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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |