Search

The stem cell preservation industry has grown substantially with private businesses, public hospitals, and academic medical centers considering preserving induced pluripotent stem cells, mesenchymal stem cells, and other cell types of patients and the public in order to potentially use them for stem cell therapy should such an intervention exist in the future. Despite this growth and interest among private firms and academic centers, no study has yet considered the bioethical issues of such platforms. In this article, we explore several ethical and social issues related to the biopreservation of stem cells for future regenerative therapies. We analyze a range of bioethical considerations that public and private institutions should bear in mind as they develop stem cell preservation platforms. These include medical validation of regenerative interventions and their influence on the public understanding of stem cell therapies, the impact of public trust of organizations creating a private, for-profit venture of stem cell preservation, and logistical issues in the governance of the collection including ownership and dispositional authority, informed consent and access, and withdrawal and non-payment. These considerations should be incorporated into current and future stem cell preservation platforms in order to promote the responsible translation of regenerative medicine.

Purpose: As genomic screening is incorporated into a wider array of clinical settings, it is critical that we understand how patients may respond to a various screening results. Although multiple studies have examined how patients understand positive genomic screening results, few data exist regarding patient engagement with negative screening results., Methods: An 82-item survey was administered to 1712 individuals who received negative genomic screening results by mail following evaluation of 109 medically actionable genes. Genetic counselors were available to assist with the interpretation of screening results., Results: One thousand four hundred forty-two participants completed the survey (84.2%). The vast majority of respondents valued the information they received, with 98% of respondents reporting that negative genomic screening results were valuable and 72% indicating they would recommend genomic screening to others. Nonetheless, many respondents had questions about their genomic screening results (28%) and would have preferred to receive their screening results in person (18%)., Conclusion: These data suggest most patients value receiving negative genomic screening results and are comfortable receiving their results by mail. Nevertheless, a significant proportion of patients also reported difficulty understanding some aspects of their results. This finding challenges the idea that communicating genomic screening results by mail alone is sufficient to meet patients' needs.

Purpose: Secondary findings are typically offered in an all or none fashion when sequencing is used for clinical purposes. This study aims to describe the process of offering categorical and granular choices for results in a large research consortium., Methods: Within the third phase of the electronic MEdical Records and GEnomics (eMERGE) Network, several sites implemented studies that allowed participants to choose the type of results they wanted to receive from a multigene sequencing panel. Sites were surveyed to capture the details of the implementation protocols and results of these choices., Results: Across the ten eMERGE sites, 4664 participants including adolescents and adults were offered some type of choice. Categories of choices offered and methods for selecting categories varied. Most participants (94.5%) chose to learn all genetic results, while 5.5% chose subsets of results. Several sites allowed participants to change their choices at various time points, and 0.5% of participants made changes., Conclusion: Offering choices that include learning some results is important and should be a dynamic process to allow for changes in scientific knowledge, participant age group, and individual preference.

As applications of genomic sequencing have expanded, offering genetic counseling support to all patients is arguably no longer practical. Additionally, whether individuals desire and value genetic counseling services for genomic screening is unclear. We offered elective genetic counseling to 5110 individuals prior to undergoing sequencing and 2310 participants who received neutral results to assess demand. A total of 0.2% of the study participants accessed genetic counseling services prior to sequencing, and 0.3% reached out after receiving neutral results. We later conducted 50 interviews with participants to understand why they did not access these services. Many interviewees did not recall the availability of genetic counseling and were unfamiliar with the profession. Interviewees described not needing counseling before sequencing because they understood the study and felt that they could cope with any result. Counseling was considered equally unnecessary after learning neutral results. Although the participants had questions about their results, they did not feel that speaking with a genetic counselor would be helpful. Genomic screening efforts that employ opt-in models of genetic counseling may need to clarify the potential value of genetic counseling support from the outset and feature genetic counseling services more prominently in program materials.

Purpose: This report describes the return of sequencing results to low-income Latino participants recruited through a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC). We describe challenges in returning research results secondary to social determinants of health and present lessons learned to guide future genomic medicine implementation studies in low-resource settings., Methods: Five hundred Latino adults (76% women) consented to research sequencing for a predetermined panel of actionable genes. Providers and staff from the FQHC were engaged to align processes with the practice and a community advisory board grounded the project in the local community., Results: A pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant was present in 10 participants (2%). Challenges in return of results included the time lag (582 ± 53 days) between enrollment and returning actionable results, difficulty reaching participants, missed appointments, low health literacy, lack of health insurance, and reconciling results with limited information on family history. Return of one actionable result was deferred due to acute emotional distress secondary to recent traumatic life events., Conclusion: The social determinants of health influence the implementation of genomic medicine in low-income populations in low-resource settings. Considering nonbiological factors that contribute to disparities will be necessary to better appreciate how genomic medicine may fit within the context of health equity.

Dynamic consent has been proposed as a strategy for addressing the limitations of traditional, broad consent for biobank participation. Although the argument for dynamic consent has been made on theoretical grounds, empirical studies evaluating the potential utility of dynamic consent are needed to enhance deliberations about the merits of dynamic consent. Few studies have assessed such considerations as whether donor preferences may change over time or if participants would use a dynamic consent mechanism to modify preferences when they change. We administered a 66-item survey to participants in a large DNA biobank. The survey sought to gauge the stability of donor preferences specified at the time of biobank enrollment, specifically the stability of donors' preference regarding posthumous availability of biospecimens to next-of-kin. We received 1164 completed surveys for a response rate of 72%. Forty percent of respondents indicated a preference regarding sample availability on the survey (T2) that was inconsistent with the preference they had expressed when they enrolled in the biobank (T1). Most (94%) individuals with inconsistent preferences regarding sample availability had initially restricted sample availability at T1 but were comfortable with broader availability when asked at the time of the survey (T2). Our findings demonstrate that preferences regarding sample use expressed at the time of enrollment in a DNA biobank may not be reliable indicators of donor preferences over time. These findings lend empirical support to the case for a dynamic consent model in which biobank participants are approached over time to clarify their views regarding sample use.

On May 1, 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to allow use of the antiviral drug remdesivir to treat patients with severe coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Remdesivir is an investigational drug studied in clinical trials for COVID-19 and is available to children and pregnant women through compassionate-use access but is not yet FDA approved. In early May, the US Department of Health and Human Services began to distribute remdesivir, donated by Gilead Sciences, Inc., to hospitals and state health departments for emergency use; multiple shipments have since been distributed. This process has raised questions of how remdesivir should be allocated. The Minnesota Department of Health has collaborated with the Minnesota COVID Ethics Collaborative and multiple clinical experts to issue an Ethical Framework for May 2020 Allocation of Remdesivir in the COVID-19 Pandemic. The framework builds on extensive ethical guidance developed for public health emergencies in Minnesota before the COVID-19 crisis. The Minnesota remdesivir allocation framework specifies an ethical approach to distributing the drug to facilities across the state and then among COVID-19 patients within each facility. This article describes the process of developing the framework and adjustments in the framework over time with emergence of new data, analyzes key issues addressed, and suggests next steps. Sharing this framework and the development process can encourage transparency and may be useful to other states formulating and refining their approach to remdesivir EUA allocation., (Copyright © 2020 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: A 61-year-old woman underwent direct to consumer genetic testing and was found to be homozygous for the C282Y HFE variant (c.845G>A :p.Cys282Tyr) which is classified as pathogenic/likely pathogenic for hereditary hemochromatosis. However, no action was taken by the individual., Methods: The individual took part in the Mayo Clinic Return of Actionable Variants Empiric (RAVE) study and the actionable finding was confirmed and results disclosed in person by a genetic counselor with subsequent referral to a hepatologist., Results: Further testing revealed iron overload with an elevated ferritin level (560 ng/ml) and increased ferritin saturation (74%). Phlebotomy was initiated with subsequent normalization of the ferritin levels (252 ng/ml)., Conclusion: This case highlights that actionable genetic results may not be acted on after direct to consumer testing and the need for effective genetic counseling after such testing., (© 2020 The Authors. Molecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

A challenge in returning genomic test results to research participants is how best to communicate complex and clinically nuanced findings to participants in a manner that is scalable to the large numbers of participants enrolled. The purpose of this study was to examine the features of genetic results letters produced at each Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE3) Network site to assess their readability and content. Letters were collected from each site, and a qualitative analysis of letter content and a quantitative analysis of readability statistics were performed. Because letters were produced independently at each eMERGE site, significant heterogeneity in readability and content was found. The content of letters varied widely from a baseline of notifying participants that results existed to more detailed information about positive or negative results, as well as materials for sharing with family members. Most letters were significantly above the Centers for Disease Control-suggested reading level for health communication. While continued effort should be applied to make letters easier to understand, the ongoing challenge of explaining complex genomic information, the implications of negative test results, and the uncertainty that comes with some types of test and result makes simplifying letter text challenging.

To inform the process of returning results in genome sequencing studies, we conducted a quantitative and qualitative assessment of challenges encountered during the Return of Actionable Variants Empiric (RAVE) study conducted at Mayo Clinic. Participants ( n  = 2535, mean age 63 ± 7, 57% female) were sequenced for 68 clinically actionable genes and 14 single nucleotide variants. Of 122 actionable results detected, 118 were returnable; results were returned by a genetic counselor-86 in-person and 12 by phone. Challenges in returning actionable results were encountered in a significant proportion (38%) of the cohort and were related to sequencing and participant contact. Sequencing related challenges ( n  = 14), affecting 13 participants, included reports revised based on clinical presentation ( n  = 3); reports requiring corrections ( n  = 2); mosaicism requiring alternative DNA samples for confirmation ( n  = 3); and variant re-interpretation due to updated informatics pipelines ( n  = 6). Participant contact related challenges ( n  = 44), affecting 38 participants, included nonresponders ( n  = 20), decedents ( n  = 1), and previously known results ( n  = 23). These results should be helpful to investigators preparing for return of results in large-scale genomic sequencing projects., Competing Interests: Competing interestsThe authors declare no competing interests., (© The Author(s) 2020.)

A goal of the 3rd phase of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE3) Network was to examine the return of results (RoR) of actionable variants in more than 100 genes to consenting participants and their healthcare providers. Each of the 10 eMERGE sites developed plans for three essential elements of the RoR process: Disclosure to the participant, notification of the health care provider, and integration of results into the electronic health record (EHR). Procedures and protocols around these three elements were adapted as appropriate to individual site requirements and limitations. Detailed information about the RoR procedures at each site was obtained through structured telephone interviews and follow-up surveys with the clinical investigator leading or participating in the RoR process at each eMERGE3 institution. Because RoR processes at each of the 10 sites allowed for taking into account differences in population, disease focus and institutional requirements, significant heterogeneity of process was identified, including variability in the order in which patients and clinicians were notified and results were placed in the EHR. This heterogeneity in the process flow for eMERGE3 RoR reflects the "real world" of genomic medicine in which RoR procedures must be shaped by the needs of the patients and institutional environments.

In November 2018, the announcement that genetically edited human embryos had been used for reproductive purposes caused international uproar; many observers argued that editing the human germline was unethical, particularly given the early stage of the science and the absence of appropriate oversight. We provide an overview of the implications of these events, focusing on the relevant ethical considerations for physicians addressing patient questions and concerns. The editing of the human germline for reproductive purposes should be understood against an historic backdrop of clinical research in assisted reproduction, as well as other exemplars of translational investigation. An important question raised by our growing capacity to genetically alter human embryos is how to understand the implicit social contract between science and society. To ensure that translational research continues to enjoy the historic trust placed in scientists and research organizations, it is critical that scientific and health care institutions proactively engage governments, patient advocacy organizations, and the general public in the formation of policies that guide gene editing., (Copyright © 2019 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The metabolome is a system of small biomolecules (metabolites) and a direct result of human bioculture. Consequently, metabolomics is well poised to impact anthropological and biomedical research for the foreseeable future. Overall, we provide a perspective on the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of metabolomics, which we argue are often more alarming than those of genomics. Given the current mechanisms to fund research, ELSI beyond human DNA is stifled and in need of considerable attention., (© 2019 The Authors. American Journal of Physical Anthropology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Introduction: To address ethical concerns about the of future research authorization, biobanks employing a broad model of consent can design ongoing communication with contributors. Notifying contributors at the time of sample distribution provides one form of communication to supplement broad consent. However, little is known about how community-informed governance might anticipate contributor responses and inform communication efforts., Objective: We explored the attitudes of members of a three-site Community Advisory Board (CAB) network. CAB members responded to a hypothetical proposal for notifying biobank contributors at the time of sample distribution to researchers utilizing the biobank., Methods: We used regularly scheduled CAB meetings to facilitate 3 large-group and 6 small-group discussions. Discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for thematic content using descriptive thematic analysis., Results: The results challenged our expectation of general support for the proposed communications. While CAB members identified some advantages, they were concerned about several potential harms to biobank contributors and the biobank. The CABs understood biobank communication in terms of an ongoing relationship with the biobank and a personal contribution to research., Conclusion: Our findings contribute to the emerging literature on community engagement in biobanking. Additional communication with biobank contributors can serve a variety of value-based objectives to supplement broad consent. Design of communication efforts by biobanks can be improved by CAB members' anticipation of the unintended consequences of additional contact with contributors. CAB members' holistic interpretation of communication efforts suggests that biobank leadership considers all communication options as part of a more comprehensive communications strategy., (© 2020 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Combined sewer overflow (CSO) water introduces pathogens to receiving waters. To control pathogenic releases, chlorine may be added to disinfect CSO water. The added chlorine may react with water constituents to form oxidative species known as chlorine-produced oxidants (CPO). CPO are the sum of free and combined oxidative species that form upon adding free chlorine-bearing compounds (e.g. gaseous chlorine or hypochlorite) to water. CPO discharge is often regulated by governing agencies. Current methods to model CPO behavior do not account for CPO decay and dilution simultaneously in receiving water. This study creates a novel model for CPO demand and dilution in receiving water from chlorinated effluent in order to determine site-specific practices for implementation of a CSO water disinfection regime. To do this, representative receiving water was collected and dosed with 1, 2, and 4 mg/L chlorine. The residual chlorine was measured at intervals up to 30 min after dosing. The immediate and subsequent chlorine demand was calculated, with the subsequent demand modeled by simultaneous application of dilution and decay using pseudo-first-order decay kinetics. A comparison of model calculations indicates that application of dilution before decay underestimates CPO demand, while application of decay before dilution overestimates CPO demand.

Purpose: The Mayo Clinic Biobank was established to provide a large group of patients from which comparison groups (ie, controls) could be selected for case-control studies, to create a prospective cohort with sufficient power for common outcomes and to support electronic health record (EHR) studies., Participants: A total of 56 862 participants enrolled (21% response rate) into the Mayo Clinic Biobank from Rochester, Minnesota (77%, n=43 836), Jacksonville, Florida (18%, n=10 368) and La Crosse, Wisconsin (5%, n=2658). Participants were all Mayo Clinic patients, 18 years of age or older and US residents., Findings to Date: Overall, 43% of participants were 65 years of age or older and female participants were more frequent (59%) than males at all sites. Most participants resided in the Upper Midwest regions of the USA (Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois or Wisconsin), Florida or Georgia. Self-reported race among Biobank participants was 90% white. Here we provide examples of the types of studies that have successfully utilised the resource, including (1) investigations of the population itself, (2) provision of controls for case-control studies, (3) genotype-driven research, (4) EHR-based research and (5) prospective recruitment to other studies. Over 270 projects have been approved to date to access Biobank data and/or samples; over 200 000 sample aliquots have been approved for distribution., Future Plans: The data and samples in the Mayo Clinic Biobank can be used for various types of epidemiological and clinical studies, especially in the setting of case-control studies for which the Biobank samples serve as control samples. We are planning cohort studies with additional follow-up and acquisition of genetic information on a large scale., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Disease advocacy organizations (DAOs) have traditionally focused on raising awareness of rare diseases, providing educational resources to patients, and supporting patients and families. Previous research has described how scientists collaborate with DAOs, but few empirical data are available regarding the extent to which physicians interact with DAOs and how those interactions impact patient care. We conducted a national survey of 230 board-certified pediatric neurologists to assess their engagement with DAOs and their beliefs about the impact of DAOs on patient care. In that context, we evaluated a set of 24 items describing interactions between physicians and DAOs. Exploratory factor analysis produced a 19-item model capturing four types of physician-DAO engagement: (1) accessing or distributing DAO-produced materials (6 items, alpha = 0.80); (2) consulting on DAO activities (5 items, alpha = 0.81); (3) collaborating with DAOs on research activities (6 items, alpha = 0.80); and (4) co-producing scholarly materials with DAOs (2 items, alpha = 0.80). Our data indicate that physicians engage with DAOs in more frequent and diverse ways than has been previously reported. Almost all physicians in our sample had interacted directly with a DAO in some way, from low-effort activities such as visiting a DAO's website to deeper forms of engagement including coauthoring journal articles. These findings may provide a framework for bioethicists to characterize the nature and extent of physician interactions with advocacy organizations, which is critical for evaluating the ethical implications of physician-DAO relationships.

The application of gene editing technologies to prevent or mitigate genetic disease in humans is considered one of its most promising applications. However, as the technology advances, it is imperative to understand the views of the broader public on how it should be used. We conducted focus groups to understand public views on the ethical permissibility and governance of gene editing technologies in humans. A total of 50 urban and semirural residents in the upper Midwest took part in six focus groups. Participants expressed multiple concerns about nonmedical uses of gene editing and its potential for unknown harms to human health, and were divided as to whether the individual patient or "medical experts" should be charged with overseeing the scope of its application. As potential stakeholders, the perspectives from the general public are critical to assess as genome editing technologies advance toward the clinic.

Objectives/background: Prognostic counseling about the risk for developing overt neurodegenerative disorders for patients with idiopathic REM sleep-behavior disorder (iRBD) and isolated REM sleep without atonia (iRSWA) is difficult, given lack of disease-modifying interventions and uncertainty in accurate prognostication for individuals. We aimed to analyze patient and physician characteristics associated with documented prognostic discussions for patients with iRBD and iRSWA., Patients/methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records for 138 (112 iRBD and 26 iRSWA) patients seen at the Mayo Clinic between 2012 and 2015. We analyzed physician and patient demographics, initial complaint, and other information discussed during office visits. We then comparatively analyzed the impact of physician and patient characteristics on documented prognostic discussions using Chi Square or Fischer's exact test., Results: Mean iRBD patient age was 65.0 ± 13.0, and mean iRSWA age was 58 ± 15 years. Seventy-eight (69.6%) iRBD and 22 (84.6%) iRSWA patients were men. Sixty-two (55%) iRBD and three (12%) iRSWA patients received prognostic counseling about phenoconversion risk. iRBD was a secondary complaint in 67 (59.8%). Patients over age 60 years and those having iRBD as a chief complaint more frequently received prognostic discussions than those with opposite characteristics (all p < 0.05). Patient sex and antidepressant use were not associated with counseling. Sleep neurologists disclosed prognostic information most frequently, with male more likely than female clinicians to disclose prognoses., Conclusions: Several patient and physician characteristics appear to influence documented prognostic counseling for iRBD/RSWA patients. Future studies of iRBD/RSWA patients' preferences are needed to clarify ethically appropriate physician-patient communication concerning prognosis., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Because apolipoprotein L1 ( APOL1 ) risk variants may contribute to live donors' kidney failure postdonation, professional guidelines suggest informing potential donors with African ancestry about the availability of APOL1 genotyping. This study assessed African American (AA) donors' perceptions of APOL1 genetic testing and how APOL1 may affect ethnic identity., Methods/approach: Four focus groups were conducted with AA donors about their decision-making for and perceptions of APOL1 genetic testing and donation to inform a new culturally targeted educational brochure on APOL1 genetic testing. Qualitative data were analyzed by thematic analysis., Findings: Seventeen donors participated (47% participation rate). Four major themes emerged. (1) In hypothetical scenarios, most participants would have undergone APOL1 testing during donor evaluation to make a more informed decision, but many would have still donated. (2) Participants desired information about how having 2 APOL1 risk variants affects the donor's and the recipient's health. (3) Participants referred to diversity of genetic ancestry and cultural constructions of racial/ethnic identity to question the population at risk for APOL1 risk variants and recommended that all potential donors undergo genetic testing and receive education about APOL1 . (4) Participants worried that out-of-pocket costs would deter APOL1 testing and that APOL1 could become a preexisting condition and discriminate against AAs., Discussion: Our findings suggest that AA donors desire APOL1 testing to foster informed consent. Transplant clinicians should be aware of these responses to APOL1 testing and be sensitive to historical issues of distrust and discrimination.

Background: DNA biobanks frequently obtain broad permissions from sample donors, who agree to allow their biospecimens to be used for a variety of future purposes. A limitation of this approach is that it may not be possible to discuss or anticipate all potential uses of biospecimens at the time patient consent is obtained. We surveyed biobank participants to clarify their views regarding the need to be informed about research involving whole genome sequencing (WGS). Methods: We invited 1200 participants in the Mayo Clinic Biobank to complete a survey inquiring about their support for WGS; their interest in being recontacted before WGS of their biospecimens; whether they would consent to WGS if asked; and the acceptability of proceeding with WGS if sample donors could not be reached. Results: Six hundred eighty-seven biobank participants returned completed surveys (57% response). More than 96% of biobank participants were supportive of WGS and would give permission for WGS of their sample, if asked. Nonetheless, 61% of biobank participants felt they should be recontacted before WGS was done. Participants were divided regarding the permissibility of conducting WGS if efforts to recontact sample donors were unsuccessful. Discussion: Our findings highlight a potential discrepancy between the broad permissions granted by biobank participants at the time they donated biospecimens and their views about the application of WGS to their samples. Biobank participants appear to value the ability to confirm their commitment to genetic research when the studies in question involve WGS, a technological capacity they may not have anticipated at the time they donated their biospecimens. Efforts to reevaluate biobank participants' views about the acceptability of new technologies may help to ensure alignment of participants' current beliefs and research applications that would have been difficult to anticipate at the time biospecimens were collected.

Academic Medical Centers (AMCs) offer patient care and perform research. Increasingly, AMCs advertise to the public in order to garner income that can support these dual missions. In what follows, we raise concerns about the ways that advertising blurs important distinctions between them. Such blurring is detrimental to AMC efforts to fulfill critically important ethical responsibilities pertaining both to science communication and clinical research, because marketing campaigns can employ hype that weakens research integrity and contributes to therapeutic misconception and misestimation, undermining the informed consent process that is essential to the ethical conduct of research. We offer ethical analysis of common advertising practices that justify these concerns. We also suggest the need for a deliberative body convened by the Association of American Medical Colleges and others to develop a set of voluntary guidelines that AMCs can use to avoid in the future, the problems found in many current AMC advertising practices.

Efforts to characterize stakeholder attitudes about the implementation of genomic medicine would benefit from a validated instrument for measuring public views of the potential benefits and harms of genomic technologies, which would facilitate comparison across populations and clinical settings. We sought to develop a scale to evaluate attitudes about the future of genomic medicine. We developed a 21-item scale that examined the likelihood of various outcomes of genomic medicine. The scale was administered to participants in a genomic sequencing study. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted and bivariate correlations were calculated. The genomic orientation (GO) scale was completed by 2895 participants. A two-factor structure was identified, corresponding to an optimism subscale (16 items, α = 0.89) and a pessimism subscale (5 items, α = 0.63). Genomic optimism was positively associated with a perceived value of genetic test results, higher health literacy, and decreased decisional conflict about participation in a genomic research study. Genomic pessimism was associated with concerns about genetic testing, lower health literacy, and increased decisional conflict about the decision to participate in the study. The GO scale is a promising tool for measuring both positive and negative views regarding the future of genomic medicine and deserves further validation., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: We assessed the decision-making of individuals pursuing genomic sequencing without a requirement for pretest genetic counselling. We sought to describe the extent to which individuals who decline genetic counselling reported decisional conflict or struggled to make a decision to pursue genomic testing., Methods: We administered a 100-item survey to 3037 individuals who consented to the Return of Actionable Variants Empirical study, a genomic medicine implementation study supported by the National Institutes of Health (USA) eMERGE consortium. The primary outcomes of interest were self-reported decisional conflict about the decision to participate in the study and time required to reach a decision., Results: We received 2895 completed surveys (response rate=95.3%), and of these respondents 97.8% completed the decisional conflict scale in its entirety. A majority of individuals (63%) had minimal or no decisional conflict about the pursuit of genomic sequencing and were able to reach a decision quickly (78%). Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified several characteristics associated with decisional conflict, including lower education, lower health literacy, lower self-efficacy in coping, lack of prior experience with genetic testing, not discussing study participation with a family member or friend, and being male., Conclusion: As genomic sequencing is used more widely, genetic counselling resources may not be sufficient to meet demand. Our results challenge the notion that all individuals need genetic counselling in order to make an informed decision about genomic sequencing., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: There is debate over whether Apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) gene risk variants contribute to African American (AA) live donors' (LD) increased risk of kidney failure. Little is known about factors influencing physicians' integration of APOL1 genetic testing of AA LDs into donor evaluation., Design: We conducted a cross-sectional survey, informed by Roger's Diffusion of Innovations theory, among nephrology and surgeon members of the American Society of Nephrology, American Society of Transplantation, and American Society of Transplant Surgeons about their practices of and attitudes about APOL1 genetic testing of AA potential LDs. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were performed., Results: Of 383 completed surveys, most physicians believed that APOL1 testing can help AA LDs make more informed donation decisions (87%), and the addition of APOL1 testing offers better clinical information about AA LD's eligibility for donation than existing evaluation approaches (74%). Among respondents who evaluate LDs (n = 345), 63% would definitely or probably begin or continue using APOL1 testing in the next year, however, few use APOL1 testing routinely (4%) or on a case-by-case basis (14%). Most did not know the right clinical scenario to order APOL1 testing (59%), but would use educational materials to counsel AA LDs about APOL1 testing (97%)., Discussion: Although physicians were highly supportive of APOL1 genetic testing for AA LDs, few physicians use APOL1 testing. As more physicians intend to use APOL1 testing, an ethical framework and clinical decision support are needed presently to assist clinicians in clarifying the proper indication of APOL1 genetic testing.

Rationale & Objective: African American live kidney donors ("donors") have a greater risk for kidney failure than European American donors. Apolipoprotein L1 gene (APOL1) variants in African Americans may be associated with this disparity., Study Design: Cross-sectional mixed-methods design., Setting & Participants: African American donors at 1 transplantation center., Analytical Approach: Semistructured interviews assessed attitudes about APOL1 genetic testing, willingness to undergo APOL1 testing, hypothetical decisions about donating with 2 APOL1 variants, and demographics. Surveys assessed perceptions of ethnic identity and genetics knowledge. Interview transcriptions were analyzed using thematic analysis. Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics., Results: 23 donors participated in semistructured interviews. Most (96%) reported that transplantation centers should routinely offer APOL1 genetic testing to all African American potential donors. Most (87%) would have been willing to undergo APOL1 testing before donating. Although study participants noted that APOL1 testing may deter African American potential donors from donating, most (61%) would have donated even if they had 2 high-risk APOL1 variants. Several themes emerged. Study participants believed that APOL1 testing was beneficial for providing information to help donors make informed donation decisions. Participants expressed concern about APOL1 variants placing donors at harm for kidney failure, and therefore valued taking preventive health measures. Participants believed that potential donors would experience psychological distress from learning that they have 2 gene variants and could harm their recipients. Participants were apprehensive about insurance coverage and costs of APOL1 testing and feared that APOL1 genetic test results could discriminate against African Americans., Limitations: Findings may not be generalizable to African American potential donors., Conclusions: Findings suggest that African American donors support APOL1 genetic testing yet fear that APOL1 variants and genetic testing could adversely affect donors' health and ethnic identity. Transplantation centers using APOL1 genetic testing should address African American donors' concerns about APOL1 genetic testing to optimize future donors' informed consent practices., (Copyright © 2018 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We examined the Institutional Review Board (IRB) process at 9 academic institutions in the electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network, for proposed electronic health record-based genomic medicine studies, to identify common questions and concerns. Sequencing of 109 disease related genes and genotyping of 14 actionable variants is being performed in ~28,100 participants from the 9 sites. Pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in actionable genes are being returned to study participants. We examined each site's research protocols, informed-consent materials, and interactions with IRB staff. Research staff at each site completed questionnaires regarding their IRB interactions. The time to prepare protocols for IRB submission, number of revisions and time to approval ranged from 10-261 days, 0-11, and 11-90 days, respectively. IRB recommendations related to the readability of informed consent materials, specifying the full range of potential risks, providing options for receiving limited results or withdrawal, sharing of information with family members, and establishing the mechanisms to answer participant questions. IRBs reviewing studies that involve the return of results from genomic sequencing have a diverse array of concerns, and anticipating these concerns can help investigators to more effectively engage IRBs., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results.

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing emerged in the early 2000s as a means of allowing consumers to access information on their genetics without the involvement of a physician. Although early models of DTC were popular with consumers, they were controversial in medical and regulatory circles. In this article, we trace the history of DTC genetic testing, discuss its regulatory implications, and describe the emergence of a new hybrid model we call DTC 2.0., (Copyright © 2017 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To develop a process for returning medically actionable genomic variants to Latino patients receiving care in a Federally Qualified Health Center., Methods: Prior to recruitment, researchers met with primary care providers to (1) orient clinicians to the project, (2) establish a process for returning actionable and nonactionable results to participants and providers through the electronic health record, and (3) develop a process for offering clinical decision support for follow-up education and care. A Community Advisory Board was engaged to provide input on recruitment strategies and materials for conveying results to participants. Participants in the Sangre Por Salud (Blood for Health) Biobank with hyperlipidemia or colon polyps represented the pool of potentially eligible participants., Results: A total of 1,621 individuals were invited to participate and 710 agreed to an in- person consenting visit (194 no-showed and 16 declined). Over 12-months, 500 participants were enrolled. Participants were primarily Spanish-speaking (81.6%), female (74.2%), and enrolled because of hyperlipidemia (95.4%). All but 2 participants opted to receive primary (i.e., related to enrollment phenotypes) as well as secondary actionable results., Conclusion: Efforts to bring precision medicine to community-based health centers serving minority patients may require multilevel engagement activities to include individuals, providers, health systems, and the community., (© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Aims: In September, 2015, Mayo Clinic convened a panel of national thought leaders on prenatal screening, medical genetics, and obstetrics and gynecology practice., Results: During the 2-day symposium, participants discussed the implications of the shift toward broader prenatal screening using cell-free placental DNA in maternal serum (cfDNA screening). Key topics included challenges around the pace of change in the prenatal screening market, uncertainty around reimbursement, meeting the need for patient counseling, and potential challenges in interpreting and returning cfDNA screening results., Innovation: Here, we describe the challenges discussed and offer clinical recommendations for practices who are working to meet them., Conclusion: As the spread of prenatal genetic screening continues, providers will increasingly need to update their practice to accommodate new screening modalities.

If untreated, most children with severe combined immunodeficiency disorder (SCID) will die of complications of infection within the first 2 years of life. Early hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) is the current standard of care for this disease. Although potentially lifesaving, prognosis of HSCT in SCID is variable depending on a number of host and donor factors. Of the survivors, many develop secondary problems such as chronic graft-versus-host disease or even second malignancies. Posttransplant care is complex and requires great effort from parents to adhere to difficult treatment regimens. In this article, we address the difficult ethical question of what to do if parents choose not to have their child with SCID undergo HSCT but prefer palliative care., (Copyright © 2016 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)