McGowan, Michelle L.

There is a broad phenotypic spectrum of monogenic polycystic kidney diseases (PKDs). These disorders often involve cilia-related genes and lead to the development of fluid-filled cysts and eventual kidney function decline and failure. Preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic (PGT-M) disorders has moved into the clinical realm. It allows prospective parents to avoid passing on heritable diseases to their children, including monogenic PKD. The PGT-M process involves embryo generation through in vitro fertilization, with subsequent testing of embryos and selective transfer of those that do not harbor the specific disease-causing variant(s). There is a growing body of literature supporting the success of PGT-M for autosomal-dominant and autosomal-recessive PKD, although with important technical limitations in some cases. This technology can be applied to many other types of monogenic PKD and ciliopathies despite the lack of existing reports in the literature. PGT-M for monogenic PKD, like other forms of assisted reproductive technology, raises important ethical questions. When considering PGT-M for kidney diseases, as well as the potential to avoid disease in future generations, there are regulatory and ethical considerations. These include limited government regulation and unstandardized consent processes, potential technical errors, high cost and equity concerns, risks associated with pregnancy for mothers with kidney disease, and the impact on all involved in the process, including the children who were made possible with this technology.

AbstractYoung adults have increasing genomic testing opportunities; however, little is known about how equipped they feel about making decisions to learn personal genomic information. We conducted qualitative interviews with 19 young adults, ages 18–21 years old, enrolled in a research study where they made decisions about learning personal genomic risk for developing preventable, treatable, and adult‐onset conditions and carrier status for autosomal recessive conditions. Participants had the option to include a parent in their study visit and the decision‐making process. The goal of this project was to explore young adults' reasons for involving or not involving a parent in the study and to assess young adults' perspectives about parental roles in their healthcare. Nine participants included a parent in the study and ten did not include a parent. Eleven participants received genomic test results before the interview, while eight participants had not yet received their results at the time of the interview. The study team developed a coding guide and coded interview transcripts inductively and deductively using an interpretive descriptive‐analytic approach. Logistical issues dominated solo participants' reasons for not involving a parent in the study, whereas those who involved a parent often cited a close relationship with the parent and the parent's previous involvement in the participant's healthcare as reasons for involving them. Both groups of participants described gradually transitioning to independent healthcare decision‐making with age and felt their comfort in medical decision‐making depends on the severity of and their familiarity with the situation. Participants recommended that future genomic researchers or clinicians give young adults the option to involve a parent or friend as a support person in research or clinical visits. Although young adults may have different journeys toward independent healthcare decision‐making, some may benefit from continued parental or peer involvement after reaching the age of legal adulthood.

AbstractIntroductionDuring early stages of COVID‐19 in the United States, government representatives in Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia restricted or threatened to restrict abortion care under elective surgery bans. We examined how abortion utilization changed in these states.MethodologyWe examined COVID‐19 abortion‐related state policies implemented in March and April 2020 using publicly available sources. We analyzed data on abortions by method and gestation and experiences of facility staff, using a survey of 14 facilities. We assessed abortions that took place in February–June 2020 and February–June 2021.ResultsIn February–June 2020 the monthly average abortion count was 1916; 863 (45%) were medication abortions and 229 (12%) were ≥14 weeks gestation. Of 1959 abortions performed across all three states in April 2020, 1319 (67%) were medication abortions and 231 (12%) were ≥14 weeks gestation. The shift toward medication abortion that took place in April 2020 was not observed in April 2021. Although the total abortion count in the three‐state region remained steady, West Virginia had the greatest decline in total abortions, Ohio experienced a shift from instrumentation to medication abortions, and Kentucky saw little change. Staff reported increased stress from concerns over health and safety and increased scrutiny by the state and anti‐abortion protesters.DiscussionAlthough abortion provision continued in this region, policy changes restricting abortion in Ohio and West Virginia resulted in a decrease in first trimester instrumentation abortions, an overall shift toward medication abortion care, and an increase in stress among facility staff during the early phase of COVID‐19.

To understand whether they found a two-step decision process helpful and why, adolescent-parent dyads participating in a study investigating return of genomic testing results were asked about their decision-making experience. Responses were qualitatively coded and analyzed using thematic analysis. Adolescents and parents found both joint and independent decision-making stages helpful. Regarding independent decision-making, adolescents appreciated exercising independence, while parents valued both adolescent and parental independence. Joint decision-making allowed each to hear the other's viewpoints. Some found joint decision-making irrelevant but recognized it might help others. Overall, adolescents and parents had similar reasons for finding the two-step decision-making process helpful. Our findings support using such a process for engaging parents and adolescents in challenging research and clinical decisions.

This study examines an underexplored source of medical uncertainty: the political context of care. Since 2011, Ohio has passed over 16 abortion-restrictive laws. We know little about how this legislation affects reproductive health care outside of abortion clinics. Drawing on focus groups and interviews with genetic counselors and obstetrician-gynecologists, we examine how abortion legislation impacts their work. We find that interpretation and implementation of legislation is not straightforward and varies by institution and region of the state. An ever-changing legislative landscape combined with uneven implementation of restrictions into policy produces uncertainty in reproductive health care. We also found uncertainty about the legal consequences of abortion in restrictive contexts, with obstetrician-gynecologists reporting greater concerns given their proximity to care provision. We argue that uncertainty can result in stricter interpretations of regulations than necessitated by the law, thereby amplifying the impacts of an already restrictive context for abortion care.

Abstract Background To protect minors’ future autonomy, professional organizations have historically discouraged returning predictive adult-onset genetic test results and carrier status to children. Recent clinical guidance diverges from this norm, suggesting that when minors have genomic sequencing performed for clinical purposes, parents and children should have the opportunity to learn secondary findings, including for some adult-onset conditions. While parents can currently opt in or out of receiving their child’s secondary findings, the American Society of Human Genetics Workgroup on Pediatric Genetic and Genomic Testing suggests including adolescents in the decision-making process. However, it is not clear what factors young people consider when given the opportunity to learn genetic findings for themselves. We are examining adolescents’, young adults’, and parents’ (if applicable) decisions about learning genomic information for the adolescent. Methods We are enrolling assenting (ages 13–17) adolescents and consenting (ages 18–21) young adults in a prospective genomic screening study to assess the choices they make about receiving individual genomic results. Participants use an online tool to indicate whether they want to learn their personal genetic risk for specific preventable, treatable, and adult-onset conditions, as well as carrier status for autosomal recessive conditions. We are examining 1) how choices differ between adolescent and young adult cohorts (as well as between adolescents/young adults and parents) and 2) decisional conflict and stability across study timepoints. Results are returned based on participants’ choices. Qualitative interviews with a subset of participants explore decisional stability, adolescent/young adult engagement with parents in decision-making, and the impact of learning pathogenic/likely pathogenic and carrier results. Discussion This study explores decision making and decision stability between adolescents and parents (where applicable), as well as the ethical implications and impact of return of clinical-grade genetic research results to adolescents and young adults. The results of this study will contribute empirical evidence to support best practices and guidance on engaging young people in genetic research studies and clinical care that offer return of results. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04481061. Registered 22 July 2020.

Purpose: The electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Phase III study was undertaken to assess clinical utility of returning medically actionable genomic screening results. We assessed pediatric clinical outcomes following return of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in autosomal dominant conditions with available effective interventions. Methods: The two eMERGE III pediatric sites collected outcome data and assessed changes in medical management at 6 and 12 months. Results: We returned P/LP results to 29 participants with outcome data. For 23 of the 29 participants, the P/LP results were previously unknown. Five of the 23 participants were already followed for conditions related to the P/LP variant. Of those receiving novel results and not being followed for the condition related to the P/LP result (n = 18), 14 (77.8%) had a change in healthcare after return of results (RoR). Following RoR, cascade testing of family members occurred for 10 of 23 (43.5%). Conclusions: The most common outcomes post-RoR included imaging/laboratory testing and health behavior recommendations. A change in healthcare was documented in 77.8% of those receiving results by 6 months. Our findings demonstrate how return of genomic screening results impacts healthcare in pediatric populations.