ABSTRACT
The electronic MEdical Records and GEnomics (eMERGE) consortium will return risk reports pertaining to specific diseases, a key component of which will be polygenic risk scores (PRS), to 25,000 participants, including 5000 children. Understanding comprehension and the perceived value of these PRS-based reports among parents will be critical for effective return of results in children. To address this issue, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 40 African American and Hispanic parents at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and Boston Children's Hospital. Each participant received a hypothetical risk report identifying their child as high risk for either type 2 diabetes or asthma. Participants were assessed on their comprehension of absolute versus relative risk framing, likelihood of following risk-reduction recommendations, perceived value of the information, psychosocial impact, education/support needed, and suggestions to improve the PRS-based report to make it more accessible. Results demonstrated high perceived value in receiving PRS-based reports but also draws attention to important shortfalls in comprehension due to factors including the health of the child, family history, and how the risk was framed. This study provides an insight into implementing the return of genomic risk scores in a pediatric setting.
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: An integrative multidisciplinary approach is required to elucidate the multiple factors that shape neurodevelopmental trajectories of mental disorders. The Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort (PNC), funded by the National Institute of Mental Health Grand Opportunity (GO) mechanism of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, was designed to characterize clinical and neurobehavioral phenotypes of genotyped youths. Data generated, which are recently available through the NIMH Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP), have garnered considerable interest. We provide an overview of PNC recruitment and clinical assessment methods to allow informed use and interpretation of the PNC resource by the scientific community. We also evaluate the structure of the assessment tools and their criterion validity. METHODS: Participants were recruited from a large pool of youths (n = 13,958) previously identified and genotyped at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. A comprehensive computerized tool for structured evaluation of psychopathology domains (GOASSESS) was constructed. We administered GOASSESS to all participants and used factor analysis to evaluate its structure. RESULTS: A total of 9,498 youths (aged 8-21; mean age = 14.2; European American = 55.8%; African American = 32.9%; Other = 11.4%) were enrolled. Factor analysis revealed a strong general psychopathology factor, and specific 'anxious-misery', 'fear', and 'behavior' factors. The 'behavior' factor had a small negative correlation (-0.21) with overall accuracy of neurocognitive performance, particularly in tests of executive and complex reasoning. Being female had a high association with the 'anxious-misery' and low association with the 'behavior' factors. The psychosis spectrum was also best characterized by a general factor and three specific factors: ideas about 'special abilities/persecution,' 'unusual thoughts/perceptions', and 'negative/disorganized' symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The PNC assessment mechanism yielded psychopathology data with strong factorial validity in a large diverse community cohort of genotyped youths. Factor scores should be useful for dimensional integration with other modalities (neuroimaging, genomics). Thus, PNC public domain resources can advance understanding of complex inter-relationships among genes, cognition, brain, and behavior involved in neurodevelopment of common mental disorders.
