Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women and Infants Hospital, Brown University, Providence, RI.
Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women and Infants Hospital, Brown University, Providence, RI.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Jul;227(1):87.e1-87.e13. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.03.047. Epub 2022 Mar 26.
Laboratories offering cell-free DNA often reserve the right to share prenatal genetic data for research or even commercial purposes, and obtain this permission on the patient consent form. Although it is known that nonpregnant patients are often reluctant to share their genetic data for research, pregnant patients' knowledge of, and opinions about, genetic data privacy are unknown.
We investigated whether pregnant patients who had already undergone cell-free DNA screening were aware that genetic data derived from cell-free DNA may be shared for research. Furthermore, we examined whether pregnant patients exposed to video education about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act-a federal law that mandates workplace and health insurance protections against genetic discrimination-were more willing to share cell-free DNA-related genetic data for research than pregnant patients who were unexposed.
In this randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04420858), English-speaking patients with singleton pregnancies who underwent cell-free DNA and subsequently presented at 17 0/7 to 23 6/7 weeks of gestation for a detailed anatomy scan were randomized 1:1 to a control or intervention group. Both groups viewed an infographic about cell-free DNA. In addition, the intervention group viewed an educational video about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The primary outcomes were knowledge about, and willingness to share, prenatal genetic data from cell-free DNA by commercial laboratories for nonclinical purposes, such as research. The secondary outcomes included knowledge about existing genetic privacy laws, knowledge about the potential for reidentification of anonymized genetic data, and acceptability of various use and sharing scenarios for prenatal genetic data. Eighty-one participants per group were required for 80% power to detect an increase in willingness to share data from 60% to 80% (α=0.05).
A total of 747 pregnant patients were screened, and 213 patients were deemed eligible and approached for potential study participation. Of these patients, 163 (76.5%) consented and were randomized; one participant discontinued the intervention, and two participants were excluded from analysis after the intervention when it was discovered that they did not fulfill all eligibility criteria. Overall, 160 (75.1%) of those approached were included in the final analysis. Most patients in the control group (72 [90.0%]) and intervention (76 [97.4%]) group were either unsure about or incorrectly thought that cell-free DNA companies could not share prenatal genetic data for research. Participants in the intervention group were more likely to incorrectly believe that their prenatal genetic data would not be shared for nonclinical purposes than participants in the control group (28.8% in the control group vs 46.2% in the intervention; P=.03). However, video education did not increase participant willingness to share genetic data in multiple scenarios. Non-White participants were less willing than White participants to allow sharing of genetic data specifically for academic research (P<.001).
Most participants were unaware that their prenatal genetic data may be used for nonclinical purposes. Pregnant patients who were educated about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act were not more willing to share genetic data than those who did not receive this education. Surprisingly, video education about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act led patients to falsely believe that their data would not be shared for research, and participants who identified as racial minorities were less willing to share genetic data. New strategies are needed to improve pregnant patients' understanding of genetic privacy.
提供游离 DNA 检测的实验室通常保留将产前遗传数据用于研究甚至商业目的的权利,并在患者同意书中获得这种许可。虽然人们知道非孕妇通常不愿意分享他们的遗传数据用于研究,但孕妇对遗传数据隐私的了解和看法尚不清楚。
我们调查了已经接受游离 DNA 筛查的孕妇是否知道从游离 DNA 中获得的遗传数据可能会被用于研究。此外,我们研究了接受关于《遗传信息非歧视法案》的视频教育的孕妇是否比未接受教育的孕妇更愿意分享游离 DNA 相关遗传数据用于研究。
这是一项随机对照试验(ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT04420858),纳入了接受游离 DNA 检测且随后在妊娠 17 周零 0/7 天至 23 周零 6/7 天期间进行详细的解剖扫描的单胎妊娠英语患者,按照 1:1 的比例随机分为对照组或干预组。两组患者均观看了关于游离 DNA 的信息图表。此外,干预组还观看了关于《遗传信息非歧视法案》的教育视频。主要结局是了解商业实验室出于非临床目的(如研究)分享产前游离 DNA 遗传数据的意愿。次要结局包括了解现有的遗传隐私法、了解匿名遗传数据重新识别的可能性,以及对产前遗传数据的各种使用和共享场景的接受程度。每组需要 81 名参与者,才能有 80%的把握检测到从 60%到 80%的数据共享意愿的增加(α=0.05)。
共筛选了 747 名孕妇,其中 213 名符合条件并被邀请参与潜在的研究。这些患者中有 163 名(76.5%)同意并被随机分配;一名参与者在干预期间退出,两名参与者在干预后被排除在分析之外,因为发现他们不符合所有入选标准。最终,有 160 名(75.1%)符合条件的患者被纳入最终分析。对照组(72 [90.0%])和干预组(76 [97.4%])的大多数患者要么不确定,要么错误地认为游离 DNA 公司不能为研究目的分享产前遗传数据。干预组的参与者更有可能错误地认为他们的产前遗传数据不会被用于非临床目的,而不是对照组的参与者(对照组 28.8%,干预组 46.2%;P=.03)。然而,视频教育并没有增加参与者在多种情况下分享遗传数据的意愿。非白人参与者比白人参与者更不愿意允许将遗传数据专门用于学术研究(P<.001)。
大多数参与者都不知道他们的产前遗传数据可能被用于非临床目的。接受过《遗传信息非歧视法案》教育的孕妇并不比没有接受过这种教育的孕妇更愿意分享遗传数据。令人惊讶的是,关于《遗传信息非歧视法案》的视频教育使患者错误地认为他们的数据不会被用于研究,而自认为是少数族裔的参与者则不太愿意分享遗传数据。需要采取新的策略来提高孕妇对遗传隐私的理解。