well as a 90-variant PD genetic risk score. Separately, 231 patients (age=67 years, 63% male) were surveyed on interest in genetic testing at baseline and in response to vignettes covering (i) familial risk of PD (LRRK2); (ii) risk of PD dementia (GBA); (iii) PD genetic risk score; and (iv) secondary, medically-actionable variants (BRCA1).ResultsGenome sequencing revealed a LRRK2 variant in 3.4% and a GBA risk variant in 10.1% of our clinical sample. The genetic risk score was normally distributed, identifying 42 subjects with high risk of PD. Medically-actionable findings were discovered in 2 subjects (1%). In our survey, the majority (82%) responded they would share a LRRK2 variant with relatives. Most registered unchanged or increased interest in testing when confronted with potential risk for dementia or medically- actionable findings, and most (75%) expressed interest in learning their PD genetic risk score.DiscussionOur results highlight broad interest in comprehensive genetic testing among patients with PD and may facilitate integration of genome sequencing in clinical practice.

Summary Prior to integration into clinical care, a novel medical innovation is typically assessed in terms of its balance of benefits and risks, often referred to as utility. Members of multidisciplinary research teams may conceptualize and assess utility in different ways, which has implications within the translational genomics community and for the evidence base upon which clinical guidelines groups and healthcare payers make decisions. Ambiguity in the conceptualization of utility in translational genomics research can lead to communication challenges within research teams and to study designs that do not meet stakeholder needs. We seek to address the ambiguity challenge by describing the conceptual understanding of utility and use of the term by scholars in the fields of philosophy, medicine, and the social sciences of decision psychology and health economics. We illustrate applications of each field's orientation to translational genomics research by using examples from the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, and we provide recommendations for increasing clarity and cohesion in future research. Given that different understandings of utility will align to a greater or lesser degree with important stakeholders' views, more precise use of the term can help researchers to better integrate multidisciplinary investigations and communicate with stakeholders.

Importance Newborn genomic sequencing (nGS) may provide health benefits throughout the life span, but there are concerns that it could also have an unfavorable (ie, negative) psychosocial effect on families. Objective To assess the psychosocial effect of nGS on families from the BabySeq Project, a randomized clinical trial evaluating the effect of nGS on the clinical care of newborns from well-baby nurseries and intensive care units. Design, Setting, and Participants In this randomized clinical trial conducted from May 14, 2015, to May 21, 2019, at well-baby nurseries and intensive care units at 3 Boston, Massachusetts, area hospitals, 519 parents of 325 infants completed surveys at enrollment, immediately after disclosure of nGS results, and 3 and 10 months after results disclosure. Statistical analysis was performed on a per-protocol basis from January 16, 2019, to December 1, 2019. Intervention Newborns were randomized to receive either standard newborn screening and a family history report (control group) or the same plus an nGS report of childhood-onset conditions and highly actionable adult-onset conditions (nGS group). Main Outcomes and Measures Mean responses were compared between groups and, within the nGS group, between parents of children who received a monogenic disease risk finding and those who did not in 3 domains of psychosocial impact: parent-child relationship (Mother-to-Infant Bonding Scale), parents’ relationship (Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale), and parents’ psychological distress (Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale anxiety subscale). Results A total of 519 parents (275 women [53.0%]; mean [SD] age, 35.1 [4.5] years) were included in this study. Although mean scores differed for some outcomes at singular time points, generalized estimating equations models did not show meaningful differences in parent-child relationship (between-group difference in adjusted mean [SE] Mother-to-Infant Bonding Scale scores: postdisclosure, 0.04 [0.15]; 3 months, –0.18 [0.18]; 10 months, –0.07 [0.20]; jointP = .57) or parents’ psychological distress (between-group ratio of adjusted mean [SE] Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale anxiety subscale scores: postdisclosure, 1.04 [0.08]; 3 months, 1.07 [0.11]; jointP = .80) response patterns between study groups over time for any measures analyzed in these 2 domains. Response patterns on one parents’ relationship measure differed between groups over time (between-group difference in adjusted mean [SE] Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale scores: postdisclosure, –0.19 [0.07]; 3 months, –0.04 [0.07]; and 10 months, –0.01 [0.08]; jointP = .02), but the effect decreased over time and no difference was observed on the conflict measure responses over time. We found no evidence of persistent negative psychosocial effect in any domain. Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial of nGS, there was no persistent negative psychosocial effect on families among those who received nGS nor among those who received a monogenic disease risk finding for their infant. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT02422511

Firearm-related deaths are on the rise in the United States, especially among our youth. Tragically, proper firearm storage and safety could have prevented a great number of these deaths. Professional and public health organizations have thus encouraged physicians to provide direct patient counseling on firearm safety. Yet, even with these recommendations, the majority of physicians are still not talking to their patients about this issue. There may be many reasons for this, including concerns about liability, feeling unprepared, patient discomfort, and lack of time during office visits. Despite these concerns, we argue that physicians have an ethical obligation to discuss firearm safety with their patients. Making these discussions a part of routine clinical care would go a long way in the bipartisan effort to protect public safety and improve public health.

In recent years, third-party genetic interpretation services have emerged to help individuals understand their raw genetic data obtained from researchers, clinicians, and direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies. The objectives of these services vary but include matching users to genetic relatives, selling customized diet and fitness plans, and providing health risk assessments. As these services proliferate, concerns are being raised about their accuracy, safety, and privacy practices. Thus far, US regulatory agencies have not taken an official position with respect to third-party genetic interpretation services, which has caused uncertainty regarding whether and how they might be regulated. To clarify this area, we analyzed their potential oversight by four US agencies that generally have been active in the regulation of genetic testing services and information: the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights, and the Federal Trade Commission. We conclude that the scope of federal jurisdiction over third-party genetic interpretation services—while limited—could be appropriate at this time, subject to agency clarification and appropriate exercise of oversight.

PURPOSE: As exome and genome sequencing (ES, GS) enters the clinic, there is an urgent need to understand the psychological effects of test result disclosure. Through a Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER), phase 1 (CSER1) consortium collaboration, we evaluated participants’ psychological outcomes across multiple clinical settings. METHODS: We conducted a random effects meta-analysis of state anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)/ Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 item), depressive symptoms (HADS/ Personal Health Questionnaire-9 item), and multi-dimensional impact (i.e., test-related distress, uncertainty and positive impact: modified Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment/ Feelings About Genomic Testing Results scale). RESULTS: Anxiety and depression did not increase significantly following test result disclosure. Meta-analyses examining mean differences from pre- to post-disclosure revealed an overall trend for a decrease in participants’ anxiety. We observed low levels of test-related distress and perceptions of uncertainty in some populations (e.g., pediatric patients) and a wide range of positive responses. CONCLUSION: Our findings across multiple clinical settings suggest no clinically significant psychological harms from the return of ES/GS results. Some populations may experience low levels of test-related distress or greater positive psychological effects. Future research should further investigate the reasons for test-related psychological response variation.

Background Citizen science is increasingly prevalent in the biomedical sciences, including the field of human genomics. Genomic citizen science initiatives present new opportunities to engage individuals in scientific discovery, but they also are provoking new questions regarding who owns the outputs of the research, including intangible ideas and discoveries and tangible writings, tools, technologies, and products. The legal and ethical claims of participants to research outputs become stronger—and also more likely to conflict with those of institution-based researchers and other stakeholders—as participants become more involved, quantitatively and qualitatively, in the research process. It is not yet known, however, how genomic citizen science initiatives are managing the interests of their participants in accessing and controlling research outputs in practice. To help fill this gap, we conducted an in-depth review of relevant policies and practices of U.S.-based genomic citizen science initiatives. Methods We queried the peer-reviewed literature and grey literature to identify 22 genomic citizen science initiatives that satisfied six inclusion criteria. A data collection form was used to capture initiative features, policies, and practices relevant to participants’ access to and control over research outputs. Results This analysis revealed that the genomic citizen science landscape is diverse and includes many initiatives that do not have institutional affiliations. Two trends that are in apparent tension were identified: commercialization and operationalization of a philosophy of openness. While most initiatives supported participants’ access to research outputs, including datasets and published findings, none supported participants’ control over results via intellectual property, licensing, or commercialization rights. However, several initiatives disclaimed their own rights to profit from outputs. Conclusions There are opportunities for citizen science initiatives to incorporate more features that support participants’ access to and control over research outputs, consistent with their specific objectives, operations, and technical capabilities.

Understanding the clinical significance of variants associated with hereditary cancer risk requires access to a pooled data resource or network of resources—a “cancer gene variant commons”—incorporating representative, well-characterized genetic data, metadata, and, for some purposes, pathways to case-level data. Several initiatives have invested significant resources into collecting and sharing cancer gene variant data, but further progress hinges on identifying and addressing unresolved policy issues. This commentary provides insights from a modified policy Delphi process involving experts from a range of stakeholder groups involved in the data-sharing ecosystem. In particular, we describe policy issues and options generated by Delphi participants in five domains critical to the development of an effective cancer gene variant commons: incentives, financial sustainability, privacy and security, equity, and data quality. Our intention is to stimulate wider discussion and lay a foundation for further work evaluating policy options more in-depth and mapping them to those who have the power to bring about change. Addressing issues in these five domains will contribute to a cancer gene variant commons that supports better care for at-risk and affected patients, empowers patient communities, and advances research on hereditary cancers.

Pediatric oncologists’ perspectives around returning and incorporating tumor and germline genomic sequencing (GS) results into cancer care are not well-described. To inform optimization of cancer genomics communication, we assessed oncologists’ experiences with return of genomic results (ROR), including their preparation/readiness for ROR, collaboration with genetic counselors (GCs) during ROR, and perceived challenges. The BASIC3 study paired pediatric oncologists with GCs to return results to patients’ families. We thematically analyzed 24 interviews with 12 oncologists at two post-ROR time points. Oncologists found pre-ROR meetings with GCs and geneticists essential to interpreting patients’ reports and communicating results to families. Most oncologists took a collaborative ROR approach where they discussed tumor findings and GCs discussed germline findings. Oncologists perceived many roles for GCs during ROR, including answering families’ questions and describing information in lay language. Challenges identified included conveying uncertain information in accessible language, limits of oncologists’ genetics expertise, and navigating families’ emotional responses. Oncologists emphasized how GCs’ and geneticists’ support was essential to ROR, especially for germline findings. GS can be successfully integrated into cancer care, but to account for the GC shortage, alternative ROR models and access to genetics resources will be needed to better support families and avoid burdening oncologists.

Tweetable abstract Health economics and ELSI can be better integrated to consider the family impacts of genetic and genomic testing.

Purpose Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in adults in the United States, yet the benefits of genetic testing are not universally accepted. Methods We developed the "HeartCare" panel of genes associated with CVD, evaluating high-penetrance Mendelian conditions, coronary artery disease (CAD) polygenic risk, LPA gene polymorphisms, and specific pharmacogenetic (PGx) variants. We enrolled 709 individuals from cardiology clinics at Baylor College of Medicine, and samples were analyzed in a CAP/CLIA-certified laboratory. Results were returned to the ordering physician and uploaded to the electronic medical record. Results Notably, 32% of patients had a genetic finding with clinical management implications, even after excluding PGx results, including 9% who were molecularly diagnosed with a Mendelian condition. Among surveyed physicians, 84% reported medical management changes based on these results, including specialist referrals, cardiac tests, and medication changes. LPA polymorphisms and high polygenic risk of CAD were found in 20% and 9% of patients, respectively, leading to diet, lifestyle, and other changes. Warfarin and simvastatin pharmacogenetic variants were present in roughly half of the cohort. Conclusion Our results support the use of genetic information in routine cardiovascular health management and provide a roadmap for accompanying research.

Purpose Newborn screening (NBS) is performed to identify neonates at risk for actionable, severe, early-onset disorders, many of which are genetic. The BabySeq Project randomized neonates to receive conventional NBS or NBS plus exome sequencing (ES) capable of detecting sequence variants that may also diagnose monogenic disease or indicate genetic disease risk. We therefore evaluated how ES and conventional NBS results differ in this population. Methods We compared results of NBS (including hearing screens) and ES for 159 infants in the BabySeq Project. Infants were considered "NBS positive" if any abnormal result was found indicating disease risk and "ES positive" if ES identified a monogenic disease risk or a genetic diagnosis. Results Most infants (132/159, 84%) were NBS and ES negative. Only one infant was positive for the same disorder by both modalities. Nine infants were NBS positive/ES negative, though seven of these were subsequently determined to be false positives. Fifteen infants were ES positive/NBS negative, all of which represented risk of genetic conditions that are not included in NBS programs. No genetic explanation was identified for eight infants referred on the hearing screen. Conclusion These differences highlight the complementarity of information that may be gleaned from NBS and ES in the newborn period.

Investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) is a new technique for identifying criminal suspects that has sparked controversy. The technique involves uploading a crime scene DNA profile to one or more genetic genealogy databases with the intention of identifying a criminal offender’s genetic relatives and, eventually, locating the offender within the family tree. IGG was used to identify the Golden State Killer in 2018 and it is now being used in connection with hundreds of cases in the USA. Yet, as more law enforcement agencies conduct IGG, the privacy implications of the technique have come under scrutiny. While these issues deserve careful attention, we are concerned that their discussion is, at times, based on misunderstandings related to how IGG is used in criminal investigations and how IGG departs from traditional investigative techniques. Here, we aim to clarify and sharpen the public debate by addressing four misconceptions about IGG. We begin with a detailed description of IGG as it is currently practiced: what it is and—just as important—what it is not. We then examine misunderstood or not widely known aspects of IGG that are potentially confusing efforts to have constructive discussions about its future. We conclude with recommendations intended to support the productivity of those discussions.

In this Commentary, we argue that in line with the dramatic increase in the collection, storage, and curation of human genomic data for biomedical research, genomic data repositories and consortia have adopted governance frameworks to address the dual objectives of enabling wide access while protecting against possible harms. However, there are ongoing debates in the scientific community about the merits and limitations of different governance frameworks in achieving these twin aims; and indeed, best practices and points for consideration are notably absent when it comes to devising a governance framework for genomic databases. Based on our collective experience of devising and assessing governance frameworks, our Commentary identifies five key functions of “good governance” (or what makes “better governance”) and three areas where trade-offs should be considered when specifying policies within those functions. We apply these functions as a benchmark to describe, as an example, the governance frameworks of six large-scale international genomic projects. ispartof: NATURE GENETICS vol:53 issue:1 pages:2-8 ispartof: location:United States status: published

Background The twenty-first century has witnessed an exponential increase in healthcare quality research. As such activities become more prevalent, physicians are increasingly needed to participate as subjects in research and quality improvement (QI) projects. This raises an important ethical question: how should physicians be remunerated for participating as research and/or QI subjects? Financial versus non-monetary incentives for participation Research suggests participation in research and QI is often driven by conditional altruism, the idea that although initial interest in enrolling in research is altruistic or prosocial, decisions to actually perform study tasks are cost–benefit driven. Thus, the three models commonly employed to appropriately compensate participants (in-kind compensation such as travel reimbursement, paying market rates for the subject’s time, and paying market rates for the activity asked of the participant) are a poor fit when the participant is a clinician, largely due to the asymmetry between cost and benefit or value to the participant. Non-monetary alternatives such as protected time for participation, continuing education or maintenance of certification credit, or professional development materials, can provide viable avenues for reducing this asymmetry. Conclusion Research and QI are integral to the betterment of medicine and healthcare. To increase physician participation in these activities as the subject of study, new models are needed that clarify the physician’s role in research and QI as a subject. Non-monetary approaches are recommended to successfully and ethically encourage research and QI participation, and thus incorporate these activities as a normal part of the ethical clinician’s and successful learning healthcare system’s world view.

The expansion of research on deep brain stimulation (DBS) and adaptive DBS (aDBS) raises important neuroethics and policy questions related to data sharing. However, there has been little empirical research on the perspectives of experts developing these technologies. We conducted semi-structured, open-ended interviews with aDBS researchers regarding their data sharing practices and their perspectives on ethical and policy issues related to sharing. Researchers expressed support for and a commitment to sharing, with most saying that they were either sharing their data or would share in the future and that doing so was important for advancing the field. However, those who are sharing reported a variety of sharing partners, suggesting heterogeneity in sharing practices and lack of the broad sharing that would reflect principles of open science. Researchers described several concerns and barriers related to sharing, including privacy and confidentiality, the usability of shared data by others, ownership and control of data (including potential commercialization), and limited resources for sharing. They also suggested potential solutions to these challenges, including additional safeguards to address privacy issues, standardization and transparency in analysis to address issues of data usability, professional norms and heightened cooperation to address issues of ownership and control, and streamlining of data transmission to address resource limitations. Researchers also offered a range of views on the sensitivity of neural activity data (NAD) and data related to mental health in the context of sharing. These findings are an important input to deliberations by researchers, policymakers, neuroethicists, and other stakeholders as they navigate ethics and policy questions related to aDBS research.

Introduction: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality in the United States, leading to one in four deaths. The role of inherited susceptibility to CVD is well established, from rare monogenic disorders to polygenic traits. For many of these conditions, guidelines exist for medical interventions and other preventative care that can improve outcomes and quality of life. Methods: We developed a comprehensive genetic screen, "HeartCare", consisting of a 158 gene panel evaluating 1) Mendelian conditions including cardiomyopathies, aortopathies, arrhythmias, and dyslipidemias, 2) a coronary artery disease polygenic risk score (PRS), 3) variants in the LPA gene encoding Lipoprotein(a) that are an independent risk factor for atherosclerotic CVD events, and 4) pharmacogenetic (PGx) variants contributing to simvastatin-induced myopathy and warfarin metabolism. After sequencing in a CAP/CLIA certified laboratory, results were returned to the ordering physician after a multi-disciplinary sign-out conference and uploaded to the EMR. Results: As of June 2020, 678 individuals had completed testing with a 31% overall positive rate for Mendelian genes, elevated polygenic risk, and LPA risk alleles (excluding PGx). Of these, 8.1% had a positive finding for a Mendelian condition, the majority (60%) being dyslipidemias (e.g., FH), followed by 25% cardiomyopathies (e.g., HCM, DCM, ARVC) and 6% aortopathies (e.g., Marfan, Loeys-Dietz). Approximately 20% of individuals carried an LPA risk allele, and 9.3% belonged to the high-risk group according to their PRS. Approximately half had a PGx finding related to simvastatin and/or warfarin metabolism. Nearly one in five individuals had a finding with direct clinical care impact, including referral to specialists, imaging, laboratory studies, therapies/procedures (e.g., PCSK9i, ICD). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first test of its kind assaying four distinct categories of genetic variation related to cardiovascular health. Our results demonstrate that comprehensive testing can be routinely used to identify individuals who may benefit from interventions to improve survival, reduce morbidity, and enhance quality of life.

Interest and investment in closed-loop or adaptive deep brain stimulation (aDBS) systems have quickly expanded due to this neurotechnology's potential to more safely and effectively treat refractory movement and psychiatric disorders compared to conventional DBS. A large neuroethics literature outlines potential ethical concerns about conventional DBS and aDBS systems. Few studies, however, have examined stakeholder perspectives about ethical issues in aDBS research and other next-generation DBS devices. To help fill this gap, we conducted semi-structured interviews with researchers involved in aDBS trials (n = 23) to gain insight into the most pressing ethical questions in aDBS research and any concerns about specific features of aDBS devices, including devices' ability to measure brain activity, automatically adjust stimulation, and store neural data. Using thematic content analysis, we identified 8 central themes in researcher responses. The need to measure and store neural data for aDBS raised concerns among researchers about data privacy and security issues (noted by 91% of researchers), including the avoidance of unintended or unwanted third-party access to data. Researchers reflected on the risks and safety (83%) of aDBS due to the experimental nature of automatically modulating then observing stimulation effects outside a controlled clinical setting and in relation to need for surgical battery changes. Researchers also stressed the importance of ensuring informed consent and adequate patient understanding (74%). Concerns related to automaticity and device programming (65%) were discussed, including current uncertainties about biomarker validity. Additionally, researchers discussed the potential impacts of automatic stimulation on patients' autonomy and control over stimulation (57%). Lastly, researchers discussed concerns related to patient selection (defining criteria for candidacy) (39%), challenges of ensuring post-trial access to care and device maintenance (39%), and potential effects on personality and identity (30%). To help address researcher concerns, we discuss the need to minimize cybersecurity vulnerabilities, advance biomarker validity, promote the balance of device control between patients and clinicians, and enhance ongoing informed consent. The findings from this study will help inform policies that will maximize the benefits and minimize potential harms of aDBS and other next-generation DBS devices.

In this Opinion, we synthesize recent evidence regarding the mental health impacts of the pandemic with an emphasis on health care workers. Departing from the literature that has already been published on this topic, we focus on health care workers with mental health concerns that preexisted the pandemic and discuss evidence suggesting that this population has suffered disproportionately from pandemic conditions.