Last data update: May 13, 2024. (Total: 46773 publications since 2009)
Records 1-12 (of 12 Records) |
Query Trace: Roberts MC[original query] |
---|
Improving reporting standards for polygenic scores in risk prediction studies (preprint)
Wand H , Lambert SA , Tamburro C , Iacocca MA , O'Sullivan JW , Sillari C , Kullo IJ , Rowley R , Dron JS , Brockman D , Venner E , McCarthy MI , Antoniou AC , Easton DF , Hegele RA , Khera AV , Chatterjee N , Kooperberg C , Edwards K , Vlessis K , Kinnear K , Danesh JN , Parkinson H , Ramos EM , Roberts MC , Ormond KE , Khoury MJ , Janssens Acjw , Goddard KAB , Kraft P , MacArthur JAL , Inouye M , Wojcik GL . medRxiv 2020 2020.04.23.20077099 Polygenic risk scores (PRS), often aggregating the results from genome-wide association studies, can bridge the gap between the initial discovery efforts and clinical applications for disease risk estimation. However, there is remarkable heterogeneity in the reporting of these risk scores. This lack of adherence to reporting standards hinders the translation of PRS into clinical care. The ClinGen Complex Disease Working Group, in a collaboration with the Polygenic Score (PGS) Catalog, have updated the Genetic Risk Prediction (GRIPS) Reporting Statement to the current state of the field and to enable downstream utility. Drawing upon experts in epidemiology, statistics, disease-specific applications, implementation, and policy, this 22-item reporting framework defines the minimal information needed to interpret and evaluate a PRS, especially with respect to any downstream clinical applications. Items span detailed descriptions of the study population (recruitment method, key demographic and clinical characteristics, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and outcome definition), statistical methods for both PRS development and validation, and considerations for potential limitations of the published risk score and downstream clinical utility. Additionally, emphasis has been placed on data availability and transparency to facilitate reproducibility and benchmarking against other PRS, such as deposition in the publicly available PGS Catalog. By providing these criteria in a structured format that builds upon existing standards and ontologies, the use of this framework in publishing PRS will facilitate translation of PRS into clinical care and progress towards defining best practices.Summary In recent years, polygenic risk scores (PRS) have increasingly been used to capture the genome-wide liability underlying many human traits and diseases, hoping to better inform an individual’s genetic risk. However, a lack of adherence to existing reporting standards has hindered the translation of this important tool into clinical and public health practice; in particular, details necessary for benchmarking and reproducibility are underreported. To address this gap, the ClinGen Complex Disease Working Group and Polygenic Score (PGS) Catalog have updated the Genetic Risk Prediction (GRIPS) Reporting Statement into the 22-item Polygenic Risk Score Reporting Statement (PRS-RS). This framework provides the minimal information expected of authors to promote the validity, transparency, and reproducibility of PRS by encouraging authors to detail the study population, statistical methods, and potential clinical utility of a published score. The widespread adoption of this framework will encourage rigorous methodological consideration and facilitate benchmarking to ensure high quality scores are translated into the clinic.Competing Interest StatementMIM is on the advisory panels Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, and Zoe Global; Honoraria: Merck, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; Research funding: Abbvie, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Servier & Takeda. As of June 2019, he is an employee of Genentech with stock and stock options in Roche. No other authors have competing interests to declare.Funding StatementClinGen is primarily funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), through the following three grants: U41HG006834, U41HG009649, U41HG009650. ClinGen also receives support for content curation from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), through the following three grants: U24HD093483, U24HD093486, U24HD093487. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Additionally, the views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health. Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number U41HG007823 (EBI-NHGRI GWAS Catalog, PGS Catalog). In addition, we acknowledge funding from the European Molecular Biology Laboratory. Individuals were funded from the following sources: MIM was a Wellcome Investigator and an NIHR Senior Investigator with funding from NIDDK (U01-DK105535); Wellcome (090532, 098381, 106130, 203141, 212259). MI, SAL, and JD were supported by core funding from: the UK Medical Research Council (MR/L003120/1), the British Heart Foundation (RG/13/13/30194; RG/18/13/33946) and the National Institute for Health Research (Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre at the Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust). SAL is supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research postdoctoral fellowship (MFE-171279). JD holds a British Heart Foundation Personal Chair and a National Institute for Health Research Senior Investigator Award. This work was also supported by Health Data Research UK, which is funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Department of Health and Social Care (England), Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, Health and Social Care Research and Development Division (Welsh Government), Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland), British Heart Foundation and Wellcome.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:N/AAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesN/A |
Improving reporting standards for polygenic scores in risk prediction studies.
Wand H , Lambert SA , Tamburro C , Iacocca MA , O'Sullivan JW , Sillari C , Kullo IJ , Rowley R , Dron JS , Brockman D , Venner E , McCarthy MI , Antoniou AC , Easton DF , Hegele RA , Khera AV , Chatterjee N , Kooperberg C , Edwards K , Vlessis K , Kinnear K , Danesh JN , Parkinson H , Ramos EM , Roberts MC , Ormond KE , Khoury MJ , Janssens Acjw , Goddard KAB , Kraft P , MacArthur JAL , Inouye M , Wojcik GL . Nature 2021 591 (7849) 211-219 Polygenic risk scores (PRSs), which often aggregate results from genome-wide association studies, can bridge the gap between initial discovery efforts and clinical applications for the estimation of disease risk using genetics. However, there is notable heterogeneity in the application and reporting of these risk scores, which hinders the translation of PRSs into clinical care. Here, in a collaboration between the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Complex Disease Working Group and the Polygenic Score (PGS) Catalog, we present the Polygenic Risk Score Reporting Standards (PRS-RS), in which we update the Genetic Risk Prediction Studies (GRIPS) Statement to reflect the present state of the field. Drawing on the input of experts in epidemiology, statistics, disease-specific applications, implementation and policy, this comprehensive reporting framework defines the minimal information that is needed to interpret and evaluate PRSs, especially with respect to downstream clinical applications. Items span detailed descriptions of study populations, statistical methods for the development and validation of PRSs and considerations for the potential limitations of these scores. In addition, we emphasize the need for data availability and transparency, and we encourage researchers to deposit and share PRSs through the PGS Catalog to facilitate reproducibility and comparative benchmarking. By providing these criteria in a structured format that builds on existing standards and ontologies, the use of this framework in publishing PRSs will facilitate translation into clinical care and progress towards defining best practice. |
Barriers and facilitators for cascade testing in genetic conditions: a systematic review
Srinivasan S , Won NY , Dotson WD , Wright ST , Roberts MC . Eur J Hum Genet 2020 28 (12) 1631-1644 Cascade testing is the process of offering genetic counseling and testing to at-risk relatives of an individual who has been diagnosed with a genetic condition. It is critical for increasing the identification rates of individuals with these conditions and the uptake of appropriate preventive health services. The process of cascade testing is highly varied in clinical practice, and a comprehensive understanding of factors that hinder or enhance its implementation is necessary to improve this process. We conducted a systematic review to identify barriers and facilitators for cascade testing and searched PubMed, CINAHL via EBSCO, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for articles published from the databases' inception to November 2018. Thirty articles met inclusion criteria. Barriers and facilitators identified from these studies at the individual-level were organized into the following categories: (1) demographics, (2) knowledge, (3) attitudes, beliefs, and emotional responses of the individual, and (4) perceptions of relatives, relatives' responses, and attitudes toward relatives. At the interpersonal-level, barriers and facilitators were categorized as (1) family communication-, support- and dynamics-, and (2) provider-factors. Finally, barriers at the environmental-level relating to accessibility of genetic services were also identified. Our findings suggest that several individual, interpersonal and environmental factors may play a role in cascade testing. Future studies to further investigate these barriers and facilitators are needed to inform future interventions for improving the implementation of cascade testing for genetic conditions in clinical practice. |
Perspective: The Clinical Use of Polygenic Risk Scores: Race, Ethnicity, and Health Disparities.
Roberts MC , Khoury MJ , Mensah GA . Ethn Dis 2019 29 (3) 513-516 Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are an emerging precision medicine tool based on multiple gene variants that, taken alone, have weak associations with disease risks, but collectively may enhance disease predictive value in the population. However, the benefit of PRS may not be equal among non-European populations, as they are under-represented in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) that serve as the basis for PRS development. In this perspective, we discuss a path forward, which includes: 1) inclusion of underrepresented populations in PRS research; 2) global efforts to build capacity for genomic research; 3) equitable implementation of these tools in clinical practice; and 4) traditional public health approaches to reduce risk of adverse health outcomes as an important component to precision health. As precision medicine is implemented in clinical care, researchers must ensure that advances from PRS research will benefit all. |
Emerging Concepts in Precision Medicine and Cardiovascular Diseases in Racial and Ethnic Minority Populations.
Mensah GA , Jaquish C , Srinivas P , Papanicolaou GJ , Wei GS , Redmond N , Roberts MC , Nelson C , Aviles-Santa L , Puggal M , Green Parker MC , Minear MA , Barfield W , Fenton KN , Boyce CA , Engelgau MM , Khoury MJ . Circ Res 2019 125 (1) 7-13 Cardiovascular diseases remain the leading cause of mortality and a major contributor to preventable deaths worldwide. The dominant modifiable risk factors and the social and environmental determinants that increase cardiovascular risk are known, and collectively, are as important in racial and ethnic minority populations as they are in majority populations. Their prevention and treatment remain the foundation for cardiovascular health promotion and disease prevention. Genetic and epigenetic factors are increasingly recognized as important contributors to cardiovascular risk and provide an opportunity for advancing precision cardiovascular medicine. In this review, we explore emerging concepts at the interface of precision medicine and cardiovascular disease in racial and ethnic minority populations. Important among these are the lack of racial and ethnic diversity in genomics studies and biorepositories; the resulting misclassification of benign variants as pathogenic in minorities; and the importance of ensuring ancestry-matched controls in variant interpretation. We address the relevance of epigenetics, pharmacogenomics, genetic testing and counseling, and their social and cultural implications. We also examine the potential impact of precision medicine on racial and ethnic disparities. The National Institutes of Health's All of Us Research Program and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine Initiative are presented as examples of research programs at the forefront of precision medicine and diversity to explore research implications in minorities. We conclude with an overview of implementation research challenges in precision medicine and the ethical implications in minority populations. Successful implementation of precision medicine in cardiovascular disease in minority populations will benefit from strategies that directly address diversity and inclusion in genomics research and go beyond race and ethnicity to explore ancestry-matched controls, as well as geographic, cultural, social, and environmental determinants of health. |
Leveraging implementation science to address health disparities in genomic medicine: Examples from the field
Roberts MC , Mensah GA , Khoury MJ . Ethn Dis 2019 29 187-192 The integration of genomic data into screening, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment for clinical and public health practices has been slow and challenging. Implementation science can be applied in tackling the barriers and challenges as well as exploring opportunities and best practices for integrating genomic data into routine clinical and public health practice.In this article, we define the state of disparities in genomic medicine and focus predominantly on late-stage research findings. We use case studies from genetic testing for cardiovascular diseases (familial hypercholesterolemia) and cancer (Lynch syndrome and hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome) in high-risk populations to consider current disparities and related barriers in turning genomic advances into population health impact to advance health equity. Finally, we address how implementation science can address these translational barriers and we discuss the strategic importance of collaborative multi-stakeholder approaches that engage public health agencies, professional societies, academic health and research centers, community clinics, and patients and their families to work collectively to improve population health and reduce or eliminate health inequities. |
Current Social Media Conversations about Genetics and Genomics in Health: A Twitter-Based Analysis.
Allen CG , Andersen B , Khoury MJ , Roberts MC . Public Health Genomics 2018 21 1-7 BACKGROUND: The growing availability of genomic information to the public may spur discussion about genetics and genomics on social media. Sites, including Twitter, provide a unique space for the public to access and discuss health information. The objective of this study was to better understand how social media users are sharing information about genetics and genomics in health and healthcare and what information is most commonly discussed among Twitter users. METHODS: We obtained tweets with specific genetics- and genomics-related keywords from Crimson Hexagon. We used Boolean logic to collect tweets containing chosen keywords within the timeframe of October 1, 2016, to October 1, 2017. Features of the software were used to identify salient themes in conversation, conduct an emergent content analysis, and gather key demographic information. RESULTS: We obtained 347,196 tweets from our search. There was a monthly average volume of 28,432 tweets. The five categories of tweets included: genetic disorders/disease (45.3%), health (15.6%), genomics (8%), and genetic testing (7.3%). Top influencers in the conversation included news outlets and universities. CONCLUSIONS: This content analysis provides insight about the types of conversation related to genomics and health. Conversations about genomics are occurring on Twitter, and they frequently emphasize rare genetic diseases and genetic disorders. These discussions tend to be driven by key influencers who primarily include news media outlets. Further understanding of the discussions related to genomics and health in social media may offer insight about topics of importance to the public. |
Delivery of cascade screening for hereditary conditions: A scoping review of the literature
Roberts MC , Dotson WD , DeVore CS , Bednar EM , Bowen DJ , Ganiats TG , Green RF , Hurst GM , Philp AR , Ricker CN , Sturm AC , Trepanier AM , Williams JL , Zierhut HA , Wilemon KA , Hampel H . Health Aff (Millwood) 2018 37 (5) 801-808 Cascade screening is the process of contacting relatives of people who have been diagnosed with certain hereditary conditions. Its purpose is to identify, inform, and manage those who are also at risk. We conducted a scoping review to obtain a broad overview of cascade screening interventions, facilitators and barriers to their use, relevant policy considerations, and future research needs. We searched for relevant peer-reviewed literature in the period 1990-2017 and reviewed 122 studies. Finally, we described 45 statutes and regulations related to the use and release of genetic information across the fifty states. We sought standardized best practices for optimizing cascade screening across various geographic and policy contexts, but we found none. Studies in which trained providers contacted relatives directly, rather than through probands (index patients), showed greater cascade screening uptake; however, policies in some states might limit this approach. Major barriers to cascade screening delivery include suboptimal communication between the proband and family and geographic barriers to obtaining genetic services. Few US studies examined interventions for cascade screening or used rigorous study designs such as randomized controlled trials. Moving forward, there remains an urgent need to conduct rigorous intervention studies on cascade screening in diverse US populations, while accounting for state policy considerations. |
The current state of funded NIH grants in implementation science in genomic medicine: a portfolio analysis.
Roberts MC , Clyne M , Kennedy AE , Chambers DA , Khoury MJ . Genet Med 2017 21 (5) 1218-1223 PurposeImplementation science offers methods to evaluate the translation of genomic medicine research into practice. The extent to which the National Institutes of Health (NIH) human genomics grant portfolio includes implementation science is unknown. This brief report's objective is to describe recently funded implementation science studies in genomic medicine in the NIH grant portfolio, and identify remaining gaps.MethodsWe identified investigator-initiated NIH research grants on implementation science in genomic medicine (funding initiated 2012-2016). A codebook was adapted from the literature, three authors coded grants, and descriptive statistics were calculated for each code.ResultsForty-two grants fit the inclusion criteria (~1.75% of investigator-initiated genomics grants). The majority of included grants proposed qualitative and/or quantitative methods with cross-sectional study designs, and described clinical settings and primarily white, non-Hispanic study populations. Most grants were in oncology and examined genetic testing for risk assessment. Finally, grants lacked the use of implementation science frameworks, and most examined uptake of genomic medicine and/or assessed patient-centeredness.ConclusionWe identified large gaps in implementation science studies in genomic medicine in the funded NIH portfolio over the past 5 years. To move the genomics field forward, investigator-initiated research grants should employ rigorous implementation science methods within diverse settings and populations.Genetics in Medicine advance online publication, 26 October 2017; doi:10.1038/gim.2017.180. |
The current state of implementation science in genomic medicine: opportunities for improvement.
Roberts MC , Kennedy AE , Chambers DA , Khoury MJ . Genet Med 2017 19 (8) 858-863 PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to identify trends and gaps in the field of implementation science in genomic medicine. METHODS: We conducted a literature review using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Public Health Genomics Knowledge Base to examine the current literature in the field of implementation science in genomic medicine. We selected original research articles based on specific inclusion criteria and then abstracted information about study design, genomic medicine, and implementation outcomes. Data were aggregated, and trends and gaps in the literature were discussed. RESULTS: Our final review encompassed 283 articles published in 2014, the majority of which described uptake (35.7%, n = 101) and preferences (36.4%, n = 103) regarding genomic technologies, particularly oncology (35%, n = 99). Key study design elements, such as racial/ethnic composition of study populations, were underreported in studies. Few studies incorporated implementation science theoretical frameworks, sustainability measures, or capacity building. CONCLUSION: Although genomic discovery provides the potential for population health benefit, the current knowledge base around implementation to turn this promise into a reality is severely limited. Current gaps in the literature demonstrate a need to apply implementation science principles to genomic medicine in order to deliver on the promise of precision medicine. |
Population-Based Precision Cancer Screening: A Symposium on Evidence, Epidemiology, and Next Steps.
Marcus PM , Pashayan N , Church TR , Doria-Rose VP , Gould MK , Hubbard RA , Marrone M , Miglioretti DL , Pharoah PD , Pinsky PF , Rendle KA , Robbins HA , Roberts MC , Rolland B , Schiffman M , Tiro JA , Zauber AG , Winn DM , Khoury MJ . Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2016 25 (11) 1449-1455 Precision medicine, an emerging approach for disease treatment that takes into account individual variability in genes, environment, and lifestyle, is under consideration for preventive interventions, including cancer screening. On September 29, 2015, the National Cancer Institute sponsored a symposium entitled "Precision Cancer Screening in the General Population: Evidence, Epidemiology, and Next Steps". The goal was two-fold: to share current information on the evidence, practices, and challenges surrounding precision screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers, and to allow for in-depth discussion among experts in relevant fields regarding how epidemiology and other population sciences can be used to generate evidence to inform precision screening strategies. Attendees concluded that the strength of evidence for efficacy and effectiveness of precision strategies varies by cancer site, that no one research strategy or methodology would be able or appropriate to address the many knowledge gaps in precision screening, and that issues surrounding implementation must be researched as well. Additional discussion needs to occur to identify the high priority research areas in precision cancer screening for pertinent organs and to gather the necessary evidence to determine whether further implementation of precision cancer screening strategies in the general population would be feasible and beneficial. |
Service coordination and children's functioning in a school-based Intensive Mental Health Program
Puddy RW , Roberts MC , Vernberg EM , Hambrick EP . J Child Fam Stud 2012 21 (6) 948-962 Coordination of mental health services in children with serious emotional disturbance (SED) has shown a preliminary relationship to positive outcomes in children. Yet, research in this area is sparse. Therefore, the relation between service coordination activities and adaptive functioning was examined for 51 children SED who were treated in the school-based Intensive Mental Health Program for elementary school students (IMHP; average treatment length was 12 months; mean age 9.37 at intake). Systematic review of detailed case records identified 16,669 episodes of service coordination that could be coded reliably for frequency, quality, and purpose (planning, linking, monitoring) of the service coordination component. Adaptive functioning was measured by Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS) ratings and daily points earned on the behavior management system of the IMHP at intake, 6, 12 months, and discharge. Findings indicated that the frequency, quality, and purpose of the service coordination component varied from case to case and by time in treatment. Although service coordination activities overall decreased as treatment progressed, concentrated high quality service coordination (measured by frequency, quality, and component of service coordination) consistently predicted improved functioning on both CAFAS ratings and daily points earned. Results have both practice and policy implications for training interagency teams and clinicians on when and how to optimally coordinate services. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved) (journal abstract). |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:May 13, 2024
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure