Brief Report: Challenges in Obtaining the Informed Perspectives of Stakeholders Regarding HIV Molecular Epidemiology.

BACKGROUND: HIV molecular epidemiology (HIV-ME) is now being used in a variety of ways, including molecular HIV surveillance to help identify and respond to emerging HIV transmission clusters as specified in the Ending the HIV Epidemic in the U.S. initiative. However, HIV-ME in general, and its use for cluster detection and response, in particular, raises significant ethical and social concerns, which have spurred vigorous debates. Nevertheless, there is a paucity of information regarding how these potential benefits and concerns are perceived among people living with HIV and people without HIV at an increased risk. SETTING: Virtual engagement with US participants. METHODS: We rigorously developed a brief informational video about HIV-ME and conducted a series of in-depth interviews with people living with HIV and people without HIV at an increased risk. RESULTS: Through extensive stakeholder engagement during the video development process and subsequent in-depth interviews (N = 24), several preliminary findings surfaced. In contrast to the high level of concern raised by some critics of HIV-ME, our data appear to show broad support for it. In addition, we observed conflation of perspectives about HIV-ME with concerns about HIV public health surveillance more generally. CONCLUSION: Our experiences reveal substantial communication challenges related to the nature of HIV-ME that need to be overcome to ensure that it is properly understood, which is necessary for meaningfully engaging stakeholders in discussions about its use. Moreover, ongoing, responsive, engagement efforts are critical. Additional systematic data are needed to help inform policy making and practice regarding HIV-ME.

Patients' Reactions to Letters Communicating Collateral Findings of Pragmatic Clinical Trials: a National Web-Based Survey.

BACKGROUND: Collateral findings in pragmatic clinical trials are findings that may have implications for patients' health but were not generated to address a trial's primary research questions. It is uncertain how best to communicate these collateral findings to patients. OBJECTIVES: To determine how reactions to a letter communicating collateral findings relate to who signed the letter, the type of finding, or whether the letter specified that the finding arose from a pragmatic clinical trial. RESEARCH DESIGN: Web-based survey experiment using a between-subjects design in which respondents were randomly assigned within education strata to view and respond to 1 of 16 hypothetical scenarios. SUBJECTS: Adults recruited from an online panel constructed from a probability sample of US-based postal addresses. MEASURES: The primary outcomes were the action the respondent would take next (i.e., contact a doctor immediately or something else) and the respondent's emotional reactions (i.e., all positive, all negative, mixed, or none). RESULTS: A total of 4080 respondents had analyzable data. Although some effects were statistically significant (P < .05), none exceeded a prespecified threshold for policy relevance (15 or more percentage points). Ratings of letter clarity and level of understanding were lower for letters that included a description of the clinical trial. CONCLUSIONS: Signatory and level of detail about collateral findings did not substantially affect people's intentions to take the recommended action of contacting their doctor. Deciding whether to include a description of the pragmatic clinical trial requires a trade-off between transparency and more difficulty understanding the contents of the letter.

Stakeholder perspectives regarding pragmatic clinical trial collateral findings.

CONTEXT: Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs), which are becoming widespread since they are relatively inexpensive and offer important benefits for healthcare decision-making, can also present practical, ethical, and legal challenges. One such challenge involves managing "pragmatic clinical trial collateral findings" (PCT-CFs), or information emerging in a PCT that is unrelated to the primary research question(s), yet may have implications for individual patients, clinicians, or health care systems from whom or within which data were collected. The expansion of PCTs makes it likely healthcare systems will increasingly encounter PCT-CFs, yet little guidance exists regarding their appropriate management. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders experienced in the conduct or oversight of PCTs and those in health system leadership. Interviews explored respondents' experience with PCTs and PCT-CFs, and actual or hypothetical reactions to PCT-CF management. We used standard methods of qualitative analysis to identify key themes. FINDINGS: Forty-one stakeholders participated. Four key themes emerged. First, discussions of PCT-CFs are complicated by layers of ambiguity related to both the nature of PCTs themselves, and unanticipated results that emanate from them. Second, management of PCT-CFs is context-specific, and not amenable to a "one-size-fits-all" approach. Third, there was a wide diversity of attitudes regarding the scope of researcher responsibilities in PCTs. Fourth, PCT-CFs had generally not been previously considered by respondents, but there was widespread belief in the importance of prospective planning to anticipate such issues in future PCTs. CONCLUSIONS: PCT-CFs are likely to increase, yet those charged with PCT-CF decision-making and their disclosure are unlikely to have experience with these issues. Further deliberation about the ethical obligations and implementation processes regarding PCT-CFs is needed. To enhance the likelihood of developing sound policies and practices, such deliberations should include the input and perspectives of key stakeholders in PCTs, including professionals, policy makers, and patients.

Challenges to Building a Gene Variant Commons to Assess Hereditary Cancer Risk: Results of a Modified Policy Delphi Panel Deliberation.

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.

A scoping review of genetics and genomics research ethics policies and guidelines for Africa.

BACKGROUND: Genetics and genomics research (GGR) is increasingly being conducted around the world; yet, researchers and research oversight entities in many countries have struggled with ethical challenges. A range of ethics and regulatory issues need to be addressed through comprehensive policy frameworks that integrate with local environments. While important efforts have been made to enhance understanding and awareness of ethical dimensions of GGR in Africa, including through the H3Africa initiative, there remains a need for in-depth policy review, at a country-level, to inform and stimulate local policy development and revision on the continent. METHODS: To identify and characterize existing ethics-related guidelines and laws applicable to GGR across much of Africa, we conducted a scoping review of English language policy documents identified through databases, repositories, and web searches. Thirty-six documents were included and coded using a framework that contained a range of themes across five analytical categories: (1) respect, (2) beneficence, (3) justice, (4) independent oversight, and (5) bans and prohibitions. Data analysis software (NVivo 12) was used to organize, code, and tabulate information according to document characteristics and topics. Illustrative examples of policy requirements were selected for inclusion. RESULTS: Documents that met inclusion criteria spanned 20 years; published between 1996 and 2018, with the majority (58%) published after 2009. About two-thirds were denoted as "guidelines," and slightly more than half were non-exclusive to GGR. Very few (six) country-level documents identified were specific to GGR. Requirements related to the principle of "respect" appeared most often across all documents, relative to other principles and processes. The most commonly stated ban was on reproductive cloning. Other prohibitions applied to germline editing, undue inducements in research, sample use for commercial purposes, employee mandatory DNA testing, fetal sex selection, stem cell use, eugenics, and research without public health benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Enforceable policies that are indispensable to the ethical conduct and review of GGR are either deficient or missing in many African countries. Existing international, GGR-specific ethics guidelines can be used to inform GGR policy development at a country-level, in conjunction with insight from country specific ethics committees and other local stakeholders.

Patients' Views About the Disclosure of Collateral Findings in Pragmatic Clinical Trials: a Focus Group Study.

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are increasingly being conducted to efficiently generate evidence to inform healthcare decision-making. Despite their growing acceptance, PCTs may involve a variety of ethical issues, including the management of pragmatic clinical trial-collateral findings (PCT-CFs), that is, information that emerges in PCTs that is unrelated to the primary research questions but may have implications for patients, clinicians, and health systems. OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand patients' views about PCT-CF disclosure, including how, by whom, and the nature and extent of information provided. DESIGN: Prospective, qualitative focus group study. PARTICIPANTS: Focus groups were conducted in Baltimore, MD; Houston, TX; and Seattle, WA (overall N = 66), during July and August 2019. APPROACH: All groups discussed a hypothetical scenario involving the detection of a PCT-CF of contraindicated medications. Participants were asked about their reactions to the PCT-CF and issues related to its disclosure. KEY RESULTS: Reactions to learning about the PCT-CF were mixed, ranging from fear of a significant health problem, anger that the contraindicated medications had gone unnoticed and/or for being included in research without their permission, to gratitude for the information. Preferences for how such disclosures are made varied but were driven by several consistent desires, namely minimizing patient harm and anxiety and demonstrating trust and respect. Many wanted their treating clinician to be informed of the PCT-CF so that they would be prepared to answer patients' questions and to discuss treatment options. CONCLUSIONS: The detection of PCT-CFs is likely to increase with further expansion of PCTs. As such, clinicians will undoubtedly become involved in the management of PCT-CFs. Our data illustrate some of the challenges clinicians may face when their patients are informed of a PCT-CF and the need to develop guidance for disclosing PCT-CFs in ways that align with patients' preferences and values.

Early experiences of independent advocates for potential HIV+ recipients of HIV+ donor organ transplants.

BACKGROUND: HIV+ to HIV+ solid organ transplants in the United States are now legally permitted. Currently, these transplants must adhere to the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act Safeguards and Research Criteria that require the provision of an independent recipient advocate, a novel requirement for solid organ transplant programs. The objective of this study was to understand the experiences of the first advocates serving in this role. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 HOPE independent recipient advocates (HIRAs) from 12 institutions. RESULTS: All HIRAs had a professional degree and experience in transplantation or infectious diseases. HIRAs' encounters with potential recipients varied in length, modality, and timing. The newness of the role and the lack of guidance were associated with unease among some HIRAs. Some questioned whether their role was redundant to others involved in transplantation and research since some potential recipients experienced informational fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: HOPE independent recipient advocates are ensuring the voluntariness of potential participants' decision to accept an HIV-infected organ. Many suggested additional guidance would be helpful and alleviate unease. Concerns about potential role redundancy raise the question of whether the HIRA requirement may be inadvertently increasing burden for potential recipients. Future work that captures the experiences of potential recipients is warranted.

What is a Medical Information Commons?

A 2011 National Academies of Sciences report called for an "Information Commons" and a "Knowledge Network" to revolutionize biomedical research and clinical care. We interviewed 41 expert stakeholders to examine governance, access, data collection, and privacy in the context of a medical information commons. Stakeholders' attitudes about MICs align with the NAS vision of an Information Commons; however, differences of opinion regarding clinical use and access warrant further research to explore policy and technological solutions.

Importance of Participant-Centricity and Trust for a Sustainable Medical Information Commons.

Drawing on a landscape analysis of existing data-sharing initiatives, in-depth interviews with expert stakeholders, and public deliberations with community advisory panels across the U.S., we describe features of the evolving medical information commons (MIC). We identify participant-centricity and trustworthiness as the most important features of an MIC and discuss the implications for those seeking to create a sustainable, useful, and widely available collection of linked resources for research and other purposes.

BRCA1/2 Variant Data-Sharing Practices.

Accessing BRCA1/2 data facilitates the detection of disease-associated variants, which is critical to informing clinical management of risks. BRCA1/2 data sharing is complex and many practices exist. We describe current BRCA1/2 data-sharing practices, in the United States and globally, and discuss obstacles and incentives to sharing, based on 28 interviews with personnel at U.S. and non-U.S. clinical laboratories and databases. Our examination of the BRCA1/2 data-sharing landscape demonstrates strong support for and robust sharing of BRCA1/2 data around the world, increasing global accesses to diverse data sets.

The Role of Participants in a Medical Information Commons.

Meaningful participant engagement has been identified as a key contributor to the success of efforts to share data via a "Medical Information Commons" (MIC). We present findings from expert stakeholder interviews aimed at understanding barriers to engagement and the appropriate role of MIC participants. Although most interviewees supported engagement, they distinguished between individual versus collective forms. They also noted challenges including representation and perceived inefficiency, prompting reflection on political aspects of engagement and efficiency concerns.

Comparison of Approaches for Notification and Authorization in Pragmatic Clinical Research Evaluating Commonly Used Medical Practices.

BACKGROUND: For pragmatic clinical research comparing commonly used treatments, questions exist about if and how to notify participants about it and secure their authorization for participation. OBJECTIVE: To determine how patients react when they seek clinical care and encounter one of several different pragmatic clinical research studies. RESEARCH DESIGN: In an online survey using a between-subjects experimental design, respondents read and responded to 1 of 24 hypothetical research scenarios reflecting different types of studies and approaches to notification and authorization (eg, general notification, oral consent, written consent). SUBJECTS: English-speaking US adults 18 years and older. MEASURES: Willingness to participate in the hypothetical study, acceptability of the notification and authorization approach, understanding of the study, perceptions of benefit/harm, trust, and perception of amount of study information received. RESULTS: Willingness to participate did not differ by notification and authorization approach. Some (21%-36%) of the patients randomized to general notification with an explicit opt-out provision were not aware they would be enrolled by default. Acceptability was greatest for and similar among notification and authorization approaches that actively engaged the patient (eg, oral or written consent) and lower for approaches with less engagement (eg, general notification). Problems of understanding were found among 20%-55% of respondents, depending on the particular scenario. Most respondents (77%-94%) felt that participation in the hypothetical study posed no risks of harm to their health or privacy. CONCLUSIONS: Current attitudes about notification and authorization approaches and difficulties understanding pragmatic clinical research pose significant challenges for pragmatic research. Data from this study provide a starting point to developing solutions to these surprisingly complex issues.

Sharing data under the 21st Century Cures Act.

On 13 December 2016, President Obama signed the 21st Century Cures Act ("the Act") into law. Many of its provisions support the creation of an "Information Commons," an ecosystem of separate but interconnected initiatives that facilitate open and responsible sharing of genomic and other data for research and clinical purposes. For example, the Act supports the National Institutes of Health in mandating data sharing, provides funding and guidance for the large national cohort program now known as All of Us, expresses congressional support for a global pediatric study network, and strengthens patient access to health information. The Act also addresses potential barriers to data sharing. For example, it makes the issuance of certificates of confidentiality automatic for federally funded research involving "identifiable, sensitive" information and strengthens the associated protections. At the same time, the Act exacerbates or neglects several challenges, for example, increasing complexity by adding a new definition of "identifiable" and failing to address the financial sustainability of data sharing and the scope of commercialization. In sum, the Act is a positive step, yet there is still much work to be done before the goals of broad data sharing and utilization can be achieved.

Constraints on gene patent protection fuel secrecy concerns: a qualitative study.

Concern is mounting that innovators are responding to recent changes in patent eligibility by increasingly choosing to protect their discoveries as trade secrets. Due to the clandestine nature of trade secrets, it is impossible to quantify the extent to which innovators actually elect to protect their inventions as trade secrets rather than patents. Nevertheless, interest in each strategy may be gauged through qualitative means. We conducted semi-structured interviews of legal and scientific experts (n = 30) to understand the effect of recent patent eligibility changes on interest in patenting and trade secrecy of genetic innovations. Interview data indicate that secrecy may have increased in strategic appeal relative to patent protection in some areas of genetic innovation, although the actual election of secrecy strategies is often limited as a practical matter. The data also suggest that the burden of navigating the new intellectual property landscape may be falling disproportionately on those who translate gene-based discoveries into clinical applications. Some interviewees expressed concern about the normative implications of secrecy on advancements in and access to genetic medicine. Our findings are potentially relevant to policy proposals intended to restore some of the legal protection that was lost as a result of recent changes to patent eligibility, including amending the federal patent statute and expanding regulatory exclusivities for some genetic technologies.

Patients' Views Concerning Research on Medical Practices: Implications for Consent.

BACKGROUND: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) and pragmatic clinical trials commonly test interventions that are in routine use and pose minimal incremental risk or burdens to patients who participate in this research. The objective of this study was to elicit the range of patients' views and opinions regarding a variety of different types of research on usual medical practices, especially notification and authorization for them. METHODS: We conducted twelve focus groups with adults in five U.S. cities-six focus groups addressing CER ("CER groups") and six groups addressing research involving hospital operations and clinician interventions ("Operations groups"). Participants discussed hypothetical research studies and potential methods of notifying patients and obtaining their authorization to participate. Group discussions were recorded, transcribed, and coded to identify patients' views related to research on standard medical practice. RESULTS: A total of ninety six people participated. Twelve key themes emerged from participants' discussions of the hypothetical research studies; these themes were then grouped into four general categories: clinical care; notification and authorization; communication; and conduct and design of research. The desire to be actively notified and asked was more prominent with regard to CER studies than with regard to Operations studies. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that effective policy and guidance will involve balancing different patients' interests and potentially different sets of interests for different types of research studies on usual medical practices.

Risky business: risk perception and the use of medical services among customers of DTC personal genetic testing.

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing has generated speculation about how customers will interpret results and how these interpretations will influence healthcare use and behavior; however, few empirical data on these topics exist. We conducted an online survey of DTC customers of 23andMe, deCODEme, and Navigenics to begin to address these questions. Random samples of U.S. DTC customers were invited to participate. Survey topics included demographics, perceptions of two sample DTC results, and health behaviors following DTC testing. Of 3,167 DTC customers invited, 33% (n = 1,048) completed the survey. Forty-three percent of respondents had sought additional information about a health condition tested; 28% had discussed their results with a healthcare professional; and 9% had followed up with additional lab tests. Sixteen percent of respondents had changed a medication or supplement regimen, and one-third said they were being more careful about their diet. Many of these health-related behaviors were significantly associated with responses to a question that asked how participants would perceive their colon cancer risk (as low, moderate, or high) if they received a test result showing an 11% lifetime risk, as compared to 5% risk in the general population. Respondents who would consider themselves to be at high risk for colon cancer were significantly more likely to have sought information about a disease (p = 0.03), discussed results with a physician (p = 0.05), changed their diet (p = 0.02), and started exercising more (p = 0.01). Participants' personal health contexts--including personal and family history of disease and quality of self-perceived health--were also associated with health-related behaviors after testing. Subjective interpretations of genetic risk data and personal context appear to be related to health behaviors among DTC customers. Sharing DTC test results with healthcare professionals may add perceived utility to the tests.