Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T15:57:44.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Considering Actionability at the Participant's Research Setting Level for Anticipatable Incidental Findings from Clinical Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Alberto (Betto) Ortiz-Osorno ,
Linda A. Ehler  and
Judith Brooks
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Wolf et al. define an incidental finding (IF) as “... a finding concerning an individual research participant that has potential health or reproductive importance and is discovered in the course of conducting research but is beyond the aims of the study...” Wolf et al. also propose that researchers “... should consider what kinds of IFs the protocol may produce and how rapidly the identification and evaluation process needs to proceed to provide timely information to the research participant and avoid harm.”

Recently, the U.S. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues considered the matter of IFs. In the Commission's December 2013 report on this topic, “Anticipate and Communicate–Ethical Management of Incidental and Secondary Findings in the Clinical, Research, and Direct-to-Consumer Contexts,” the panel further defines two categories of IFs, anticipatable and un-anticipatable, as well as introduces the concept of secondary findings. The commission recommends that researchers should develop plans to manage anticipatable IFs, and should consider to actively look for secondary findings.

Type
Independent
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , Autumn 2015 , pp. 619 - 632
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Wolf, S. M. Lawrenz, F. P. Nelson, C. A. Kahn, J. P. Cho, M. K. Clayton, E. W. Fletcher, J. G. Georgieff, M. K. Hammerschmidt, D. Hudson, K. Illes, J. Kapur, V. Keane, M. A. Koenig, B. A. Leroy, B. S. McFarland, E. G. Paradise, J. Parker, L. S. Terry, S. F. Van Ness, B. Wilfond, B. S., “Managing Incidental Findings in Human Subjects Research: Analysis and Recommendations,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36, no. 2 (2008): 219–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, Anticipate and Communicate: Ethical Management of Incidental and Secondary Findings in the Clinical, Research, and Direct-to-Consumer Contexts (Washington, D.C.: Presidential Commission, 2013).Google Scholar
See Wolf, et al. 2008, supra note 1; Wolf, S. M. Crock, B. N. Van Ness, B. Lawrenz, F. Kahn, J. P. Beskow, L. M. Cho, M. K. Christman, M. F. Green, R. C. Hall, R. Illes, J. Keane, M. Knoppers, B. M. Koenig, B. A. Kohane, I. S. Leroy, B. Maschke, K. J. McGeveran, W. Ossorio, P. Parker, L. S. Petersen, G. M. Richardson, H. S. Scott, J. A. Terry, S. F. Wilfond, B. S. Wolf, W. A., “Managing Incidental Findings and Research Results in Genomic Research Involving Biobanks and Archived Data Sets,” Genetics in Medicine 14, no. 4 (2012): 361–384; National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, supra note 1; GenomeWeb Staff Reporter, “Incidental Findings from Sequencing Studies Should Be Returned, Say Genetics Specialists,” GenomeWeb Daily News (2012), available at <http://www.genomeweb.com/sequencing/incidental-findings-sequencing-studies-should-be-returned-say-genetics-specialists> (last visited September 3, 2015); Green, R. C. Berg, J. S. Berry, G. T. Biesecker, L. G. Dimmock, D. P. Evans, J. P. Grody, W. W. Hegde, M. R. Kalia, S. Korf, B. R. Krantz, I. McGuire, A. L. Miller, D. T. Murray, M. F. Nussbaum, R. L. Plon, S. E. Rehm, H. L. Jacob, H. J., “Exploring Concordance and Discordance for Return of Incidental Findings from Clinical Sequencing,” Genetics in Medicine 14, no. 4 (2012): 405–410; Green, R. C. Berg, J. S. Grody, W. W. Kalia, S. S. Korf, B. R. Martin, C. L. McGuire, A. L. Nussbaum, R. L. O'Daniel, J. M. Ormond, K. E. Rehm, H. L. Watson, M. S. Williams, M. S. Biesecker, L. G., “ACMG Recommendations for Reporting of Incidental Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing,” Genetics in Medicine 15, no. 7 (2013): 565–574; Gliwa, C. Berkman, B. E., “Do Researchers Have an Obligation to Actively Look for Genetic Incidental Findings?” American Journal of Bioethics 13, no. 2 (2013): 32–42; Zawati, M. H. Van Ness, B. Knoppers, B. M., “Incidental Findings in Genomic Research: A Review of International Norms,” GenEdit 9, no. 1 (2011): 8; Knoppers, B. M. Avard, D. Senecal, K. Zawati, M. H., “Return of Whole-Genome Sequencing Results in Paediatric Research: A Statement of the P3G International Paediatrics Platform,” European Journal of Human Genetics 22, no. 1 (2014): 3–5; Knoppers, B. M. Deschenes, M. Zawati, M. H. Tasse, A. M., “Population Studies: Return of Research Results and Incidental Findings Policy Statement,” European Journal of Human Genetics 21, no. 3 (2013): 245–247; Presidential Commission, 2013, supra note 2; Parker, L. S., “The Future of Incidental Findings: Should They Be Viewed as Benefits?” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36, no. 2 (2008): 341–351.Google Scholar
See Wolf, et al. , supra note 1; Wolf, et al. , supra note 3; Id. (GenomeWeb Staff Reporter); Id. (Green, et al. 2012); Id (Green, et al. 2013); McGuire, A. L. Joffe, S. Koenig, B. A. Biesecker, B. B. McCullough, L. B. Blumenthal-Barby, J. S. Caulfield, T. Terry, S. F. Green, R. C., “Point-Counterpoint. Ethics and Genomic Incidental Findings,” Science 340, no. 6136 (2013): 1047–1048; Zawati, M. H. Knoppers, B. M., “International Normative Perspectives on the Return of Individual Research Results and Incidental Findings in Genomic Biobanks,” Genetics in Medicine 14, no. 4 (2012): 484–489; Wolf, S. M., “The Past, Present, and Future of the Debate over Return of Research Results and Incidental Findings,” Genetics in Medicine 14, no. 4 (2012): 355–357; Vayena, E. Tasioulas, J., “Genetic Incidental Findings: Autonomy Regained?” Genetics in Medicine 15, no. 11 (2013): 868–870; Driessnack, M. Daack-Hirsch, S. Downing, N. Hanish, A. Shah, L. L. Alasagheirin, M. Simon, C. M. Williams, J. K., “The Disclosure of Incidental Genomic Findings: An ‘Ethically Important Moment’ in Pediatric Research and Practice,” Journal of Community Genetics 4, no. 4 (2013): 435–444; Presidential Commission, 2013, supra note 2; Couzin-Frankel, J., “Genome Sequencing. Return of Unexpected DNA Results Urged,” Science 339, no. 6127 (2013): 1507–1508; Price, W. N.2nd., “Legal Implications of an Ethical Duty to Search for Genetic Incidental Findings,” American Journal of Bioethics 13, no. 2 (2013): 48–49; Ulrich, M., “The Duty to Rescue in Genomic Research,” American Journal of Bioethics 13, no. 2 (2013): 50–51; Ross, K. M. Reiff, M., “A Perspective from Clinical Providers and Patients: Researchers' Duty to Actively Look for Genetic Incidental Findings,” American Journal of Bioethics 13, no. 2 (2013): 56–58.Google Scholar
Id. (Wolf, et al. 2008); Id. (Wolf, et al. 2012); see National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, “NIBIB Points to Consider for Investigators: Incidental Findings in Imaging Research,” (2011), available at <http://www.nibib.nih.gov/Research/Resources/PointsToConsider> (last visited September 3, 2015); GenomeWeb Staff Reporter, supra note 3; Green, et al. , supra note 3; Id. (McGuire, et al. ); Gliwa, Berkman, , supra note 3; Zawaati, et al. , supra note 3; Knoppers, et al. , 2014, supra note 3; Presidential Commission, 2013, supra note 2; Parker, , supra note 3.+(last+visited+September+3,+2015);+GenomeWeb+Staff+Reporter,+supra+note+3;+Green,+,+supra+note+3;+Id.+(McGuire,+);+Gliwa,+Berkman,+,+supra+note+3;+Zawaati,+,+supra+note+3;+Knoppers,+,+2014,+supra+note+3;+Presidential+Commission,+2013,+supra+note+2;+Parker,+,+supra+note+3.>Google Scholar
See Knoppers, et al. , 2014, supra note 3.Google Scholar
Protection of Human Subjects, “Belmont Report: Notice of Report for Public Comment,” Federal Register 44, no. 76 (1979): 23191–23197.Google Scholar
See Wolf, et al. , 2008, supra note 1.Google Scholar
The Participants in The 2001 Conference on Ethical Aspects of Research in Developing Countries, “Moral Standards for Research in Developing Countries: From ‘Reasonable Availability’ to ‘Fair Benefits,”’ Hastings Center Report 34, no. 3 (2004): 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Ortiz, A. A. Ehler, L., “Individual Research Results and Anticipatable Incidental Findings in HIV Research with Vulnerable Populations: Actionability at the Participant's Level,” Poster presented at International Aids Society—AIDS 2014, Melbourne, Australia, 2014.Google Scholar
See Moral Standards for Research in Developing Countries, supra note 12; Zusevics, K., “Ancillary Care, Genomics, and the Need and Opportunity for Community-Based Participatory Research,” American Journal of Bioethics 13, no. 2 (2013): 54–56.Google Scholar
Id. (Moral Standards for Research in Developing Countries).Google Scholar
See Zusevics, , supra note 12; Parker, , supra note 3.Google Scholar
See Moral Standards for Research in Developing Countries, supra note 12; See Presidential Commission, 2013, supra note 2; National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBCA), Ethical and Policy Issues in International Research: Clinical Trials in Developing Countries: Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission no. 145 (Rockville, MD: NBAC, 2001); Protection of Human Subjects, supra note 7.Google Scholar
See Presidential Commission, 2013, supra note 2.Google Scholar
See Green, et al. , 2013, supra note 3; Id. (Presidential Commission 2013); Ulrich, M., “Resource Restraints: Rethinking Disclosure of Individual Genomic Findings,” Michigan State University Journal of Medicine and Law 17 (2012): 127; Ulrich, , supra note 4; Ross, Reiff, , supra note 4.Google Scholar
See GenomeWeb Staff Reporter, supra note 3; Green, et al. , 2013 supra note 3; Vayena, Tasioulas, , supra note 4; Zusevics, , supra note 12; Ross, Reiff, , supra note 4.Google Scholar
Studies, GENEVA (Gene-Environment Association), “Geneva Statement on Incidental Findings,” available at <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/gap/cgi-bin/GetPdf.cgi?document_name=GENEVA_Statement_on_Incidental_Findings.pdf> (last visited September 10, 2015); Presidential Commission, 2013, supra note 2; Biesecker, L. G., “The Nirvana Fallacy and the Return of Results,” American Journal of Bioethics 13, no. 2 (2013): 43–44; Id. (Borgelt, et al. ); Price, supra note 4; Ulrich, , supra note 7; Anastasova, V. Blasimme, A. Julia, S. Cambon-Thomsen, A., “Genomic Incidental Findings: Reducing the Burden to Be Fair,” American Journal of Bioethics 13, no. 2 (2013): 52–54; Ross, Reiff, , supra note 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, M. A., “Tiered Disclosure Options Promote the Autonomy and Well-Being of Research Subjects,” American Journal of Bioethics 6, no. 6 (2006): 20–21; author reply W10–2.Google Scholar
McGuire, A. L. Beskow, L. M., “Informed Consent in Genomics and Genetic Research,” Annual Review Genomics and Human Genetics 11 (2010): 361–381; Bookman, E. B. Langehorne, A. A. Eckfeldt, J. H. Glass, K. C. Jarvik, G. P. Klag, M. Koski, G. Motulsky, A. Wilfond, B. Manolio, T. A. Fabsitz, R. R. Luepker, R. V., “Reporting Genetic Results in Research Studies: Summary and Recommendations of an NHLBI Working Group,” American Journal of Medicine and Genetics A 140, no. 10 (2006): 1033–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See NIBIB, supra note 5.Google Scholar
American College of Medical, Genetics and Genomics, “Incidental Findings in Clinical Genomics: A Clarification,” Genetics in Medicine 15, no. 8 (2013): 664–666; Presidential Commission, 2013, supra note 2.Google Scholar
See Stein, , supra note 1; Stein, R., “Scientists See Upside and Downside of Sequencing Their Own Genes,” edited by Stein, Rob, Morning Edition, NPR, 2012.Google Scholar
Helgesson, G., “Autonomy, the Right Not to Know to Know Personal Research Results: What Rights Are There, and Who Should Decide about Exceptions?” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 42, no. 1 (2014): 28–37.Google Scholar
See Wolf, et al. , 2012, supra note 1.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Ortiz, A. A. Ehler, L., “Considering Incidental Findings (IFs) in HIV Research: A Must in Today's Environment,” document presented at “Advancing Ethical Research, Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research (PRIM&R)” Boston, Massachusetts 2013.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Garrett, J. R., “Reframing the Ethical Debate Regarding Incidental Findings in Genetic Research,” American Journal of Bioethics 13, no. 2 (2013): 44–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar