Recent emphasis on translational research (TR) is highlighting the role of epidemiology in translating scientific discoveries into population health impact. The authors present applications of epidemiology in TR through 4 phases designated T1–T4, illustrated by examples from human genomics. In T1, epidemiology explores the role of a basic scientific discovery (e.g., a disease risk factor or biomarker) in developing a “candidate application” for use in practice (e.g., a test used to guide interventions). In T2, epidemiology can help to evaluate the efficacy of a candidate application by using observational studies and randomized controlled trials. In T3, epidemiology can help to assess facilitators and barriers for uptake and implementation of candidate applications in practice. In T4, epidemiology can help to assess the impact of using candidate applications on population health outcomes. Epidemiology also has a leading role in knowledge synthesis, especially using quantitative methods (e.g., meta-analysis). To explore the emergence of TR in epidemiology, the authors compared articles published in selected issues of the Journal in 1999 and 2009. The proportion of articles identified as translational doubled from 16% (11/69) in 1999 to 33% (22/66) in 2009 (P = 0.02). Epidemiology is increasingly recognized as an important component of TR. By quantifying and integrating knowledge across disciplines, epidemiology provides crucial methods and tools for TR.

The recent success of genome-wide association studies in finding susceptibility genes for many common diseases presents tremendous opportunities for epidemiologic studies of environmental risk factors. Analysis of gene-environment interactions, included in only a small fraction of epidemiologic studies until now, will begin to accelerate as investigators integrate analyses of genome-wide variation and environmental factors. Nevertheless, considerable methodological challenges are involved in the design and analysis of gene-environment interaction studies. The authors review these issues in the context of evolving methods for assessing interactions and discuss how the current agnostic approach to interrogating the human genome for genetic risk factors could be extended into a similar approach to gene-environment-wide interaction studies of disease occurrence in human populations.

OBJECTIVE

To test the association of family history of diabetes with the adoption of diabetes risk–reducing behaviors and whether this association is strengthened by physician advice or commonly known factors associated with diabetes risk.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We used cross-sectional data from the 2005–2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to examine the effects of family history of diabetes on the adoption of selected risk-reducing behaviors in 8,598 adults (aged ≥20 years) without diabetes. We used multiple logistic regression to model three risk reduction behaviors (controlling or losing weight, increasing physical activity, and reducing the amount of dietary fat or calories) with family history of diabetes.

RESULTS

Overall, 36.2% of U.S. adults without diabetes had a family history of diabetes. Among them, ~39.8% reported receiving advice from a physician during the past year regarding any of the three selected behaviors compared with 29.2% of participants with no family history (P < 0.01). In univariate analysis, adults with a family history of diabetes were more likely to perform these risk-reducing behaviors compared with adults without a family history. Physician advice was strongly associated with each of the behavioral changes (P < 0.01), and this did not differ by family history of diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

Familial risk for diabetes and physician advice both independently influence the adoption of diabetes risk–reducing behaviors. However, fewer than half of participants with familial risk reported receiving physician advice for adopting these behaviors.

Background

In recent decades, extensive resources have been invested to develop cellular, molecular and genomic technologies with clinical applications that span the continuum of cancer care.

Methods

In December 2006, the National Cancer Institute sponsored the first workshop to uniquely examine the state of health services research on cancer-related cellular, molecular and genomic technologies and identify challenges and priorities for expanding the evidence base on their effectiveness in routine care.

Results

This article summarizes the workshop outcomes, which included development of a comprehensive research agenda that incorporates health and safety endpoints, utilization patterns, patient and provider preferences, quality of care and access, disparities, economics and decision modeling, trends in cancer outcomes, and health-related quality of life among target populations.

Conclusions

Ultimately, the successful adoption of useful technologies will depend on understanding and influencing the patient, provider, health care system and societal factors that contribute to their uptake and effectiveness in ‘real-world’ settings.

Advances in genomics and related fields are promising tools for risk assessment, early detection, and targeted therapies across the entire cancer care continuum. In this commentary, we submit that this promise cannot be fulfilled without an enhanced translational genomics research agenda firmly rooted in the population sciences. Population sciences include multiple disciplines that are needed throughout the translational research continuum. For example, epidemiologic studies are needed not only to accelerate genomic discoveries and new biological insights into cancer etiology and pathogenesis, but to characterize and critically evaluate these discoveries in well defined populations for their potential for cancer prediction, prevention and response to treatments. Behavioral, social and communication sciences are needed to explore genomic-modulated responses to old and new behavioral interventions, adherence to therapies, decision-making across the continuum, and effective use in health care. Implementation science, health services, outcomes research, comparative effectiveness research and regulatory science are needed for moving validated genomic applications into practice and for measuring their effectiveness, cost effectiveness and unintended consequences. Knowledge synthesis, evidence reviews and economic modeling of the effects of promising genomic applications will facilitate policy decisions, and evidence-based recommendations. Several independent and multidisciplinary panels have recently made specific recommendations for enhanced research and policy infrastructure to inform clinical and population research for moving genomic innovations into the cancer care continuum. An enhanced translational genomics and population sciences agenda is urgently needed to fulfill the promise of genomics in reducing the burden of cancer.

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have successfully identified numerous genetic loci that are associated with phenotypic traits and diseases. GWAS Integrator is a bioinformatics tool that integrates information on these associations from the National Human Genome Research institute (NHGRI) Catalog, SNAP (SNP Annotation and Proxy Search), and the Human Genome Epidemiology (HuGE) Navigator literature database. This tool includes robust search and data mining functionalities that can be used to quickly identify relevant associations from GWAS, as well as proxy single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and potential candidate genes. Query-based University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC) Genome Browser custom tracks are generated dynamically on the basis of users' selected GWAS hits or candidate genes from HuGE Navigator literature database (http://www.hugenavigator.net/HuGENavigator/gWAHitStartPage.do). The GWAS Integrator may help enhance inference on potential genetic associations identified from GWAS studies.

In the field of cancer, genetic association studies are among the most active and well-funded research areas, and have produced hundreds of genetic associations, especially in the genome-wide association studies (GWAS) era. Knowledge synthesis of these discoveries is the first critical step in translating the rapidly emerging data from cancer genetic association research into potential applications for clinical practice. To facilitate the effort of translational research on cancer genetics, we have developed a continually updated database named Cancer Genome-wide Association and Meta Analyses database that contains key descriptive characteristics of each genetic association extracted from published GWAS and meta-analyses relevant to cancer risk. Here we describe the design and development of this tool with the aim of aiding the cancer research community to quickly obtain the current updated status in cancer genetic association studies.

Genetic prediction of common diseases is based on testing multiple genetic variants with weak effect sizes. Standard logistic regression and Cox Proportional Hazard models that assess the combined effect of multiple variants on disease risk assume multiplicative joint effects of the variants, but this assumption may not be correct. The risk model chosen may affect the predictive accuracy of genomic profiling. We investigated the discriminative accuracy of genomic profiling by comparing additive and multiplicative risk models. We examined genomic profiles of 40 variants with genotype frequencies varying from 0.1 to 0.4 and relative risks varying from 1.1 to 1.5 in separate scenarios assuming a disease risk of 10%. The discriminative accuracy was evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Predicted risks were more extreme at the lower and higher risks for the multiplicative risk model compared with the additive model. The discriminative accuracy was consistently higher for multiplicative risk models than for additive risk models. The differences in discriminative accuracy were negligible when the effect sizes were small (<1.2), but were substantial when risk genotypes were common or when they had stronger effects. Unraveling the exact mode of biological interaction is important when effect sizes of genetic variants are moderate at the least, to prevent the incorrect estimation of risks.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate allele frequencies and the marginal and combined effects of novel fasting glucose (FG)-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) on FG levels and on risk of impaired FG (IFG) among non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, and Mexican Americans.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

DNA samples from 3,024 adult fasting participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III (1991–1994) were genotyped for 16 novel FG-associated SNPs in multiple genes. We determined the allele frequencies and influence of these SNPs alone and in a weighted genetic risk score on FG, homeostasis model assessment of β-cell function (HOMA-B), and IFG by race/ethnicity, while adjusting for age and sex.

RESULTS

All allele frequencies varied significantly by race/ethnicity. A weighted genetic risk score, based on 16 SNPs, was associated with a 0.022 mmol/l (95% CI 0.009–0.035), 0.036 mmol/l (0.019–0.052), and 0.033 mmol/l (0.020–0.046) increase in FG levels per risk allele among non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks, and Mexican Americans, respectively. Adjusted odds ratios for IFG were 1.78 for non-Hispanic whites (95% CI 1.00–3.17), 2.40 for non-Hispanic blacks (1.07–5.37), and 2.39 for Mexican Americans (1.37–4.14) when we compared the highest with the lowest quintiles of genetic risk score (P = 0.365 for testing heterogeneity of effect across race/ethnicity).

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that allele frequencies of 16 novel FG-associated SNPs vary significantly by race/ethnicity, but the influence of these SNPs on FG levels, HOMA-B, and IFG were generally consistent across all racial/ethnic groups.

The rapid and continuing progress in gene discovery for complex diseases is fueling interest in the potential application of genetic risk models for clinical and public health practice. The number of studies assessing the predictive ability is steadily increasing, but the quality and completeness of reporting varies. A multidisciplinary workshop sponsored by the Human Genome Epidemiology Network developed a checklist of 25 items recommended for strengthening the reporting of Genetic RIsk Prediction Studies, building on the principles established by previous reporting guidelines. These recommendations aim to enhance the transparency of study reporting, and thereby to improve the synthesis and application of information from multiple studies that might differ in design, conduct, or analysis. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published on the EJHG website.

Background

Genetic risk models could potentially be useful in identifying high-risk groups for the prevention of complex diseases. We investigated the performance of this risk stratification strategy by examining epidemiological parameters that impact the predictive ability of risk models.

Methods

We assessed sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value for all possible risk thresholds that can define high-risk groups and investigated how these measures depend on the frequency of disease in the population, the frequency of the high-risk group, and the discriminative accuracy of the risk model, as assessed by the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC). In a simulation study, we modeled genetic risk scores of 50 genes with equal odds ratios and genotype frequencies, and varied the odds ratios and the disease frequency across scenarios. We also performed a simulation of age-related macular degeneration risk prediction based on published odds ratios and frequencies for six genetic risk variants.

Results

We show that when the frequency of the high-risk group was lower than the disease frequency, positive predictive value increased with the AUC but sensitivity remained low. When the frequency of the high-risk group was higher than the disease frequency, sensitivity was high but positive predictive value remained low. When both frequencies were equal, both positive predictive value and sensitivity increased with increasing AUC, but higher AUC was needed to maximize both measures.

Conclusions

The performance of risk stratification is strongly determined by the frequency of the high-risk group relative to the frequency of disease in the population. The identification of high-risk groups with appreciable combinations of sensitivity and positive predictive value requires higher AUC.

Observational studies of human health and disease (basic, clinical and epidemiological) are vulnerable to methodological problems -such as selection bias and confounding- that make causal inferences problematic. Gene-disease associations are no exception, as they are commonly investigated using observational designs. A rich body of knowledge exists in medicine and epidemiology on the assessment of causal relationships involving personal and environmental causes of disease; it includes seminal causal criteria developed by Austin Bradford Hill and more recently applied directed acyclic graphs (DAGs). However, such knowledge has seldom been applied to assess causal relationships in clinical genetics and genomics, even in studies aimed at making inferences relevant for human health. Conversely, incorporating genetic causal knowledge into clinical and epidemiological causal reasoning is still a largely unexplored area.

As the contribution of genetics to the understanding of disease aetiology becomes more important, causal assessment of genetic and genomic evidence becomes fundamental. The method we develop in this paper provides a simple and rigorous first step towards this goal. The present paper is an example of integrative research, i.e., research that integrates knowledge, data, methods, techniques, and reasoning from multiple disciplines, approaches and levels of analysis to generate knowledge that no discipline alone may achieve.

Genetic testing for susceptibility to common diseases based on a combination of genetic markers may be needed because the effect size associated with each genetic marker is small. Whether or not a genome profile based on a combination of markers could yield a useful test can be evaluated by assessing the discriminative accuracy. The authors present a simple method to calculate the clinical discriminative accuracy of a genomic profile when the relative risk and genotype frequency of each genotype are known. In addition, the clinical discriminative accuracy of a genetic test is presented for given values of the heritability and prevalence of the disease and for the population-attributable fraction of the combined genetic markers. For given values of relative risk and genotype frequency, the discriminative accuracy increases with increasing heritability but declines with increasing prevalence of the disease. For a given value of population-attributable fraction, the discriminative accuracy increases with increasing relative risks, but declines with increasing genotype frequency. On the basis of population-attributable fraction and estimates of heritability of disease, the number of risk genotypes required to have a reasonable clinical discriminative accuracy is much higher than the genome profiles available at present.

The rapid and continuing progress in gene discovery for complex diseases is fueling interest in the potential application of genetic risk models for clinical and public health practice. The number of studies assessing the predictive ability is steadily increasing, but the quality and completeness of reporting varies. A multidisciplinary workshop sponsored by the Human Genome Epidemiology Network developed a checklist of 25 items recommended for strengthening the reporting of Genetic RIsk Prediction Studies (GRIPS), building on the principles established by prior reporting guidelines. These recommendations aim to enhance the transparency of study reporting, and thereby to improve the synthesis and application of information from multiple studies that might differ in design, conduct, or analysis. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published.

Cecile Janssens and colleagues present the GRIPS Statement, a checklist to help strengthen the reporting of genetic risk prediction studies.

The rapid and continuing progress in gene discovery for complex diseases is fueling interest in the potential application of genetic risk models for clinical and public health practice. The number of studies assessing the predictive ability is steadily increasing, but the quality and completeness of reporting varies. A multidisciplinary workshop sponsored by the Human Genome Epidemiology Network developed a checklist of 25 items recommended for strengthening the reporting of genetic risk prediction studies (the GRIPS statement), building on the principles established by prior reporting guidelines. These recommendations aim to enhance the transparency of study reporting, and thereby to improve the synthesis and application of information from multiple studies that might differ in design, conduct, or analysis. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published at http://www.plosmedicine.org.

Recent advances in genomic research have demonstrated a substantial role for genomic factors in predicting response to cancer therapies. Researchers in the fields of cancer pharmacogenomics and pharmacoepidemiology seek to understand why individuals respond differently to drug therapy, in terms of both adverse effects and treatment efficacy. To identify research priorities as well as the resources and infrastructure needed to advance these fields, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) sponsored a workshop titled “Cancer Pharmacogenomics: Setting a Research Agenda to Accelerate Translation” on July 21, 2009, in Bethesda, MD. In this commentary, we summarize and discuss five science-based recommendations and four infrastructure-based recommendations that were identified as a result of discussions held during this workshop. Key recommendations include 1) supporting the routine collection of germline and tumor biospecimens in NCI-sponsored clinical trials and in some observational and population-based studies; 2) incorporating pharmacogenomic markers into clinical trials; 3) addressing the ethical, legal, social, and biospecimen- and data-sharing implications of pharmacogenomic and pharmacoepidemiologic research; and 4) establishing partnerships across NCI, with other federal agencies, and with industry. Together, these recommendations will facilitate the discovery and validation of clinical, sociodemographic, lifestyle, and genomic markers related to cancer treatment response and adverse events, and they will improve both the speed and efficiency by which new pharmacogenomic and pharmacoepidemiologic information is translated into clinical practice.

Evidence on Genomic Tests is an open access publication option for communicating high-quality, scientific information that is needed to evaluate health applications of genomic research. By using Google’s knol platform, we aim to reduce conventional barriers to sharing, updating, and accessing the results of knowledge synthesis and to increase the benefits to authors and users alike.

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.

Family history is an independent risk factor for diabetes, but it is not clear how much adding family history to other known risk factors would improve detection of undiagnosed diabetes in a population. Using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 1999−2004, the authors compared logistic regression models with established risk factors (model 1) with a model (model 2) that also included familial risk of diabetes (average, moderate, and high). Adjusted odds ratios for undiagnosed diabetes, using average familial risk as referent, were 1.7 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2, 2.5) and 3.8 (95% CI: 2.2, 6.3) for those with moderate and high familial risk, respectively. Model 2 was superior to model 1 in detecting undiagnosed diabetes, as reflected by several significant improvements, including weighted C statistics of 0.826 versus 0.842 (bootstrap P = 0.001) and integrated discrimination improvement of 0.012 (95% CI: 0.004, 0.030). With a risk threshold of 7.3% (sensitivity of 40% based on model 1), adding family history would identify an additional 620,000 (95% CI: 221,100, 1,020,000) cases without a significant change in false-positive fraction. Study findings suggest that adding family history of diabetes can provide significant improvements in detecting undiagnosed diabetes in the US population. Further research is needed to validate the authors’ findings.