As more research studies incorporate next-generation sequencing (including whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing), investigators and institutional review boards face difficult questions regarding which genomic results to return to research participants and how. An American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics 2013 policy paper suggesting that pathogenic mutations in 56 specified genes should be returned in the clinical setting has raised the question of whether comparable recommendations should be considered in research settings. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium and the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network are multisite research programs that aim to develop practical strategies for addressing questions concerning the return of results in genomic research. CSER and eMERGE committees have identified areas of consensus regarding the return of genomic results to research participants. In most circumstances, if results meet an actionability threshold for return and the research participant has consented to return, genomic results, along with referral for appropriate clinical follow-up, should be offered to participants. However, participants have a right to decline the receipt of genomic results, even when doing so might be viewed as a threat to the participants' health. Research investigators should be prepared to return research results and incidental findings discovered in the course of their research and meeting an actionability threshold, but they have no ethical obligation to actively search for such results. These positions are consistent with the recognition that clinical research is distinct from medical care in both its aims and its guiding moral principles.

Health literacy and not race was an independent predictor of end-of-life preferences after hearing a verbal description of advanced dementia. In addition, after viewing a video of a patient with advanced dementia there were no longer any differences in the distribution of preferences according to race and health literacy. These findings suggest that clinical practice and research relating to end-of-life preferences may need to focus on a patient education model incorporating the use of decision aids such as video to ensure informed decision-making.

These data suggest that from the patient's perspective, bedside case presentations are at least as good as conference-room presentations, and perhaps preferable. When physicians make presentations at the bedside of less well educated patients, they should be especially careful to avoid medical jargon and to explain fully their plans for inpatient care.

for a Task Force of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors* Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has or threatens to overwhelm health care systems. Many institutions are developing ventilator triage policies.

National Human Genome Research Institute, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, National Health Service Blood and Transplant, National Institute for Health Research, and Wellcome Trust.

BackgroundWhole genome sequencing (WGS) is already being used in certain clinical and research settings, but its impact on patient well-being, health-care utilization, and clinical decision-making remains largely unstudied. It is also unknown how best to communicate sequencing results to physicians and patients to improve health. We describe the design of the MedSeq Project: the first randomized trials of WGS in clinical care.Methods/DesignThis pair of randomized controlled trials compares WGS to standard of care in two clinical contexts: (a) disease-specific genomic medicine in a cardiomyopathy clinic and (b) general genomic medicine in primary care. We are recruiting 8 to 12 cardiologists, 8 to 12 primary care physicians, and approximately 200 of their patients. Patient participants in both the cardiology and primary care trials are randomly assigned to receive a family history assessment with or without WGS. Our laboratory delivers a genome report to physician participants that balances the needs to enhance understandability of genomic information and to convey its complexity. We provide an educational curriculum for physician participants and offer them a hotline to genetics professionals for guidance in interpreting and managing their patients’ genome reports. Using varied data sources, including surveys, semi-structured interviews, and review of clinical data, we measure the attitudes, behaviors and outcomes of physician and patient participants at multiple time points before and after the disclosure of these results.DiscussionThe impact of emerging sequencing technologies on patient care is unclear. We have designed a process of interpreting WGS results and delivering them to physicians in a way that anticipates how we envision genomic medicine will evolve in the near future. That is, our WGS report provides clinically relevant information while communicating the complexity and uncertainty of WGS results to physicians and, through physicians, to their patients. This project will not only illuminate the impact of integrating genomic medicine into the clinical care of patients but also inform the design of future studies.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01736566

No abstract

Background Although the integration of whole genome sequencing (WGS) into standard medical practice is rapidly becoming feasible, physicians may be unprepared to use it. Methods Primary care physicians (PCPs) and cardiologists enrolled in a randomized clinical trial of WGS received genomics education before completing semi-structured interviews. Themes about preparedness were identified in transcripts through team-based consensus-coding. Results Data from eleven PCPs and nine cardiologists suggested that physicians enrolled in the trial primarily to prepare themselves for widespread use of WGS in the future. PCPs were concerned about their general genomic knowledge, while cardiologists were concerned about how to interpret specific types of results and secondary findings. Both cohorts anticipated preparing extensively before disclosing results to patients by using educational resources with which they were already familiar, and both cohorts anticipated making referrals to genetics specialists as needed. A lack of laboratory guidance, time pressures, and a lack of standards contributed to feeling unprepared. Discussion Physicians had specialty-specific concerns about their preparedness to use WGS. Findings identify specific policy changes that could help physicians feel more prepared, and highlight how providers of all types will need to become familiar with interpreting WGS results. Clinical Trials Registration ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT01736566.