Ethical considerations related to return of results from genomic medicine projects

The eMERGE network (phase III) experience

Robyn Fossey, David Kochan, Erin Winkler, Joel E. Pacyna, Janet E Olson, Stephen N Thibodeau, John J. Connolly, Margaret Harr, Meckenzie A. Behr, Cynthia A. Prows, Beth Cobb, Melanie F. Myers, Nancy D. Leslie, Bahram Namjou-Khales, Hila Milo Rasouly, Julia Wynn, Alexander Fedotov, Wendy K. Chung, Ali Gharavi, Janet L. Williams & 13 others Lynn Pais, Ingrid Holm, Sharon Aufox, Maureen E. Smith, Aaron Scrol, Kathleen Leppig, Gail P. Jarvik, Georgia L. Wiesner, Rongling Li, Mary Stroud, Jordan W. Smoller, Richard R Sharp, Iftikhar Jan Kullo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number2
JournalJournal of Personalized Medicine
Volume8
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2018

Fingerprint

Electronic Health Records
Research Ethics Committees
Genomics
Medicine
Informed Consent
Information Dissemination
Research
Genes
Research Personnel

Keywords

  • Electronic health record
  • Genome sequencing
  • Informed consent
  • Institutional Review Board
  • Return of results

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)

Cite this

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 E; Thibodeau, Stephen N; Connolly, John J.; Harr, Margaret; Behr, Meckenzie A.; Prows, Cynthia A.; Cobb, Beth; Myers, Melanie F.; Leslie, Nancy D.; Namjou-Khales, Bahram; Rasouly, Hila Milo; 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 Jan.

In: Journal of Personalized Medicine, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2, 01.03.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Fossey, R, Kochan, D, Winkler, E, Pacyna, JE, Olson, JE, Thibodeau, SN, Connolly, JJ, Harr, M, Behr, MA, Prows, CA, Cobb, B, Myers, MF, Leslie, ND, Namjou-Khales, B, Rasouly, HM, Wynn, J, Fedotov, A, Chung, WK, Gharavi, A, Williams, JL, Pais, L, Holm, I, Aufox, S, Smith, ME, Scrol, A, Leppig, K, Jarvik, GP, Wiesner, GL, Li, R, Stroud, M, Smoller, JW, Sharp, RR & Kullo, IJ 2018, 'Ethical considerations related to return of results from genomic medicine projects: The eMERGE network (phase III) experience', Journal of Personalized Medicine, vol. 8, no. 1, 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm8010002
Fossey, Robyn ; Kochan, David ; Winkler, Erin ; Pacyna, Joel E. ; Olson, Janet E ; Thibodeau, Stephen N ; Connolly, John J. ; Harr, Margaret ; Behr, Meckenzie A. ; Prows, Cynthia A. ; Cobb, Beth ; Myers, Melanie F. ; Leslie, Nancy D. ; Namjou-Khales, Bahram ; Rasouly, Hila Milo ; 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 Jan. / Ethical considerations related to return of results from genomic medicine projects : The eMERGE network (phase III) experience. In: Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2018 ; Vol. 8, No. 1.
@article{ee5118148a5e4b74a9252febd555d154,
title = "Ethical considerations related to return of results from genomic medicine projects: The eMERGE network (phase III) experience",
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.",
keywords = "Electronic health record, Genome sequencing, Informed consent, Institutional Review Board, Return of results",
author = "Robyn Fossey and David Kochan and Erin Winkler and Pacyna, {Joel E.} and Olson, {Janet E} and Thibodeau, {Stephen N} and Connolly, {John J.} and Margaret Harr and Behr, {Meckenzie A.} and Prows, {Cynthia A.} and Beth Cobb and Myers, {Melanie F.} and Leslie, {Nancy D.} and Bahram Namjou-Khales and Rasouly, {Hila Milo} and Julia Wynn and Alexander Fedotov and Chung, {Wendy K.} and Ali Gharavi and Williams, {Janet L.} and Lynn Pais and Ingrid Holm and Sharon Aufox and Smith, {Maureen E.} and Aaron Scrol and Kathleen Leppig and Jarvik, {Gail P.} and Wiesner, {Georgia L.} and Rongling Li and Mary Stroud and Smoller, {Jordan W.} and Sharp, {Richard R} and Kullo, {Iftikhar Jan}",
year = "2018",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3390/jpm8010002",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "8",
journal = "Journal of Personalized Medicine",
issn = "2075-4426",
publisher = "Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ethical considerations related to return of results from genomic medicine projects

T2 - The eMERGE network (phase III) experience

AU - Fossey, Robyn

AU - Kochan, David

AU - Winkler, Erin

AU - Pacyna, Joel E.

AU - Olson, Janet E

AU - Thibodeau, Stephen N

AU - Connolly, John J.

AU - Harr, Margaret

AU - Behr, Meckenzie A.

AU - Prows, Cynthia A.

AU - Cobb, Beth

AU - Myers, Melanie F.

AU - Leslie, Nancy D.

AU - Namjou-Khales, Bahram

AU - Rasouly, Hila Milo

AU - Wynn, Julia

AU - Fedotov, Alexander

AU - Chung, Wendy K.

AU - Gharavi, Ali

AU - Williams, Janet L.

AU - Pais, Lynn

AU - Holm, Ingrid

AU - Aufox, Sharon

AU - Smith, Maureen E.

AU - Scrol, Aaron

AU - Leppig, Kathleen

AU - Jarvik, Gail P.

AU - Wiesner, Georgia L.

AU - Li, Rongling

AU - Stroud, Mary

AU - Smoller, Jordan W.

AU - Sharp, Richard R

AU - Kullo, Iftikhar Jan

PY - 2018/3/1

Y1 - 2018/3/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Electronic health record

KW - Genome sequencing

KW - Informed consent

KW - Institutional Review Board

KW - Return of results

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041001543&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85041001543&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3390/jpm8010002

DO - 10.3390/jpm8010002

M3 - Article

VL - 8

JO - Journal of Personalized Medicine

JF - Journal of Personalized Medicine

SN - 2075-4426

IS - 1

M1 - 2

ER -