Priorities to promote participant engagement in the Participant Engagement and Cancer Genome Sequencing (PE-CGS) Network

BACKGROUND: Engaging diverse populations in cancer genomics research is of critical importance and is a fundamental goal of the NCI Participant Engagement and Cancer Genome Sequencing (PE-CGS) Network. Established as part of the Cancer Moonshot, PE-CGS is a consortium of stakeholders including clinicians, scientists, genetic counselors, and representatives of potential study participants and their communities. Participant engagement is an ongoing, bidirectional, and mutually beneficial interaction between study participants and researchers. PE-CGS sought to set priorities in participant engagement for conducting the network\u27s research. METHODS: PE-CGS deliberatively engaged its stakeholders in the following four-phase process to set the network\u27s research priorities in participant engagement: (i) a brainstorming exercise to elicit potential priorities; (ii) a 2-day virtual meeting to discuss priorities; (iii) recommendations from the PE-CGS External Advisory Panel to refine priorities; and (iv) a virtual meeting to set priorities. RESULTS: Nearly 150 PE-CGS stakeholders engaged in the process. Five priorities were set: (i) tailor education and communication materials for participants throughout the research process; (ii) identify measures of participant engagement; (iii) identify optimal participant engagement strategies; (iv) understand cancer disparities in the context of cancer genomics research; and (v) personalize the return of genomics findings to participants. CONCLUSIONS: PE-CGS is pursuing these priorities to meaningfully engage diverse and underrepresented patients with cancer and posttreatment cancer survivors as participants in cancer genomics research and, subsequently, generate new discoveries. IMPACT: Data from PE-CGS will be shared with the broader scientific community in a manner consistent with participant informed consent and community agreement

Priorities to Promote Participant Engagement in the Participant Engagement and Cancer Genome Sequencing (PE-CGS) Network.

BACKGROUND: Engaging diverse populations in cancer genomics research is of critical importance and is a fundamental goal of the NCI Participant Engagement and Cancer Genome Sequencing (PE-CGS) Network. Established as part of the Cancer Moonshot, PE-CGS is a consortium of stakeholders including clinicians, scientists, genetic counselors, and representatives of potential study participants and their communities. Participant engagement is an ongoing, bidirectional, and mutually beneficial interaction between study participants and researchers. PE-CGS sought to set priorities in participant engagement for conducting the network\u27s research. METHODS: PE-CGS deliberatively engaged its stakeholders in the following four-phase process to set the network\u27s research priorities in participant engagement: (i) a brainstorming exercise to elicit potential priorities; (ii) a 2-day virtual meeting to discuss priorities; (iii) recommendations from the PE-CGS External Advisory Panel to refine priorities; and (iv) a virtual meeting to set priorities. RESULTS: Nearly 150 PE-CGS stakeholders engaged in the process. Five priorities were set: (i) tailor education and communication materials for participants throughout the research process; (ii) identify measures of participant engagement; (iii) identify optimal participant engagement strategies; (iv) understand cancer disparities in the context of cancer genomics research; and (v) personalize the return of genomics findings to participants. CONCLUSIONS: PE-CGS is pursuing these priorities to meaningfully engage diverse and underrepresented patients with cancer and posttreatment cancer survivors as participants in cancer genomics research and, subsequently, generate new discoveries. IMPACT: Data from PE-CGS will be shared with the broader scientific community in a manner consistent with participant informed consent and community agreement

Prioritization of ethical concerns regarding HIV molecular epidemiology by public health practitioners and researchers

BackgroundHIV molecular epidemiology (HIV ME) can support the early detection of emerging clusters of new HIV infections by combining HIV sequence data routinely obtained during the clinical treatment of people living with HIV with behavioral, geographic, and sociodemographic information. While information about emerging clusters promises to facilitate HIV prevention and treatment efforts, the use of this data also raises several ethical concerns. We sought to assess how those working on the frontlines of HIV ME, specifically public health practitioners (PHPs) and researchers, prioritized these issues.MethodsEthical issues were identified through literature review, qualitative in-depth interviews, and stakeholder engagement. PHPs and researchers using HIV ME prioritized the issues using best-worst scaling (BWS). A balanced incomplete block design was used to generate 11 choice tasks each consisting of a sub-set of 5 ethical concerns. In each task, respondents were asked to assess the most and least concerning issue. Data were analyzed using conditional logit, with a Swait-Louviere test of poolability. Latent class analysis was then used to explore preference heterogeneity.ResultsIn total, 57 respondents completed the BWS experiment May-June 2023 with the Swait-Louviere test indicating that researchers and PHPs could be pooled (p = 0.512). Latent class analysis identified two classes, those highlighting "Harms" (n = 29) (prioritizing concerns about potential risk of legal prosecution, individual harm, and group stigma) and those highlighting "Utility" (n = 28) (prioritizing concerns about limited evidence, resource allocation, non-disclosure of data use for HIV ME, and the potential to infer the directionality of HIV transmission). There were no differences in the characteristics of members across classes.ConclusionsThe ethical issues of HIV ME vary in importance among stakeholders, reflecting different perspectives on the potential impact and usefulness of the data. Knowing these differences exist can directly inform the focus of future deliberations about the policies and practices of HIV ME in the United States

Long-term (180-Day) outcomes in critically Ill patients with COVID-19 in the REMAP-CAP randomized clinical trial

Importance The longer-term effects of therapies for the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19 are unknown. Objective To determine the effect of multiple interventions for critically ill adults with COVID-19 on longer-term outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants Prespecified secondary analysis of an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing interventions within multiple therapeutic domains in which 4869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between March 9, 2020, and June 22, 2021, from 197 sites in 14 countries. The final 180-day follow-up was completed on March 2, 2022. Interventions Patients were randomized to receive 1 or more interventions within 6 treatment domains: immune modulators (n = 2274), convalescent plasma (n = 2011), antiplatelet therapy (n = 1557), anticoagulation (n = 1033), antivirals (n = 726), and corticosteroids (n = 401). Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcome was survival through day 180, analyzed using a bayesian piecewise exponential model. A hazard ratio (HR) less than 1 represented improved survival (superiority), while an HR greater than 1 represented worsened survival (harm); futility was represented by a relative improvement less than 20% in outcome, shown by an HR greater than 0.83. Results Among 4869 randomized patients (mean age, 59.3 years; 1537 [32.1%] women), 4107 (84.3%) had known vital status and 2590 (63.1%) were alive at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.61-0.90]) and antiplatelet agents had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.71-1.03]) compared with the control, while the probability of trial-defined statistical futility (HR >0.83) was high for therapeutic anticoagulation (99.9%; HR, 1.13 [95% CrI, 0.93-1.42]), convalescent plasma (99.2%; HR, 0.99 [95% CrI, 0.86-1.14]), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%; HR, 1.06 [95% CrI, 0.82-1.38]) and the probabilities of harm from hydroxychloroquine (96.9%; HR, 1.51 [95% CrI, 0.98-2.29]) and the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine (96.8%; HR, 1.61 [95% CrI, 0.97-2.67]) were high. The corticosteroid domain was stopped early prior to reaching a predefined statistical trigger; there was a 57.1% to 61.6% probability of improving 6-month survival across varying hydrocortisone dosing strategies. Conclusions and Relevance Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 randomized to receive 1 or more therapeutic interventions, treatment with an IL-6 receptor antagonist had a greater than 99.9% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control, and treatment with an antiplatelet had a 95.0% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control. Overall, when considered with previously reported short-term results, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months