| 1. |
- Carrieri, Daniele, et al.
(författare)
-
Recontacting patients in clinical genetics services : recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Human Genetics. - : NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP. - 1018-4813 .- 1476-5438. ; 27:2, s. 169-182
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Technological advances have increased the availability of genomic data in research and the clinic. If, over time, interpretation of the significance of the data changes, or new information becomes available, the question arises as to whether recontacting the patient and/or family is indicated. The Public and Professional Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG), together with research groups from the UK and the Netherlands, developed recommendations on recontacting which, after public consultation, have been endorsed by ESHG Board. In clinical genetics, recontacting for updating patients with new, clinically significant information related to their diagnosis or previous genetic testing may be justifiable and, where possible, desirable. Consensus about the type of information that should trigger recontacting converges around its clinical and personal utility. The organization of recontacting procedures and policies in current health care systems is challenging. It should be sustainable, commensurate with previously obtained consent, and a shared responsibility between healthcare providers, laboratories, patients, and other stakeholders. Optimal use of the limited clinical resources currently available is needed. Allocation of dedicated resources for recontacting should be considered. Finally, there is a need for more evidence, including economic and utility of information for people, to inform which strategies provide the most cost-effective use of healthcare resources for recontacting.
|
|
| 2. |
- Carrieri, Daniele, et al.
(författare)
-
Reply to Bombard and Mighton
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Human Genetics. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1018-4813 .- 1476-5438. ; 27:4, s. 507-508
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 3. |
- Cornel, Martina C., et al.
(författare)
-
Moving towards a cure in genetics : what is needed to bring somatic gene therapy to the clinic?
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Human Genetics. - : NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP. - 1018-4813 .- 1476-5438. ; 27:3, s. 484-487
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Clinical trials using somatic gene editing (e.g., CRISPR-Cas9) have started in Europe and the United States and may provide safe and effective treatment and cure, not only for cancers but also for some monogenic conditions. In a workshop at the 2018 European Human Genetics Conference, the challenges of bringing somatic gene editing therapies to the clinic were discussed. The regulatory process needs to be considered early in the clinical development pathway to produce the data necessary to support the approval by the European Medicines Agency. The roles and responsibilities for geneticists may include counselling to explain the treatment possibilities and safety interpretation.
|
|
| 4. |
- Howard, Heidi Carmen, et al.
(författare)
-
One small edit for humans, one giant edit for humankind? Points and questions to consider for a responsible way forward for gene editing in humans
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Human Genetics. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1018-4813 .- 1476-5438. ; 26:1, s. 1-11
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Gene editing, which allows for specific location(s) in the genome to be targeted and altered by deleting, adding or substituting nucleotides, is currently the subject of important academic and policy discussions. With the advent of efficient tools, such as CRISPR-Cas9, the plausibility of using gene editing safely in humans for either somatic or germ line gene editing is being considered seriously. Beyond safety issues, somatic gene editing in humans does raise ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI), however, it is suggested to be less challenging to existing ethical and legal frameworks; indeed somatic gene editing is already applied in (pre-) clinical trials. In contrast, the notion of altering the germ line or embryo such that alterations could be heritable in humans raises a large number of ELSI; it is currently debated whether it should even be allowed in the context of basic research. Even greater ELSI debates address the potential use of germ line or embryo gene editing for clinical purposes, which, at the moment is not being conducted and is prohibited in several jurisdictions. In the context of these ongoing debates surrounding gene editing, we present herein guidance to further discussion and investigation by highlighting three crucial areas that merit the most attention, time and resources at this stage in the responsible development and use of gene editing technologies: (1) conducting careful scientific research and disseminating results to build a solid evidence base; (2) conducting ethical, legal and social issues research; and (3) conducting meaningful stakeholder engagement, education and dialogue.
|
|
| 5. |
- Howard, Heidi Carmen, et al.
(författare)
-
Whole-genome sequencing in newborn screening? A statement on the continued importance of targeted approaches in newborn screening programmes
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Eur J Hum Genet. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. ; 23:12, s. 1593-1600
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The advent and refinement of sequencing technologies has resulted in a decrease in both the cost and time needed to generate data on the entire sequence of the human genome. This has increased the accessibility of using whole-genome sequencing and whole-exome sequencing approaches for analysis in both the research and clinical contexts. The expectation is that more services based on these and other high-throughput technologies will become available to patients and the wider population. Some authors predict that sequencing will be performed once in a lifetime, namely, shortly after birth. The Public and Professional Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics, the Human Genome Organisation Committee on Ethics, Law and Society, the PHG Foundation and the P3G International Paediatric Platform address herein the important issues and challenges surrounding the potential use of sequencing technologies in publicly funded newborn screening (NBS) programmes. This statement presents the relevant issues and culminates in a set of recommendations to help inform and guide scientists and clinicians, as well as policy makers regarding the necessary considerations for the use of genome sequencing technologies and approaches in NBS programmes. The primary objective of NBS should be the targeted analysis and identification of gene variants conferring a high risk of preventable or treatable conditions, for which treatment has to start in the newborn period or in early childhood.
|
|
| 6. |
- Phillips, Amicia, et al.
(författare)
-
Communicating genetic information to family members analysis of consent forms for diagnostic genomic sequencing
- 2020
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Human Genetics. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1018-4813 .- 1476-5438. ; 28:9, s. 1160-1167
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Communicating results from genomic sequencing to family members can play an essential role allowing access to surveillance, prevention, treatment or prophylactic measures. Yet, many patients struggle with communication of these results and it is unclear to what extent this is discussed during the consent process. We conducted an online systematic search and used content analysis to explore how consent forms for genomic sequencing address communication of genetic information to family members. Our search yielded 68 consent forms from 11 countries. Although 57 forms alluded to the familial nature of results, forms varied in their discussion of the potential familial implications of results. Only 11 addressed communication of genetic information with family members, with differences in who would be responsible for this process. Several forms offered patients options regarding communication, even in countries where national guidelines and legislation allow for the disclosure of results in the absence of patient consent. These findings are concerning because they show how forms may potentially mislead patients and health care professionals about whether communication is permissible in cases where the patient does not consent. We suggest that providers and health care professionals reconsider how consent forms address communicating genetic information to family members.
|
|
| 7. |
- Vears, Danya F., et al.
(författare)
-
Analysis of VUS reporting, variant reinterpretation and recontact policies in clinical genomic sequencing consent forms
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Human Genetics. - : NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP. - 1018-4813 .- 1476-5438. ; 26:12, s. 1743-1751
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- There are several key unsolved issues relating to the clinical use of next generation sequencing, such as: should laboratories report variants of uncertain significance (VUS) to clinicians and/or patients ? Should they reinterpret VUS in response to growing knowledge in the field ? And should patients be recontacted regarding such results ? We systematically analyzed 58 consent forms in English used in the diagnostic context to investigate their policies for (a) reporting VUS, (b) reinterpreting variants, including who should initiate this, and (c) recontacting patients and the mechanisms for undertaking any recontact. One-third (20/58) of the forms did not mention VUS in any way. Of the 38 forms that mentioned VUS, only half provided some description of what a VUS is. Approximately one-third of forms explicitly stated that reinterpretation of variants for clinical purposes may occur. Less than half mentioned recontact for clinical purposes, with variation as to whether laboratories, patients, or clinicians should initiate this. We suggest that the variability in variant reporting, reinterpretation, and recontact policies and practices revealed by our analysis may lead to diffused responsibility, which could result in missed opportunities for patients or family members to receive a diagnosis in response to updated variant classifications. Finally, we provide some suggestions for ethically appropriate inclusion of policies for reporting VUS, reinterpretation, and recontact on consent forms.
|
|
| 8. |
- Voigt, Torsten H, et al.
(författare)
-
Willingness to donate genomic and other medical data: results from Germany
- 2020
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Human Genetics. - : Springer Nature. - 1018-4813 .- 1476-5438. ; 28:8, s. 1000-1009
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper reports findings from Germany-based participants in the "Your DNA, Your Say" study, a collaborative effort among researchers in more than 20 countries across the world to explore public attitudes, values and opinions towards willingness to donate genomic and other personal data for use by others. Based on a representative sample of German residents (n = 1506) who completed the German-language version of the survey, we found that views of genetic exceptionalism were less prevalent in the German-language arm of the study than in the English-language arm (43% versus 52%). Also, people's willingness to make their data available for research was lower in the German than in the English-language samples of the study (56% versus 67%). In the German sample, those who were more familiar with genetics, and those holding views of genetic exceptionalism were more likely to be willing to donate data than others. We explain these findings with reference to the important role that the "right of informational self-determination" plays in German public discourse. Rather than being a particularly strict interpretation of privacy in the sense of a right to be left alone, the German understanding of informational self-determination bestows on each citizen the responsibility to carefully consider how their personal data should be used to protect important rights and to serve the public good.
|
|
