Occupational skin dose from radionuclide contamination: one country's approach at standardising skin dose estimates using Varskin.

The manipulation of unsealed radiopharmaceuticals by healthcare workers can cause accidental personal contamination leading to occupational radiation skin dose. The UK Ionising Radiations Regulations 2017 require that potential skin doses arising from reasonably foreseeable accident scenarios are included in risk assessments. Workers must be designated as classified if these dose estimates exceed 150 mSv equivalent dose averaged over 1 cm2. Updates from the UK Health and Safety Executive recently prompted many in the UK to review the classification of workers in Nuclear Medicine. Skin dose from contamination cannot be measured, it must be estimated. Varskin+ is a code that is widely recommended for estimating skin dose. The subjective choices made by users when defining modelled scenarios in Varskin+ lead to significant variation in the calculated skin doses. At the time of writing there is no definitive calculation method and all calculations rely on theoretical models. NHS Health Boards in Scotland have adopted a standardised framework for performing skin dose estimates for risk assessments. The parametric sensitivity of Varskin+ inputs were examined and the available evidence was reviewed. Generic, reasonably forseeable, worst-case accident scenarios were decided upon for: direct skin contamination, glove contamination and needlestick injury. Standardised inputs and assumptions for each scenario were compiled in a protocol that has been adopted by the Scottish Health Boards. The protocol allows for differences in practice between departments, but standardises most inputs. While significant uncertainty remains in the estimated skin doses, this approach reduces variation and enables the comparison of estimated skin doses between departments. The framework facilitates continuous improvement as more evidence is gathered to refine the standardised assumptions. Task by task skin dose estimates were made for workers in Nuclear Medicine in Scotland and many workers were designated classified as a result.

Political views and organizational distrust affect rural residents' willingness to share personal data for COVID-19 contact tracing: A cross-sectional survey study.

Background: We aimed to examine the attitudes of Pennsylvania rural residents toward data sharing in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, we were interested in better understanding their willingness to provide personal information for contact tracing to public health staff investigating COVID-19 cases, as well as their concerns. We used a validated scale to describe the influence of distrust of healthcare organizations on their attitudes. Methods: We mailed 4000 surveys to rural residents identified from the electronic medical record of a healthcare system in central Pennsylvania. Data were entered into a REDCap database and analyzed using descriptive summaries, and both binomial and multivariable logistic regression. Results: Binomial logistic regression showed that both distrust in healthcare organizations and political values influence respondents' willingness to share information with contact tracers as well as their concerns about sharing personal data. When our multivariable model was applied, political values remained and were consistently associated with willingness to share and concerns about sharing their data. Conclusion: This study is a first step in eliciting rural residents' willingness to share personal data for contact tracing by public health officials. Understanding and addressing rural residents' willingness to share personal data and their concerns about sharing those data will help public health officials identify effective strategies for managing COVID-19 and future pandemics in rural communities. By involving community members at the ground level, public health staff can ensure residents' buy-in for the need to collect their personal data, thereby helping to mitigate the public health crises.

Effects of atomoxetine plus a hypnotic on obstructive sleep apnea severity in patients with a moderately collapsible pharyngeal airway.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Pharmacotherapy for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) regained consideration after the discovery that atomoxetine and oxybutynin greatly reduced OSA severity. However, atomoxetine and oxybutynin reduced the arousal threshold and may therefore be poorly tolerated in patients with OSA and disturbed sleep. As a result, we tested the combination of atomoxetine plus 2 hypnotics in patients with OSA. The effects of atomoxetine plus: (1) trazodone (Ato-Trazo) and (2) lemborexant vs placebo on apnea-hypopnea index, hypoxic burden, arousal threshold, and total sleep time were assessed. Drug safety was also ascertained, together with the effect of the combinations on other OSA traits, self-reported sleep quality, and next-day alertness. METHODS: Following a baseline study, 15 patients with mild-to-severe OSA with moderate upper airway collapsibility were administered Ato-Trazo, atomoxetine and lemborexant, and matching placebo according to a double-blind, randomized, crossover design. Apnea-hypopnea index and other objective outcomes were calculated from 3 clinical, in-laboratory polysomnograms. RESULTS: Ato-Trazo significantly reduced apnea-hypopnea index from a median [interquartile range] of 18.2 [11.8 to 31.3] on placebo to 7.4 [5.4 to 16.1] events/h, P = .024, and hypoxic burden from 46.3 [25.1 to 88.3] on placebo to 18.7 [14.9 to 43.5], P = .003. This effect was likely driven by an increase in polysomnography-estimated pharyngeal muscle activity during the events (P = .029). Atomoxetine and lemborexant had smaller statistically insignificant effects. Contrary to atomoxetine and oxybutynin, Ato-Trazo and atomoxetine and lemborexant did not reduce the arousal threshold. Both combinations had no effect on total sleep time but worsened self-reported sleep quality. CONCLUSIONS: Ato-Trazo has the potential to become a useful drug combination, however, longer trials are needed to determine the best dosage and the subgroup of patients who may benefit most from this combination. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; Name: Crossover Trial of AD182 and AD504 in Obstructive Sleep Apnea; URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04645524; Identifier: NCT04645524. CITATION: Corser B, Eves E, Warren-McCormick J, Rucosky G. Effects of atomoxetine plus a hypnotic on obstructive sleep apnea severity in patients with a moderately collapsible pharyngeal airway. J Clin Sleep Med. 2023;19(6):1035-1042.

Current landscape of research ethics consultation services: National survey results.

Introduction: The goal of a research ethics consultation service (RECS) is to assist relevant parties in navigating the ethical issues they encounter in conduct of research. The goal of this survey was to describe the current landscape of research ethics consultation and document if and how it has changed over the last decade. Methods: The survey instrument was based on the survey previously circulated. We included a number of survey domains from the previous survey with the goal of direct comparison of outcomes. The survey was sent to 57 RECS in the USA and Canada. Results: Forty-nine surveys were completed for an overall response rate of 86%. With the passing of 10 years, the volume of consults received by RECS surveyed has increased. The number of consults received by a subset of RECS remains low. RECS continues to receive requests for consults from a wide range of stakeholders. About a quarter of RECS surveyed actively evaluate their services, primarily through satisfaction surveys routinely shared with requestors. The number of RECS evaluating their services has increased. We identified a group of eight key competencies respondents find as key to providing RECS. Conclusions: The findings from our survey demonstrate that there have been growth and development of RECS since 2010. Further developing evaluation and competency guidelines will help existing RECS continue to grow and facilitate newly established RECS maturation. Both will allow RECS personnel to better serve their institutions and add value to the research conducted.

Mining the Data: Exploring Rural Patients' Attitudes about the Use of Their Personal Information in Research.

BACKGROUND: This study examines rural patients' perceived importance of knowing or being consulted about researchers' access and use of their personal data (identifiable and de-identified health information, and identifiable and de-identified non-health information) across five scenarios. This study also examines their views on stewardship or governance of their personal information by researchers in their healthcare systems. METHODS: We conducted a survey by mail. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Multivariable regression analyses were conducted across each scenario and type of personal data with the same variables included in each model. RESULTS: The majority of participants said it was "very important/absolutely essential" to know the purpose of the study, to be asked every time, and to know the policies governing researcher access and use of their identifiable health information. Just over two-thirds of respondents thought it "very important/absolutely essential" to know who serves on the data governance committee and to have a community member serve. Distrust in healthcare organizations was positively correlated with the scenarios while willingness to give permission to donate leftover biological specimens was negatively correlated. CONCLUSION: Our study findings indicate that the type of personal information being accessed and used generally matters to 1,407 patients living in rural Pennsylvania. We also demonstrate that knowing their healthcare organizations' governance policies and practices for managing their personal data is important to many rural Pennsylvania patients. Biomedical researchers need to recognize and attend to those differences as much as possible in order to expand opportunities for and participation in research by residents of these rural communities.Supplemental data for this article is available online at.

Exploring public concerns for sharing and governance of personal health information: a focus group study.

OBJECTIVE: Researchers are increasingly collecting large amounts of deidentified data about individuals to address important health-related challenges and answer fundamental questions. Current US federal regulations permit researchers to use already collected and stored deidentified health-related data from a variety of sources without seeking consent from patients. The objective of this study was to investigate public views on the policies and processes institutions have in place for accessing, using, and sharing of data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted 5 focus groups with individuals living within a 20-mile radius of the local academic medical center. We also held a focus group with undergraduates at a local university. RESULTS: A total of 37 individuals participated, ages 18-76. Most participants were not surprised that researchers accessed and used deidentified personal information for research, and were supportive of this practice. Transparency was important. Participants wanted to know when their data were accessed, for what purpose, and by whom. Some wanted to have some control over the use of their data valuing the chance to opt-out. Finally, participants supported establishment of an advisory council or group with responsibility for deciding what data were used, who was accessing those data, and whether data could be shared. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The trust people have in their local institutions should be considered fragile, and institutions should not take that trust for granted. How institutions choose to govern patients' data and what voices are included in decisions about use and access are critical to maintaining the trust of the public.

Creating a Research Ethics Consultation Service: Issues to Consider.

This article provides pragmatic advice for organizations interested in creating a research ethics consultation service (RECS). A robust RECS has the potential to build capacity among investigators to identify and consider the ethical issues they encounter while conducting their research. Determining whether to establish an RECS should begin with an institutional-needs assessment that includes three key questions: What are the current resources available to research teams to navigate ethical concerns that arise from their research? Is there a demand or perceived need for more resources? Is there institutional support (financial and otherwise) to establish and maintain an RECS? If this results in the decision to establish the consultation service, relevant institutional stakeholders must be identified and consulted, and personnel with the requisite skills recruited. The next step is to establish an RECS and build the infrastructure to process and respond to requests. The RECS's long-term sustainability will depend on a stable source of funding and a mechanism to receive constructive feedback to ensure that the service is meeting the institutional needs it set out to address.

Informed consent: Old and new challenges in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In this paper, we address how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted informed consent for clinical research through examining experiences within Clinical and Translation Science Award (CTSA) institutions. We begin with a brief overview of informed consent and the challenges that existed prior to COVID-19. Then, we discuss how informed consent processes were modified or changed to address the pandemic, consider what lessons were learned, and present research and policy steps to prepare for future research and public health crises. The experiences and challenges for CTSA institutions offer an important perspective for examining what we have learned about informed consent and determining the next steps for improving the consent process.

"They're Not Going to Do Nothing for Me": Research Participants' Attitudes towards Elective Genetic Counseling.

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.

At a Moment's Notice: Community Advisory Board Perspectives on Biobank Communication to Supplement Broad Consent.

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.

Assessing the stability of biobank donor preferences regarding sample use: evidence supporting the value of dynamic consent.

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.

Evolving public views on the value of one's DNA and expectations for genomic database governance: Results from a national survey.

We report results from a large survey of public attitudes regarding genomic database governance. Prior surveys focused on the context of academic-sponsored biobanks, framing data provision as altruistic donation; our survey is designed to reflect four growing trends: genomic databases are found across many sectors; they are used for more than academic biomedical research; their value is reflected in corporate transactions; and additional related privacy risks are coming to light. To examine how attitudes may evolve in response to these trends, we provided survey respondents with information from mainstream media coverage of them. We then found only 11.7% of respondents willing to altruistically donate their data, versus 50.6% willing to provide data if financially compensated, and 37.8% unwilling to provide data regardless of compensation. Because providing one's genomic data is sometimes bundled with receipt of a personalized genomic report, we also asked respondents what price they would be willing to pay for a personalized report. Subtracting that response value from one's expected compensation for providing data (if any) yields a net expected payment. For the altruistic donors, median net expected payment was -$75 (i.e. they expected to pay $75 for the bundle). For respondents wanting compensation for their data, however, median net expected payment was +$95 (i.e. they expected to receive $95). When asked about different genomic database governance policies, most respondents preferred options that allowed them more control over their data. In particular, they favored policies restricting data sharing or reuse unless permission is specifically granted by the individual. Policy preferences were also relatively consistent regardless of the sector in which the genomic database was located. Together these findings offer a forward-looking window on individual preferences that can be useful for institutions of all types as they develop governance approaches in this area of large-scale data sharing.

Parent Perspectives Towards Genetic and Epigenetic Testing for Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Examining community views on genetic/epigenetic research allows collaborative technology development. Parent perspectives toward genetic/epigenetic testing for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are not well-studied. Parents of children with ASD (n = 131), non-ASD developmental delay (n = 39), and typical development (n = 74) completed surveys assessing genetic/epigenetic knowledge, genetic/epigenetic concerns, motives for research participation, and attitudes/preferences toward ASD testing. Most parents (96%) were interested in saliva-based molecular testing for ASD. Some had concerns about privacy (14%) and insurance-status (10%). None (0%) doubted scientific evidence behind genetic/epigenetic testing. Most reported familiarity with genetics (88%), but few understood differences from epigenetics (19%). Child developmental status impacted insurance concerns (p = 0.01). There is broad parent interest in a genetic/epigenetic test for ASD. It will be crucial to carefully consider and address bioethical issues surrounding this sensitive topic while developing such technology.

Patients' views on variants of uncertain significance across indications.

As genomic sequencing expands into more areas of patient care, an increasing number of patients learn of the variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) that they carry. Understanding the potential psychosocial consequences of the disclosure of a VUS can help inform pre- and post-test counseling discussions. Medical uncertainty in general elicits a variety of responses from patients, particularly in the growing field of medical genetics and genomics. It is important to consider patients' responses to the ambiguous nature of VUSs across different indications and situational contexts. Genetic counselors and other providers ordering genetic testing should be prepared for the possibility of their patients' misinterpretation of such results. Pre-test counseling should include a discussion of the possibility of VUSs and what it would mean for the patient's care and its potential psychosocial impacts. When a VUS is found, post-test counseling should include additional education and a discussion of the variant's implications and medical management recommendations based on the results. These discussions may help temper subjective interpretations, unrealistic views, and decisional regret.

Interleukin-6 does not upregulate pro-inflammatory cytokine expression in an ex vivo model of giant cell arteritis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the pro-inflammatory effects of IL-6 in ex vivo temporal artery explant cultures. METHODS: Patients meeting 1990 ACR classification criteria for GCA were prospectively recruited. Temporal artery biopsies were obtained and temporal artery explants cultured ex vivo with IL-6 (10-40 ng/ml) in the presence or absence of its soluble receptor (sIL-6R; 20 ng/ml) for 24 h. Explant supernatants were harvested after 24 h and assayed for IFN-γ, TNF-α, Serum amyloid A, IL-1ß, IL-17, IL-8, angiotensin II and VEGF by ELISA. Myofibroblast outgrowths, cytoskeletal rearrangement and wound repair assays were performed. RESULTS: IL-6 augmented production of VEGF, but not of any of the other pro-inflammatory mediators assayed. No differences were observed in the explants cultured in the presence or absence of the sIL-6R or between those with a positive (n = 11) or negative (n = 17) temporal artery biopsy. IL-6 did not enhance myofibroblast proliferation or migration. Western blot analysis confirmed signalling activation, with increased expression of pSTAT3 in response to IL-6+sIL-6R. CONCLUSION: IL-6 stimulation of temporal artery explants from patients with GCA neither increased expression of key pro-inflammatory mediators nor influenced myofibroblast proliferation or migration.

The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results.

The evidence base supporting genetic and genomic sequence-variant interpretations is continuously evolving. An inherent consequence is that a variant's clinical significance might be reinterpreted over time as new evidence emerges regarding its pathogenicity or lack thereof. This raises ethical, legal, and financial issues as to whether there is a responsibility to recontact research participants to provide updates on reinterpretations of variants after the initial analysis. There has been discussion concerning the extent of this obligation in the context of both research and clinical care. Although clinical recommendations have begun to emerge, guidance is lacking on the responsibilities of researchers to inform participants of reinterpreted results. To respond, an American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) workgroup developed this position statement, which was approved by the ASHG Board in November 2018. The workgroup included representatives from the National Society of Genetic Counselors, the Canadian College of Medical Genetics, and the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors. The final statement includes twelve position statements that were endorsed or supported by the following organizations: Genetic Alliance, European Society of Human Genetics, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, American Association of Anthropological Genetics, Executive Committee of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Canadian College of Medical Genetics, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, and National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Pancreatic cancer and melanoma related perceptions and behaviors following disclosure of CDKN2A variant status as a research result.

PURPOSE: This study examined whether participants who learned research results related to a germline CDKN2A variant known to be associated with increased risk of pancreatic cancer and malignant melanoma would pursue confirmatory testing and cancer screening, share the genetic information with health care providers and family, and change risk perceptions. METHODS: Participants were pancreas research registry enrollees whose biological sample was tested in a research laboratory for the variant. In total, 133 individuals were invited to learn a genetic research result and participate in a study about the disclosure process. Perceived cancer risk, screening intentions, and behaviors were assessed predisclosure, immediately postdisclosure, and six months postdisclosure. RESULTS: Eighty individuals agreed to participate and 63 completed the study. Immediately postdisclosure, carriers reported greater intentions to undergo pancreatic cancer and melanoma screening (p values ≤0.024). Seventy-three percent of carriers (47.5% noncarriers) intended to seek confirmatory testing within six months and 20% (2.5% noncarriers) followed through. All participants shared results with ≥1 family member. More carriers shared results with their health care provider than noncarriers (p = 0.028). CONCLUSION: Recipients of cancer genetic research results may not follow through with recommended behaviors (confirmatory testing, screening), despite stated intentions. The research result disclosure motivated follow-up behaviors among carriers more than noncarriers.

Managing the Unimaginable: Biobank Participant Views on Reconsent for Whole Genome Sequencing of Stored Biospecimens.

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.

"Why did I get that part of you?" Understanding addiction genetics through family history.

Scientists have sought to uncover the genetic bases of many diseases and disorders. In response, scholars defined "geneticization" to describe genetic infiltration of understandings of health and illness. In our research, we interviewed 63 individuals in addiction treatment programs to identify what form of geneticization best fits individuals' description of their own addiction. Individuals' narratives of their lives, which include family history and are influenced by cultural and structural factors, affect respondents' reactions to a potential genetic basis of addiction. Most who had a family history of addiction subscribed to a notion that addiction "runs in families," while most who lacked a family history of addiction used this fact to reject the notion of genetic inheritance of addiction. We conclude that though we see elements of several different versions of geneticization, Nikolas Rose's version, that genetics affects peoples' perceptions of addiction in small but important ways, best describes our respondents' views.