Antibodies to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in All of Us Research Program Participants, 2 January to 18 March 2020.

BACKGROUND: With limited severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) testing capacity in the United States at the start of the epidemic (January-March 2020), testing was focused on symptomatic patients with a travel history throughout February, obscuring the picture of SARS-CoV-2 seeding and community transmission. We sought to identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the early weeks of the US epidemic. METHODS: All of Us study participants in all 50 US states provided blood specimens during study visits from 2 January to 18 March 2020. Participants were considered seropositive if they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies with the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and the EUROIMMUN SARS-CoV-2 ELISA in a sequential testing algorithm. The sensitivity and specificity of these ELISAs and the net sensitivity and specificity of the sequential testing algorithm were estimated, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: The estimated sensitivities of the Abbott and EUROIMMUN assays were 100% (107 of 107 [95% CI: 96.6%-100%]) and 90.7% (97 of 107 [83.5%-95.4%]), respectively, and the estimated specificities were 99.5% (995 of 1000 [98.8%-99.8%]) and 99.7% (997 of 1000 [99.1%-99.9%]), respectively. The net sensitivity and specificity of our sequential testing algorithm were 90.7% (97 of 107 [95% CI: 83.5%-95.4%]) and 100.0% (1000 of 1000 [99.6%-100%]), respectively. Of the 24 079 study participants with blood specimens from 2 January to 18 March 2020, 9 were seropositive, 7 before the first confirmed case in the states of Illinois, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Mississippi. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings identified SARS-CoV-2 infections weeks before the first recognized cases in 5 US states.

NIH Primary and Secondary Prevention Research in Humans: a Portfolio Analysis of Study Designs Used in 2012-2019.

We can learn a great deal about the research questions being addressed in a field by examining the study designs used in that field. This manuscript examines the research questions being addressed in prevention research by characterizing the distribution and trends of study designs included in primary and secondary prevention research supported by the National Institutes of Health through grants and cooperative agreements, together with the types of prevention research, populations, rationales, exposures, and outcomes associated with each type of design. The Office of Disease Prevention developed a taxonomy to classify new extramural NIH-funded research projects and created a database with a representative sample of 14,523 research projects for fiscal years 2012-2019. The data were weighted to represent the entirety of the extramural research portfolio. Leveraging this dataset, the Office of Disease Prevention characterized the study designs proposed in NIH-funded primary and secondary prevention research applications. The most common study designs proposed in new NIH-supported prevention research applications during FY12-19 were observational designs (63.3%, 95% CI 61.5%-65.0%), analysis of existing data (44.5%, 95% CI: 42.7-46.3), methods research (23.9%, 95% CI: 22.3-25.6), and randomized interventions (17.2%, 95% CI: 16.1%-18.4%). Observational study designs dominated primary prevention research, while intervention designs were more common in secondary prevention research. Observational designs were more common for exposures that would be difficult to manipulate (e.g., genetics, chemical toxin, and infectious disease (not pneumonia/influenza or HIV/AIDS)), while intervention designs were more common for exposures that would be easier to manipulate (e.g., education/counseling, medication/device, diet/nutrition, and healthcare delivery). Intervention designs were not common for outcomes that are rare or have a long latency (e.g., cancer, neurological disease, Alzheimer's disease) and more common for outcomes that are more common or where effects would be expected earlier (e.g., healthcare delivery, health related quality of life, substance use, and medication/device). Observational designs and analyses of existing data dominated, suggesting that much of the prevention research funded by NIH continues to focus on questions of association and on questions of identification of risk and protective factors. Randomized and non-randomized intervention designs were included far less often, suggesting that a much smaller fraction of the NIH prevention research portfolio is focused on questions of whether interventions can be used to modify risk or protective factors or to change some other health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome. The much heavier focus on observational studies is surprising given how much we know already about the leading risk factors for death and disability in the USA, because those risk factors account for 74% of the county-level mortality in the USA, and because they play such a vital role in the development of clinical and public health guidelines, whose developers often weigh results from randomized trials much more heavily than results from observational studies. Improvements in death and disability nationwide are more likely to derive from guidelines based on intervention research to address the leading risk factors than from additional observational studies.

Geographic Variation in Obesity at the State Level in the All of Us Research Program.

INTRODUCTION: National obesity prevention strategies may benefit from precision health approaches involving diverse participants in population health studies. We used cohort data from the National Institutes of Health All of Us Research Program (All of Us) Researcher Workbench to estimate population-level obesity prevalence. METHODS: To estimate state-level obesity prevalence we used data from physical measurements made during All of Us enrollment visits and data from participant electronic health records (EHRs) where available. Prevalence estimates were calculated and mapped by state for 2 categories of body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2): obesity (BMI >30) and severe obesity (BMI >35). We calculated and mapped prevalence by state, excluding states with fewer than 100 All of Us participants. RESULTS: Data on height and weight were available for 244,504 All of Us participants from 33 states, and corresponding EHR data were available for 88,840 of these participants. The median and IQR of BMI taken from physical measurements data was 28.4 (24.4- 33.7) and 28.5 (24.5-33.6) from EHR data, where available. Overall obesity prevalence based on physical measurements data was 41.5% (95% CI, 41.3%-41.7%); prevalence of severe obesity was 20.7% (95% CI, 20.6-20.9), with large geographic variations observed across states. Prevalence estimates from states with greater numbers of All of Us participants were more similar to national population-based estimates than states with fewer participants. CONCLUSION: All of Us participants had a high prevalence of obesity, with state-level geographic variation mirroring national trends. The diversity among All of Us participants may support future investigations on obesity prevention and treatment in diverse populations.

Reproducible Research Practices and Transparency across the Biomedical Literature.

There is a growing movement to encourage reproducibility and transparency practices in the scientific community, including public access to raw data and protocols, the conduct of replication studies, systematic integration of evidence in systematic reviews, and the documentation of funding and potential conflicts of interest. In this survey, we assessed the current status of reproducibility and transparency addressing these indicators in a random sample of 441 biomedical journal articles published in 2000-2014. Only one study provided a full protocol and none made all raw data directly available. Replication studies were rare (n = 4), and only 16 studies had their data included in a subsequent systematic review or meta-analysis. The majority of studies did not mention anything about funding or conflicts of interest. The percentage of articles with no statement of conflict decreased substantially between 2000 and 2014 (94.4% in 2000 to 34.6% in 2014); the percentage of articles reporting statements of conflicts (0% in 2000, 15.4% in 2014) or no conflicts (5.6% in 2000, 50.0% in 2014) increased. Articles published in journals in the clinical medicine category versus other fields were almost twice as likely to not include any information on funding and to have private funding. This study provides baseline data to compare future progress in improving these indicators in the scientific literature.

Correction: A collaborative translational research framework for evaluating and implementing the appropriate use of human genome sequencing to improve health.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002631.].

A collaborative translational research framework for evaluating and implementing the appropriate use of human genome sequencing to improve health.

In a Policy Forum, Muin Khoury and colleagues discuss research on the clinical application of genome sequencing data.

Review of the Gene-Environment Interaction Literature in Cancer: What Do We Know?

BACKGROUND: Risk of cancer is determined by a complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors. Although the study of gene-environment interactions (G×E) has been an active area of research, little is reported about the known findings in the literature. METHODS: To examine the state of the science in G×E research in cancer, we performed a systematic review of published literature using gene-environment or pharmacogenomic flags from two curated databases of genetic association studies, the Human Genome Epidemiology (HuGE) literature finder and Cancer Genome-Wide Association and Meta Analyses Database (CancerGAMAdb), from January 1, 2001, to January 31, 2011. A supplemental search using HuGE was conducted for articles published from February 1, 2011, to April 11, 2013. A 25% sample of the supplemental publications was reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 3,019 articles were identified in the original search. From these articles, 243 articles were determined to be relevant based on inclusion criteria (more than 3,500 interactions). From the supplemental search (1,400 articles identified), 29 additional relevant articles (1,370 interactions) were included. The majority of publications in both searches examined G×E in colon, rectal, or colorectal; breast; or lung cancer. Specific interactions examined most frequently included environmental factors categorized as energy balance (e.g., body mass index, diet), exogenous (e.g., oral contraceptives) and endogenous hormones (e.g., menopausal status), chemical environment (e.g., grilled meats), and lifestyle (e.g., smoking, alcohol intake). In both searches, the majority of interactions examined were using loci from candidate genes studies and none of the studies were genome-wide interaction studies (GEWIS). The most commonly reported measure was the interaction P-value, of which a sizable number of P-values were considered statistically significant (i.e., <0.05). In addition, the magnitude of interactions reported was modest. CONCLUSION: Observations of published literature suggest that opportunity exists for increased sample size in G×E research, including GWAS-identified loci in G×E studies, exploring more GWAS approaches in G×E such as GEWIS, and improving the reporting of G×E findings.

Trends in published meta-analyses in cancer research, 2008-2013.

In order to capture trends in the contribution of epidemiology to cancer research, we describe an online meta-analysis database resource for cancer clinical and population research and illustrate trends and descriptive detail of cancer meta-analyses from 2008 through 2013. A total of 4,686 cancer meta-analyses met our inclusion criteria. During this 6-year period, a fivefold increase was observed in the yearly number of meta-analyses. Fifty-six percent of meta-analyses concerned observational studies, mostly of cancer risk, more than half of which were genetic studies. The major cancer sites were breast, colorectal, and digestive. This online database for Cancer Genomics and Epidemiology Navigator will be continuously updated to allow investigators to quickly navigate the meta-analyses emerging from cancer epidemiology studies and cancer clinical trials.

A standardized, evidence-based protocol to assess clinical actionability of genetic disorders associated with genomic variation.

PURPOSE: Genome and exome sequencing can identify variants unrelated to the primary goal of sequencing. Detecting pathogenic variants associated with an increased risk of a medical disorder enables clinical interventions to improve future health outcomes in patients and their at-risk relatives. The Clinical Genome Resource, or ClinGen, aims to assess clinical actionability of genes and associated disorders as part of a larger effort to build a central resource of information regarding the clinical relevance of genomic variation for use in precision medicine and research. METHODS: We developed a practical, standardized protocol to identify available evidence and generate qualitative summary reports of actionability for disorders and associated genes. We applied a semiquantitative metric to score actionability. RESULTS: We generated summary reports and actionability scores for the 56 genes and associated disorders recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics for return as secondary findings from clinical genome-scale sequencing. We also describe the challenges that arose during the development of the protocol that highlight important issues in characterizing actionability across a range of disorders. CONCLUSION: The ClinGen framework for actionability assessment will assist research and clinical communities in making clear, efficient, and consistent determinations of actionability based on transparent criteria to guide analysis and reporting of findings from clinical genome-scale sequencing.Genet Med 18 12, 1258-1268.

Evolution of the "drivers" of translational cancer epidemiology: analysis of funded grants and the literature.

Concurrently with a workshop sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, we identified key "drivers" for accelerating cancer epidemiology across the translational research continuum in the 21st century: emerging technologies, a multilevel approach, knowledge integration, and team science. To map the evolution of these "drivers" and translational phases (T0-T4) in the past decade, we analyzed cancer epidemiology grants funded by the National Cancer Institute and published literature for 2000, 2005, and 2010. For each year, we evaluated the aims of all new/competing grants and abstracts of randomly selected PubMed articles. Compared with grants based on a single institution, consortium-based grants were more likely to incorporate contemporary technologies (P = 0.012), engage in multilevel analyses (P = 0.010), and incorporate elements of knowledge integration (P = 0.036). Approximately 74% of analyzed grants and publications involved discovery (T0) or characterization (T1) research, suggesting a need for more translational (T2-T4) research. Our evaluation indicated limited research in 1) a multilevel approach that incorporates molecular, individual, social, and environmental determinants and 2) knowledge integration that evaluates the robustness of scientific evidence. Cancer epidemiology is at the cusp of a paradigm shift, and the field will need to accelerate the pace of translating scientific discoveries in order to impart population health benefits. While multi-institutional and technology-driven collaboration is happening, concerted efforts to incorporate other key elements are warranted for the discipline to meet future challenges.

An overview of recommendations and translational milestones for genomic tests in cancer.

PURPOSE: To understand the translational trajectory of genomic tests in cancer screening, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment, we reviewed tests that have been assessed by recommendation and guideline developers. METHODS: For each test, we marked translational milestones by determining when the genomic association with cancer was first discovered and studied in patients, and when a health application for a specified clinical use was successfully demonstrated and approved or cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration. To identify recommendations and guidelines, we reviewed the websites of cancer, genomic, and general guideline developers and professional organizations. We searched the in vitro diagnostics database of the US Food and Drug Administration for information, and we searched PubMed for translational milestones. Milestones were examined against type of recommendation, Food and Drug Administration approval or clearance, disease rarity, and test purpose. RESULTS: Of the 45 tests we identified, 9 received strong recommendations for their usage in clinical settings, 14 received positive but moderate recommendations, and 22 were not currently recommended. For 18 tests, two or more different sources had issued recommendations, with 67% concordance. Only five tests had Food and Drug Administration approval, and an additional five had clearance. The median time from discovery to recommendation statement was 14.7 years. CONCLUSION: In general, there were no associations found between translational trajectory and recommendation category.Genet Med 17 6, 431-440.

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

PURPOSE: With 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. METHODS: To 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." RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSION: Ongoing efforts are required to establish criteria for guideline development in genomic medicine as proposed by the Institute of Medicine.

The next generation of large-scale epidemiologic research: implications for training cancer epidemiologists.

There is expanding consensus on the need to modernize the training of cancer epidemiologists to accommodate rapidly emerging technological advancements and the digital age, which are transforming the practice of cancer epidemiology. There is also a growing imperative to extend cancer epidemiology research that is etiological to that which is applied and has the potential to affect individual and public health. Medical schools and schools of public health are recognizing the need to develop such integrated programs; however, we lack the data to estimate how many current training programs are effectively equipping epidemiology students with the knowledge and tools to design, conduct, and analyze these increasingly complex studies. There is also a need to develop new mentoring approaches to account for the transdisciplinary team-science environment that now prevails. With increased dialogue among schools of public health, medical schools, and cancer centers, revised competencies and training programs at predoctoral, doctoral, and postdoctoral levels must be developed. Continuous collection of data on the impact and outcomes of such programs is also recommended.

Horizon scanning for translational genomic research beyond bench to bedside.

PURPOSE: The 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: Most 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. CONCLUSION: These 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.

Collaborative biomedicine in the age of big data: the case of cancer.

Biomedicine is undergoing a revolution driven by high throughput and connective computing that is transforming medical research and practice. Using oncology as an example, the speed and capacity of genomic sequencing technologies is advancing the utility of individual genetic profiles for anticipating risk and targeting therapeutics. The goal is to enable an era of "P4" medicine that will become increasingly more predictive, personalized, preemptive, and participative over time. This vision hinges on leveraging potentially innovative and disruptive technologies in medicine to accelerate discovery and to reorient clinical practice for patient-centered care. Based on a panel discussion at the Medicine 2.0 conference in Boston with representatives from the National Cancer Institute, Moffitt Cancer Center, and Stanford University School of Medicine, this paper explores how emerging sociotechnical frameworks, informatics platforms, and health-related policy can be used to encourage data liquidity and innovation. This builds on the Institute of Medicine's vision for a "rapid learning health care system" to enable an open source, population-based approach to cancer prevention and control.

Data-driven science and diversity in the All of Us Research Program.

The National Institutes of Health's All of Us Research Program is an accessible platform that hosts genomic and phenotypic data to be collected from 1 million participants in the United States. Its mission is to accelerate medical research and clinical breakthroughs with a special emphasis on diversity.

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.

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

PURPOSE: Insufficient 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. METHODS: Twenty-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. RESULTS: At 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, intermediate levels of confidence for [corrected] epidermal growth factor receptor mutation testing and stable levels of confidence [corrected] 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. CONCLUSION: Stakeholder 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.

Building the evidence base for decision making in cancer genomic medicine using comparative effectiveness research.

The clinical utility is uncertain for many cancer genomic applications. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) can provide evidence to clarify this uncertainty. The aim of this study was to identify approaches to help stakeholders make evidence-based decisions and to describe potential challenges and opportunities in using CER to produce evidence-based guidance. We identified general CER approaches for genomic applications through literature review, the authors' experiences, and lessons learned from a recent, seven-site CER initiative in cancer genomic medicine. Case studies illustrate the use of CER approaches. Evidence generation and synthesis approaches used in CER include comparative observational and randomized trials, patient-reported outcomes, decision modeling, and economic analysis. Significant challenges to conducting CER in cancer genomics include the rapid pace of innovation, lack of regulation, and variable definitions and evidence thresholds for clinical and personal utility. Opportunities to capitalize on CER methods in cancer genomics include improvements in the conduct of evidence synthesis, stakeholder engagement, increasing the number of comparative studies, and developing approaches to inform clinical guidelines and research prioritization. CER offers a variety of methodological approaches that can address stakeholders' needs and help ensure an effective translation of genomic discoveries.