Cargando…

Ethical Considerations Related to Return of Results from Genomic Medicine Projects: The eMERGE Network (Phase III) Experience

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 gene...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fossey, Robyn, Kochan, David, Winkler, Erin, Pacyna, Joel E., Olson, Janet, Thibodeau, Stephen, Connolly, John J., Harr, Margaret, Behr, Meckenzie A., Prows, Cynthia A., Cobb, Beth, Myers, Melanie F., Leslie, Nancy D., Namjou-Khales, Bahram, Milo Rasouly, Hila, Wynn, Julia, Fedotov, Alexander, Chung, Wendy K., Gharavi, Ali, Williams, Janet L., Pais, Lynn, Holm, Ingrid, Aufox, Sharon, Smith, Maureen E., Scrol, Aaron, Leppig, Kathleen, Jarvik, Gail P., Wiesner, Georgia L., Li, Rongling, Stroud, Mary, Smoller, Jordan W., Sharp, Richard R., Kullo, Iftikhar J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5872076/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29301385
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm8010002
_version_ 1783309758183243776
author Fossey, Robyn
Kochan, David
Winkler, Erin
Pacyna, Joel E.
Olson, Janet
Thibodeau, Stephen
Connolly, John J.
Harr, Margaret
Behr, Meckenzie A.
Prows, Cynthia A.
Cobb, Beth
Myers, Melanie F.
Leslie, Nancy D.
Namjou-Khales, Bahram
Milo Rasouly, Hila
Wynn, Julia
Fedotov, Alexander
Chung, Wendy K.
Gharavi, Ali
Williams, Janet L.
Pais, Lynn
Holm, Ingrid
Aufox, Sharon
Smith, Maureen E.
Scrol, Aaron
Leppig, Kathleen
Jarvik, Gail P.
Wiesner, Georgia L.
Li, Rongling
Stroud, Mary
Smoller, Jordan W.
Sharp, Richard R.
Kullo, Iftikhar J.
author_facet Fossey, Robyn
Kochan, David
Winkler, Erin
Pacyna, Joel E.
Olson, Janet
Thibodeau, Stephen
Connolly, John J.
Harr, Margaret
Behr, Meckenzie A.
Prows, Cynthia A.
Cobb, Beth
Myers, Melanie F.
Leslie, Nancy D.
Namjou-Khales, Bahram
Milo Rasouly, Hila
Wynn, Julia
Fedotov, Alexander
Chung, Wendy K.
Gharavi, Ali
Williams, Janet L.
Pais, Lynn
Holm, Ingrid
Aufox, Sharon
Smith, Maureen E.
Scrol, Aaron
Leppig, Kathleen
Jarvik, Gail P.
Wiesner, Georgia L.
Li, Rongling
Stroud, Mary
Smoller, Jordan W.
Sharp, Richard R.
Kullo, Iftikhar J.
author_sort Fossey, Robyn
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5872076
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58720762018-03-30 Ethical Considerations Related to Return of Results from Genomic Medicine Projects: The eMERGE Network (Phase III) Experience Fossey, Robyn Kochan, David Winkler, Erin Pacyna, Joel E. Olson, Janet Thibodeau, Stephen Connolly, John J. Harr, Margaret Behr, Meckenzie A. Prows, Cynthia A. Cobb, Beth Myers, Melanie F. Leslie, Nancy D. Namjou-Khales, Bahram Milo Rasouly, Hila Wynn, Julia Fedotov, Alexander Chung, Wendy K. Gharavi, Ali Williams, Janet L. Pais, Lynn Holm, Ingrid Aufox, Sharon Smith, Maureen E. Scrol, Aaron Leppig, Kathleen Jarvik, Gail P. Wiesner, Georgia L. Li, Rongling Stroud, Mary Smoller, Jordan W. Sharp, Richard R. Kullo, Iftikhar J. J Pers Med Article 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. MDPI 2018-01-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5872076/ /pubmed/29301385 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm8010002 Text en © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Fossey, Robyn
Kochan, David
Winkler, Erin
Pacyna, Joel E.
Olson, Janet
Thibodeau, Stephen
Connolly, John J.
Harr, Margaret
Behr, Meckenzie A.
Prows, Cynthia A.
Cobb, Beth
Myers, Melanie F.
Leslie, Nancy D.
Namjou-Khales, Bahram
Milo Rasouly, Hila
Wynn, Julia
Fedotov, Alexander
Chung, Wendy K.
Gharavi, Ali
Williams, Janet L.
Pais, Lynn
Holm, Ingrid
Aufox, Sharon
Smith, Maureen E.
Scrol, Aaron
Leppig, Kathleen
Jarvik, Gail P.
Wiesner, Georgia L.
Li, Rongling
Stroud, Mary
Smoller, Jordan W.
Sharp, Richard R.
Kullo, Iftikhar J.
Ethical Considerations Related to Return of Results from Genomic Medicine Projects: The eMERGE Network (Phase III) Experience
title Ethical Considerations Related to Return of Results from Genomic Medicine Projects: The eMERGE Network (Phase III) Experience
title_full Ethical Considerations Related to Return of Results from Genomic Medicine Projects: The eMERGE Network (Phase III) Experience
title_fullStr Ethical Considerations Related to Return of Results from Genomic Medicine Projects: The eMERGE Network (Phase III) Experience
title_full_unstemmed Ethical Considerations Related to Return of Results from Genomic Medicine Projects: The eMERGE Network (Phase III) Experience
title_short Ethical Considerations Related to Return of Results from Genomic Medicine Projects: The eMERGE Network (Phase III) Experience
title_sort ethical considerations related to return of results from genomic medicine projects: the emerge network (phase iii) experience
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5872076/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29301385
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm8010002
work_keys_str_mv AT fosseyrobyn ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT kochandavid ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT winklererin ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT pacynajoele ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT olsonjanet ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT thibodeaustephen ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT connollyjohnj ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT harrmargaret ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT behrmeckenziea ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT prowscynthiaa ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT cobbbeth ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT myersmelanief ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT leslienancyd ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT namjoukhalesbahram ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT milorasoulyhila ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT wynnjulia ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT fedotovalexander ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT chungwendyk ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT gharaviali ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT williamsjanetl ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT paislynn ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT holmingrid ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT aufoxsharon ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT smithmaureene ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT scrolaaron ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT leppigkathleen ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT jarvikgailp ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT wiesnergeorgial ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT lirongling ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT stroudmary ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT smollerjordanw ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT sharprichardr ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience
AT kulloiftikharj ethicalconsiderationsrelatedtoreturnofresultsfromgenomicmedicineprojectstheemergenetworkphaseiiiexperience