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

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2018, Pages 390-396

  Lu, Christine Y ^a   Williams, Marc S ^b   Ginsburg, Geoffrey S ^c   Toh, Sengwee ^a   Brown, Jeff S ^a   Khoury, Muin J ^d  

^a HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b GEISINGER HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

^c DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d NATIONAL CENTER ON BIRTH DEFECTS AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES   (United States)

Author keywords

Big Data; clinical utility; data networks; evidence; genomics

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CLINICAL OUTCOME; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; GENOMICS; HUMAN; LEARNING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; REVIEW; VALIDITY; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; GENETIC SCREENING; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; PROCEDURES;

CAPITAL FINANCING; DECISION MAKING; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE; GENETIC TESTING; GENOMICS; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS;

EID: 85045213527     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: 15300366     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2017.122     Document Type: Review

References (61)

1. National Human Genome Research Institute. Regulation of Genetic Tests. 2016. https://www.genome.gov/10002335/regulation-of-genetic-tests/. Accessed 8 June 2017.
2. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health. Use of Standards in FDA Regulatory Oversight of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)-Based In Vitro Diagnostics (IVDs) Used for Diagnosing Germline Diseases: Draft Guidance for Stakeholders and Food and Drug Administration Staff. Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research: Rockville, MD, 2016.
3. US Department of Health and Human Service, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health. Use of Public Human Genetic Variant Databases to Support Clinical Validity for Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)-Based In Vitro Diagnostics: Draft Guidance for Stakeholders and Food and Drug Administration Staff. Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research: Rockville, MD, 2016.
4. Rehm HL, Berg JS, Brooks LD, et al. ClinGen-the Clinical Genome Resource. N Engl J Med 2015;372:2235-2242.
5. Phillips KA, Deverka PA, Sox HC, et al. Making genomic medicine evidence-based and patient-centered: a structured review and landscape analysis of comparative effectiveness research. Genet Med; e-pub ahead of print 13 April 2017.
6. Teutsch SM, Bradley LA, Palomaki GE, et al. The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group. Genet Med 2009;11:3-14.
7. Committee on the Evidence Base for Genetic Testing, Board of Health of Select Populations, Board on Health Care Services, Division HaM. An Evidence Framework for Genetic Testing. National Academies of Sciences: Washington, DC, 2017.
8. Grosse SD. Economic analyses of genetic tests in personalized medicine: clinical utility first, then cost utility. Genet Med 2014;16:225-227.
9. Khoury MJ, Berg A, Coates R, Evans J, Teutsch SM, Bradley LA. The evidence dilemma in genomic medicine. Health Aff 2008;27:1600-1611.
10. Khoury MJ. Dealing with the evidence dilemma in genomics and personalized medicine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2010;87:635-638.
11. Dotson WD, Douglas MP, Kolor K, et al. Prioritizing genomic applications for action by level of evidence: a horizon-scanning method. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2014;95:394-402.
12. Ferrario A, Kanavos P. Dealing with uncertainty and high prices of new medicines: a comparative analysis of the use of managed entry agreements in Belgium, England, the Netherlands and Sweden. Soc Sci Med 2015;124:39-47.
13. Lu CY. Uncertainties in real-world decisions on medical technologies. Int J Clin Pract 2014;68:936-940.
14. Walker S, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Palmer S. Coverage with evidence development, only in research, risk sharing, or patient access scheme? A framework for coverage decisions. Value Health 2012;15:570-579.
15. Lu CY, Lupton C, Rakowsky S, Babar ZU, Ross-Degnan D, Wagner AK. Patient access schemes in Asia-Pacific markets: current experience and future potential. J Pharm Policy Pract 2015;8:6.
16. Mohr PE, Tunis SR. Access with evidence development: the US experience. Pharmacoeconomics 2010;28:153-162.
17. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Pharmacogenomic testing to predict warfarin responsiveness. 2015. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coverage/Coverage-with-Evidence-Development/Pharmacogenomic-Testingto-Predict-Warfarin-Responsiveness.html. Accessed 1 August 2017.
18. Trueman P, Grainger DL, Downs KE. Coverage with evidence development: applications and issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010;26:79-85.
19. Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. BBCIC: Biologics & Biosimilars, Collective Intelligence Consortium. 2015. http://bbcic.org/. Accessed 8 June 2017.
20. Lu CY, Cohen JP. Can genomic medicine improve financial sustainability of health systems? Mol Diagn Ther 2015;19:71-77.
21. Ginsburg G. Medical genomics: gather and use genetic data in health care. Nature 2014;508:451-453.
22. Chambers DA, Feero WG, Khoury MJ. Convergence of implementation science, precision medicine, and the learning health care system: a new model for biomedical research. JAMA 2016;315:1941-1942.
23. Institute of Medicine (US) Roundtable on Value & Science-Driven Health Care. Clinical Data as the Basic Staple of Health Learning: Creating and Protecting a Public Good: Workshop Summary. US National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2010.
24. Avorn J, Kesselheim AS. The 21st Century Cures Act-will it take us back in time? N Engl J Med 2015;372:2473-2475.
25. Kimmel SE, French B, Kasner SE, et al. A pharmacogenetic versus a clinical algorithm for warfarin dosing. N Engl J Med 2013;369: 2283-2293.
26. Dolor RJ, Schmit KM, Graham DG, Fox CH, Baldwin LM. Guidance for researchers developing and conducting clinical trials in practicebased research networks (PBRNs). J Am Board Fam Med 2014;27: 750-758.
27. Thompson P, Wheeler HE, Delaney SM, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacogenomics of daunorubicin in children: a report from the Children's Oncology Group. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2014;74: 831-838.
28. Lerman DM, Monument MJ, McIlvaine E, et al. Tumoral TP53 and/or CDKN2A alterations are not reliable prognostic biomarkers in patients with localized Ewing sarcoma: a report from the Children's Oncology Group. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2015;62:759-765.
29. Habel LA, Shak S, Jacobs MK, et al. A population-based study of tumor gene expression and risk of breast cancer death among lymph nodenegative patients. Breast Cancer Res 2006;8:R25.
30. Gottesman O, Kuivaniemi H, Tromp G, et al. The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network: past, present, and future. Genet Med 2013;15:761-771.
31. Curtis LH, Brown J, Platt R. Four health data networks illustrate the potential for a shared national multipurpose big-data network. Health Aff 2014;33:1178-1186.
32. Toh S, Baker MA, Brown JS, Kornegay C, Platt R. Rapid assessment of cardiovascular risk among users of smoking cessation drugs within the US Food and Drug Administration's Mini-Sentinel program. JAMA Intern Med 2013;173:817-819.
33. Toh S, Reichman ME, Houstoun M, et al. Comparative risk for angioedema associated with the use of drugs that target the reninangiotensin-aldosterone system. Arch Intern Med 2012;172:1582-1589.
34. Fleurence RL, Curtis LH, Califf RM, Platt R, Selby JV, Brown JS. Launching PCORnet, a national patient-centered clinical research network. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014;21:578-582.
35. Hoffman MA, Williams MS. Electronic medical records and personalized medicine. Hum Genet 2011;130:33-39.
36. Starren J, Williams MS, Bottinger EP. Crossing the omic chasm: a time for omic ancillary systems. JAMA 2013;309:1237-1238.
37. Epstein RS, Moyer TP, Aubert RE, et al. Warfarin genotyping reduces hospitalization rates results from the MM-WES (Medco-Mayo Warfarin Effectiveness study). J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:2804-2812.
38. IGNITE: Implementing GeNomics In pracTicE. 2017. https://ignitegenomics.org/. Accessed 19 April 2017.
39. Toh S, Reichman ME, Houstoun M, et al. Multivariable confounding adjustment in distributed data networks without sharing of patientlevel data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2013;22:1171-1177.
40. Toh S, Shetterly S, Powers JD, Arterburn D. Privacy-preserving analytic methods for multisite comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research. Med Care 2014;52:664-668.
41. Toh S, Gagne JJ, Rassen JA, Fireman BH, Kulldorff M, Brown JS. Confounding adjustment in comparative effectiveness research conducted within distributed research networks. Med Care 2013;51(8 Suppl 3):S4-10.
42. Lu CY, Penfold R, Toh S, et al. Near real-time surveillance for consequences of health policies using sequential analysis. Med Care (in press).
43. Khoury MJ, Ioannidis JP. Medicine. Big data meets public health. Science 2014;346:1054-1055.
44. Weitzel KW, Alexander M, Bernhardt BA, et al. The IGNITE network: a model for genomic medicine implementation and research. BMC Med Genomics 2016;9:1.
45. Patients Like Me. Live better, together! 2016. https://www.patientslikeme.com/. Accessed 8 June 2017.
46. ClinGen: Clinical Genome Resource. GenomeConnect. 2016. https://www.clinicalgenome.org/genomeconnect/. Accessed 8 June 2017.
47. SFARI: Simons Foundation Autism Research Initiative. Simons Foundation. 2016. https://sfari.org/. Accessed 8 June 2017.
48. Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy. Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy: Leading the Fight to End Duchenne. 2016. http://www.parentprojectmd.org/site/PageServer?pagename=nws-index. Accessed 8 June 2017.
49. Pear R. Uncle Sam wants you-or at least your genetic and lifestyle information. New York Times. 31 October 2016.
50. Issa AM, Tufail W, Hutchinson J, Tenorio J, Baliga MP. Assessing patient readiness for the clinical adoption of personalized medicine. Public Health Genomics 2009;12:163-169.
51. Haga SB, Kawamoto K, Agans R, Ginsburg GS. Consideration of patient preferences and challenges in storage and access of pharmacogenetic test results. Genet Med 2011;13:887-890.
52. Haga SB, O'Daniel JM, Tindall GM, Lipkus IR, Agans R. Public attitudes toward ancillary information revealed by pharmacogenetic testing under limited information conditions. Genet Med 2011;13:723-728.
53. Haga SB, O'Daniel JM, Tindall GM, Lipkus IR, Agans R. Survey of US public attitudes toward pharmacogenetic testing. Pharmacogenomics J 2012;12:197-204.
54. Carey DJ, Fetterolf SN, Davis FD, et al. The Geisinger MyCode community health initiative: an electronic health record-linked biobank for precision medicine research. Genet Med 2016;18:906-913.
55. The White House. Precision Medicine Initiative: Proposed Privacy and Trust Principles. Available from: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/finalpmiprivacyandtrustprinciples.pdf.
56. Green RC, Lautenbach D, McGuire AL. GINA, genetic discrimination, and genomic medicine. N Engl J Med 2015;372:397-399.
57. Snyder SR, Mitropoulou C, Patrinos GP, Williams MS. Economic evaluation of pharmacogenomics: a value-based approach to pragmatic decision making in the face of complexity. Public Health Genomics 2014;17:256-264.
58. PCORI: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. 9. Standards for adaptive and Bayesian trial designs. 2013. http://www.pcori.org/research-results/research-methodology/pcori-methodology-standards# Adaptive%20and%20Bayesian%20Trial%20Designs. Accessed 8 June 2017.
59. The White House. The Precision Medicine Initiative. 2016. https://www.whitehouse.gov/precision-medicine. Accessed 8 June 2017.
60. Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) Working Group. The Precision Medicine Initiative Cohort Program-Building a Research Foundation for 21st Century Medicine 2015. https://www.nih.gov/sites/default/files/research-training/initiatives/pmi/pmi-working-group-report-20150917-2.pdf.
61. Findlay S. The FDA's Sentinel Initiative. The Food and Drug Administration has launched a new system to assess the safety of prescription drugs after they are approved for sale. Health Affairs and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; 2015. http://healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief-pdfs/healthpolicybrief-139.pdf.