Making genomic medicine evidence-based and patient-centered: a structured review and landscape analysis of comparative effectiveness research

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) in genomic medicine (GM) measures the clinical utility of using genomic information to guide clinical care in comparison to appropriate alternatives. We summarized findings of high-quality systematic reviews that compared the analytic and clinical validity and clinical utility of GM tests. We focused on clinical utility findings to summarize CER-derived evidence about GM and identify evidence gaps and future research needs. We abstracted key elements of study design, GM interventions, results, and study quality ratings from 21 systematic reviews published in 2010 through 2015. More than half (N = 13) of the reviews were of cancer-related tests. All reviews identified potentially important clinical applications of the GM interventions, but most had significant methodological weaknesses that largely precluded any conclusions about clinical utility. Twelve reviews discussed the importance of patient-centered outcomes, although few described evidence about the impact of genomic medicine on these outcomes. In summary, we found a very limited body of evidence about the effect of using genomic tests on health outcomes and many evidence gaps for CER to address.Genet Med advance online publication 13 April 2017     

Stakeholder engagement in policy development: challenges and opportunities for human genomics

Along with rapid advances in human genomics, policies governing genomic data and clinical technologies have proliferated. Stakeholder engagement is widely lauded as an important methodology for improving clinical, scientific, and public health policy decision making. The purpose of this paper is to examine how stakeholder engagement is used to develop policies in genomics research and public health areas, as well as to identify future priorities for conducting evidence-based stakeholder engagements. We focus on exemplars in biobanking and newborn screening to illustrate a variety of current stakeholder engagement in policy-making efforts. Each setting provides an important context for examining the methods of obtaining and integrating informed stakeholder voices into the policy-making process. While many organizations have an interest in engaging stakeholders with regard to genomic policy issues, there is broad divergence with respect to the stakeholders involved, the purpose of engagements, when stakeholders are engaged during policy development, methods of engagement, and the outcomes reported. Stakeholder engagement in genomics policy development is still at a nascent stage. Several challenges of using stakeholder engagement as a tool for genomics policy development remain, and little evidence regarding how to best incorporate stakeholder feedback into policy-making processes is currently available.     

A proposed approach to accelerate evidence generation for genomic-based technologies in the context of a learning health system

Genomic technologies should demonstrate analytical and clinical validity and clinical utility prior to wider adoption in clinical practice. However, the question of clinical utility remains unanswered for many genomic technologies. In this paper, we propose three building blocks for rapid generation of evidence on clinical utility of promising genomic technologies that underpin clinical and policy decisions. We define promising genomic tests as those that have proven analytical and clinical validity. First, risk-sharing agreements could be implemented between payers and manufacturers to enable temporary coverage that would help incorporate promising technologies into routine clinical care. Second, existing data networks, such as the Sentinel Initiative and the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) could be leveraged, augmented with genomic information to track the use of genomic technologies and monitor clinical outcomes in millions of people. Third, endorsement and engagement from key stakeholders will be needed to establish this collaborative model for rapid evidence generation; all stakeholders will benefit from better information regarding the clinical utility of these technologies. This collaborative model can create a multipurpose and reusable national resource that generates knowledge from data gathered as part of routine care to drive evidence-based clinical practice and health system changes.     

Horizon scanning for translational genomic research beyond bench to bedside

PurposeThe dizzying pace of genomic discoveries is leading to an increasing number of clinical applications. In this report, we provide a method for horizon scanning and 1 year data on translational research beyond bench to bedside to assess the validity, utility, implementation, and outcomes of such applications.MethodsWe compiled cross-sectional results of ongoing horizon scanning of translational genomic research, conducted between 16 May 2012 and 15 May 2013, based on a weekly, systematic query of PubMed. A set of 505 beyond bench to bedside articles were collected and classified, including 312 original research articles; 123 systematic and other reviews; 38 clinical guidelines, policies, and recommendations; and 32 articles describing tools, decision support, and educational materials.ResultsMost articles (62%) addressed a specific genomic test or other health application; almost half of these (n = 180) were related to cancer. We estimate that these publications account for 0.5% of reported human genomics and genetics research during the same time.ConclusionThese data provide baseline information to track the evolving knowledge base and gaps in genomic medicine. Continuous horizon scanning of the translational genomics literature is crucial for an evidence-based translation of genomics discoveries into improved health care and disease prevention.Genet Med16 7, 535–538.     

Stakeholder assessment of the evidence for cancer genomic tests: insights from three case studies

PurposeInsufficient evidence on the net benefits and harms of genomic tests in real-world settings is a translational barrier for genomic medicine. Understanding stakeholders’ assessment of the current evidence base for clinical practice and coverage decisions should be a critical step in influencing research, policy, and practice.MethodsTwenty-two stakeholders participated in a workshop exploring the evidence of genomic tests for clinical and coverage decision making. Stakeholders completed a survey prior to and during the meeting. They also discussed if they would recommend for or against current clinical use of each test.ResultsAt baseline, the level of confidence in the clinical validity and clinical utility of each test varied, although the group expressed greater confidence for epidermal growth factor receptor mutation and Lynch syndrome testing than for Oncotype DX. Following the discussion, survey results reflected even less confidence for Oncotype DX and epidermal growth factor receptor mutation testing, but not for Lynch syndrome testing. The majority of stakeholders would consider clinical use for all three tests, but under the conditions of additional research or a shared clinical decision–making approach.ConclusionStakeholder engagement in unbiased settings is necessary to understand various perspectives about evidentiary thresholds in genomic medicine. Participants recommended the use of various methods for evidence generation and synthesis.Genet Med advance online publication 5 April 2012.     

Knowledge integration at the center of genomic medicine

Three articles in this issue of Genetics in Medicine describe examples of “knowledge integration,” involving methods for generating and synthesizing rapidly emerging information on health-related genomic technologies and engaging stakeholders around the evidence. Knowledge integration, the central process in translating genomic research, involves three closely related, iterative components: knowledge management, knowledge synthesis, and knowledge translation. Knowledge management is the ongoing process of obtaining, organizing, and displaying evolving evidence. For example, horizon scanning and “infoveillance” use emerging technologies to scan databases, registries, publications, and cyberspace for information on genomic applications. Knowledge synthesis is the process of conducting systematic reviews using a priori rules of evidence. For example, methods including meta-analysis, decision analysis, and modeling can be used to combine information from basic, clinical, and population research. Knowledge translation refers to stakeholder engagement and brokering to influence policy, guidelines and recommendations, as well as the research agenda to close knowledge gaps. The ultrarapid production of information requires adequate public and private resources for knowledge integration to support the evidence-based development of genomic medicine.Genet Med advance online publication 3 May 2012.     

The Scientific Foundation for Personal Genomics: Recommendations from a National Institutes of Health–Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Multidisciplinary Workshop

The increasing availability of personal genomic tests has led to discussions about the validity and utility of such tests and the balance of benefits and harms. A multidisciplinary workshop was convened by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to review the scientific foundation for using personal genomics in risk assessment and disease prevention and to develop recommendations for targeted research. The clinical validity and utility of personal genomics is a moving target with rapidly developing discoveries but little translation research to close the gap between discoveries and health impact. Workshop participants made recommendations in five domains: (1) developing and applying scientific standards for assessing personal genomic tests; (2) developing and applying a multidisciplinary research agenda, including observational studies and clinical trials to fill knowledge gaps in clinical validity and utility; (3) enhancing credible knowledge synthesis and information dissemination to clinicians and consumers; (4) linking scientific findings to evidence-based recommendations for use of personal genomics; and (5) assessing how the concept of personal utility can affect health benefits, costs, and risks by developing appropriate metrics for evaluation. To fulfill the promise of personal genomics, a rigorous multidisciplinary research agenda is needed.     

Evaluating the role of public health in implementation of genomics-related recommendations: a case study of hereditary cancers using the CDC Science Impact Framework

Public health plays an important role in ensuring access to interventions that can prevent disease, including the implementation of evidence-based genomic recommendations. We used the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Science Impact Framework to trace the impact of public health activities and partnerships on the implementation of the 2009 Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Lynch Syndrome screening recommendation and the 2005 and 2013 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing recommendations.The EGAPP and USPSTF recommendations have each been cited by >300 peer-reviewed publications. CDC funds selected states to build capacity to integrate these recommendations into public health programs, through education, policy, surveillance, and partnerships. Most state cancer control plans include genomics-related goals, objectives, or strategies. Since the EGAPP recommendation, major public and private payers now provide coverage for Lynch Syndrome screening for all newly diagnosed colorectal cancers. National guidelines and initiatives, including Healthy People 2020, included similar recommendations and cited the EGAPP and USPSTF recommendations. However, disparities in implementation based on race, ethnicity, and rural residence remain challenges. Public health achievements in promoting the evidence-based use of genomics for the prevention of hereditary cancers can inform future applications of genomics in public health.     

How can polygenic inheritance be used in population screening for common diseases?

Advances in genomics have near-term impact on diagnosis and management of monogenic disorders. For common complex diseases, the use of genomic information from multiple loci (polygenic model) is generally not useful for diagnosis and individual prediction. In principle, the polygenic model could be used along with other risk factors in stratified population screening to target interventions. For example, compared to age-based criterion for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening, adding polygenic risk and family history holds promise for more efficient screening with earlier start and/or increased frequency of screening for segments of the population at higher absolute risk than an established screening threshold; and later start and/or decreased frequency of screening for segments of the population at lower risks. This approach, while promising, faces formidable challenges for building its evidence base and for its implementation in practice. Currently, it is unclear whether or not polygenic risk can contribute enough discrimination to make stratified screening worthwhile. Empirical data are lacking on population-based age-specific absolute risks combining genetic and non-genetic factors, on impact of polygenic risk genes on disease natural history, as well as information on comparative balance of benefits and harms of stratified interventions. Implementation challenges include difficulties in integration of this information in the current health-care system in the United States, the setting of appropriate risk thresholds, and ethical, legal, and social issues. In an era of direct-to-consumer availability of personal genomic information, the public health and health-care systems need to prepare for an evidence-based integration of this information into population screening.Genet Med 2013:15(6):437–443     

The Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Network

The authors describe the rationale and initial development of a new collaborative initiative, the Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Network. The network convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health includes multiple stakeholders from academia, government, health care, public health, industry and consumers. The premise of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Network is that there is an unaddressed chasm between gene discoveries and demonstration of their clinical validity and utility. This chasm is due to the lack of readily accessible information about the utility of most genomic applications and the lack of necessary knowledge by consumers and providers to implement what is known. The mission of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Network is to accelerate and streamline the effective integration of validated genomic knowledge into the practice of medicine and public health, by empowering and sponsoring research, evaluating research findings, and disseminating high quality information on candidate genomic applications in practice and prevention. Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Network will develop a process that links ongoing collection of information on candidate genomic applications to four crucial domains: (1) knowledge synthesis and dissemination for new and existing technologies, and the identification of knowledge gaps, (2) a robust evidence-based recommendation development process, (3) translation research to evaluate validity, utility and impact in the real world and how to disseminate and implement recommended genomic applications, and (4) programs to enhance practice, education, and surveillance.     

Health equity in the implementation of genomics and precision medicine: A public health imperative

Recent reviews have emphasized the need for a health equity agenda in genomics research. To ensure that genomic discoveries can lead to improved health outcomes for all segments of the population, a health equity agenda needs to go beyond research studies. Advances in genomics and precision medicine have led to an increasing number of evidence-based applications that can reduce morbidity and mortality for millions of people (tier 1). Studies have shown lower implementation rates for selected diseases with tier 1 applications (familial hypercholesterolemia, Lynch syndrome, hereditary breast and ovarian cancer) among racial and ethnic minority groups, rural communities, uninsured or underinsured people, and those with lower education and income. We make the case that a public health agenda is needed to address disparities in implementation of genomics and precision medicine. Public health actions can be centered on population-specific needs and outcomes assessment, policy and evidence development, and assurance of delivery of effective and ethical interventions. Crucial public health activities also include engaging communities, building coalitions, improving genetic health literacy, and building a diverse workforce. Without concerted public health action, further advances in genomics with potentially broad applications could lead to further widening of health disparities in the next decade.     

Comparative effectiveness research and genomic medicine: An evolving partnership for 21st century medicine

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has provided resources for comparative effectiveness research that will lead to evidence-based decisions about health and health care choices. Some have voiced concerns that evidence-based comparative effectiveness research principles are only relevant to “average” patients and not as much to individuals with unique combinations of genes, exposures and disease outcomes, intrinsic to genomic medicine. In this commentary, we argue that comparative effectiveness research and genomic medicine not only can and should coexist but also they will increasingly benefit from each other. The promise and success of genomic medicine will depend on rigorous comparative effectiveness research to compare outcomes for genome-based applications in practice to traditional non–genome-based approaches. In addition, the success of comparative effectiveness research will depend on developing new methods and clinical research infrastructures to integrate genome-based personalized perspectives into point of care decisions by patients and providers. There is a need to heal the apparent schism between genomic medicine and comparative effectiveness research to enhance knowledge-driven practice of medicine in the 21st century.     

Living laboratory: whole‐genome sequencing as a learning healthcare enterprise

With the proliferation of affordable large‐scale human genomic data come profound and vexing questions about management of such data and their clinical uncertainty. These issues challenge the view that genomic research on human beings can (or should) be fully segregated from clinical genomics, either conceptually or practically. Here, we argue that the sharp distinction between clinical care and research is especially problematic in the context of large‐scale genomic sequencing of people with suspected genetic conditions. Core goals of both enterprises (e.g. understanding genotype–phenotype relationships; generating an evidence base for genomic medicine) are more likely to be realized at a population scale if both those ordering and those undergoing sequencing for diagnostic reasons are routinely and longitudinally studied. Rather than relying on expensive and lengthy randomized clinical trials and meta‐analyses, we propose leveraging nascent clinical‐research hybrid frameworks into a broader, more permanent instantiation of exploratory medical sequencing. Such an investment could enlighten stakeholders about the real‐life challenges posed by whole‐genome sequencing, such as establishing the clinical actionability of genetic variants, returning ‘off‐target’ results to families, developing effective service delivery models and monitoring long‐term outcomes.     

Implementing screening for Lynch syndrome among patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer: summary of a public health/clinical collaborative meeting

Lynch syndrome is the most common cause of inherited colorectal cancer, accounting for approximately 3% of all colorectal cancer cases in the United States. In 2009, an evidence-based review process conducted by the independent Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Working Group resulted in a recommendation to offer genetic testing for Lynch syndrome to all individuals with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer, with the intent of reducing morbidity and mortality in family members. To explore issues surrounding implementation of this recommendation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a multidisciplinary working group meeting in September 2010. This article reviews background information regarding screening for Lynch syndrome and summarizes existing clinical paradigms, potential implementation strategies, and conclusions which emerged from the meeting. It was recognized that widespread implementation will present substantial challenges, and additional data from pilot studies will be needed. However, evidence of feasibility and population health benefits and the advantages of considering a public health approach were acknowledged. Lynch syndrome can potentially serve as a model to facilitate the development and implementation of population-level programs for evidence-based genomic medicine applications involving follow-up testing of at-risk relatives. Such endeavors will require multilevel and multidisciplinary approaches building on collaborative public health and clinical partnerships.     

Personalized oncology: genomic screening in phase 1

Improvements in cancer genomics and tumor biology have reinforced the evidence of cancer development driven by numerous genomic alterations. Advanced genomics technology can be used to characterize genomic alterations that potentially drive tumor growth. With the possibility of screening thousands of genes simultaneously, personalized molecular medicine has become an option. New treatments are being investigated in phase 1 trials around the world. Traditionally, the goal of phase 1 studies was to determine the optimal dose and assess dose‐limiting toxicity of a potential new experimental drug. Only a limited number of patients will benefit from the treatment. However, introducing genomic mapping to select patients for early clinical trials with targeted molecular therapy according to the genomic findings, may lead to a better outcome for the patient, an enrichment of phase 1 trials, and thereby accelerated drug development. The overall advantage is to determine which mutation profiles correlate with sensitivity or lack of resistance to specific targeted therapies. The utility and current limitations of genomic screening to guide selection to Phase 1 clinical trial will be discussed.     

Stakeholder engagement: a key component of integrating genomic information into electronic health records

Integrating genomic information into clinical care and the electronic health record can facilitate personalized medicine through genetically guided clinical decision support. Stakeholder involvement is critical to the success of these implementation efforts. Prior work on implementation of clinical information systems provides broad guidance to inform effective engagement strategies. We add to this evidence-based recommendations that are specific to issues at the intersection of genomics and the electronic health record. We describe stakeholder engagement strategies employed by the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network, a national consortium of US research institutions funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute to develop, disseminate, and apply approaches that combine genomic and electronic health record data. Through select examples drawn from sites of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network, we illustrate a continuum of engagement strategies to inform genomic integration into commercial and homegrown electronic health records across a range of health-care settings. We frame engagement as activities to consult, involve, and partner with key stakeholder groups throughout specific phases of health information technology implementation. Our aim is to provide insights into engagement strategies to guide genomic integration based on our unique network experiences and lessons learned within the broader context of implementation research in biomedical informatics. On the basis of our collective experience, we describe key stakeholder practices, challenges, and considerations for successful genomic integration to support personalized medicine.Genet Med15 10, 792–801.     

Inferring the effect of genomic variation in the new era of genomics

Accurate and detailed understanding of the effects of variants in the coding and noncoding regions of the genome is the next big challenge in the new genomic era of personalized medicine, especially to tackle newer findings of genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity of diseases. This is necessary to resolve the gene‐variant–disease relationship, the pathogenic variant spectrum of genes, pathogenic variants with variable clinical consequences, and multiloci diseases. In turn, this will facilitate patient recruitment for relevant clinical trials. In this review, we describe the trends in research at the intersection of basic and clinical genomics aiming to (a) overcome molecular diagnostic challenges and increase the clinical utility of next‐generation sequencing (NGS) platforms, (b) elucidate variants associated with disease, (c) determine overall genomic complexity including epistasis, complex inheritance patterns such as “synergistic heterozygosity,” digenic/multigenic inheritance, modifier effect, and rare variant load. We describe the newly emerging field of integrated functional genomics, in vivo or in vitro large‐scale functional approaches, statistical bioinformatics algorithms that support NGS genomics data to interpret variants for timely clinical diagnostics and disease management. Thus, facilitating the discovery of new therapeutic or biomarker options, and their roles in the future of personalized medicine.     

Perspectives of US private payers on insurance coverage for pediatric and prenatal exome sequencing: Results of a study from the Program in Prenatal and Pediatric Genomic Sequencing (P3EGS)

PurposeExome sequencing (ES) has the potential to improve management of congenital anomalies and neurodevelopmental disorders in fetuses, infants, and children. US payers are key stakeholders in patient access to ES. We examined how payers view insurance coverage and clinical utility of pediatric and prenatal ES.MethodsWe employed the framework approach of qualitative research to conduct this study. The study cohort represented 14 payers collectively covering 170,000,000 enrollees.ResultsSeventy-one percent of payers covered pediatric ES despite perceived insufficient evidence because they saw merit in available interventions or in ending the diagnostic odyssey. None covered prenatal ES, because they saw no merit. For pediatric ES, 50% agreed with expanded aspects of clinical utility (e.g., information utility), and 21% considered them sufficient for coverage. For prenatal ES, payers saw little utility until in utero interventions become available.ConclusionThe perceived merit of ES is becoming a factor in payers’ coverage for serious diseases with available interventions, even when evidence is perceived insufficient. Payers’ views on ES’s clinical utility are expanding to include informational utility, aligning with the views of patients and other stakeholders. Our findings inform clinical research, patient advocacy, and policy-making, allowing them to be more relevant to payers.     

Evidence synthesis and guideline development in genomic medicine: current status and future prospects

PurposeWith the accelerated implementation of genomic medicine, health-care providers will depend heavily on professional guidelines and recommendations. Because genomics affects many diseases across the life span, no single professional group covers the entirety of this rapidly developing field.MethodsTo pursue a discussion of the minimal elements needed to develop evidence-based guidelines in genomics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute jointly held a workshop to engage representatives from 35 organizations with interest in genomics (13 of which make recommendations). The workshop explored methods used in evidence synthesis and guideline development and initiated a dialogue to compare these methods and to assess whether they are consistent with the Institute of Medicine report “Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust.”ResultsThe participating organizations that develop guidelines or recommendations all had policies to manage guideline development and group membership, and processes to address conflicts of interests. However, there was wide variation in the reliance on external reviews, regular updating of recommendations, and use of systematic reviews to assess the strength of scientific evidence.ConclusionOngoing efforts are required to establish criteria for guideline development in genomic medicine as proposed by the Institute of Medicine.Genet Med advance online publication 19 June 2014     

Proposed outcomes measures for state public health genomic programs

PurposeTo assess the implementation of evidence-based genomic medicine and its population-level impact on health outcomes and to promote public health genetics interventions, in 2015 the Roundtable on Genomics and Precision Health of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine formed an action collaborative, the Genomics and Public Health Action Collaborative (GPHAC). This group engaged key stakeholders from public/population health agencies, along with experts in the fields of health disparities, health literacy, implementation science, medical genetics, and patient advocacy.MethodsIn this paper, we present the efforts to identify performance objectives and outcome metrics. Specific attention is placed on measures related to hereditary breast ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome and Lynch syndrome (LS), two conditions with existing evidence-based genomic applications that can have immediate impact on morbidity and mortality.ResultsOur assessment revealed few existing outcome measures. Therefore, using an implementation research framework, 38 outcome measures were crafted.ConclusionEvidence-based public health requires outcome metrics, yet few exist for genomics. Therefore, we have proposed performance objectives that states might use and provided examples of a few state-level activities already under way, which are designed to collect outcome measures for HBOC and LS.