Treatment of mucopolysaccharidosis type II (Hunter syndrome): results from a systematic evidence review.

PurposeA pilot systematic evidence review to establish methodology utility in rare genetic diseases, support clinical recommendations, and identify important knowledge gaps.MethodsBroad-based published/gray-literature searches through December 2015 for studies of males with confirmed mucopolysaccharidosis type II (any age, phenotype, genotype, family history) treated with enzyme replacement therapy or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Preset inclusion criteria employed for abstract and full document selection, and standardized methods for data extraction and assessment of quality and strength of evidence.ResultsTwelve outcomes reported included benefits of urinary glycosaminoglycan and liver/spleen volume reductions and harms of immunoglobulin G/neutralizing antibody development (moderate strength of evidence). Less clear were benefits of improved 6-minute walk tests, height, early treatment, and harms of other adverse reactions (low strength of evidence). Benefits and harms of other outcomes were unclear (insufficient strength of evidence). Current benefits and harms of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation are unclear, based on dated, low-quality studies. A critical knowledge gap is long-term outcomes. Consensus on selection of critical outcomes and measures is needed to definitively evaluate treatment safety and effectiveness.ConclusionMinor methodology modifications and a focus on critical evidence can reduce review time and resources. Summarized evidence was sufficient to support guidance development and highlight important knowledge gaps.

Principles of analytic validation of immunohistochemical assays: Guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center.

CONTEXT: Laboratories must validate all assays before they can be used to test patient specimens, but currently there are no evidence-based guidelines regarding validation of immunohistochemical assays. OBJECTIVE: To develop recommendations for initial analytic validation and revalidation of immunohistochemical assays. DESIGN: The College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center convened a panel of pathologists and histotechnologists with expertise in immunohistochemistry to develop validation recommendations. A systematic evidence review was conducted to address key questions. Electronic searches identified 1463 publications, of which 126 met inclusion criteria and were extracted. Individual publications were graded for quality, and the key question findings for strength of evidence. Recommendations were derived from strength of evidence, open comment feedback, and expert panel consensus. RESULTS: Fourteen guideline statements were established to help pathology laboratories comply with validation and revalidation requirements for immunohistochemical assays. CONCLUSIONS: Laboratories must document successful analytic validation of all immunohistochemical tests before applying to patient specimens. The parameters for cases included in validation sets, including number, expression levels, fixative and processing methods, should take into account intended use and should be sufficient to ensure that the test accurately measures the analyte of interest in specimens tested in that laboratory. Recommendations are also provided for confirming assay performance when there are changes in test methods, reagents, or equipment.

Comparative effectiveness review: prostate cancer antigen 3 testing for the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: We compared the effectiveness of PCA3 (prostate cancer antigen 3) and select comparators for improving initial or repeat biopsy decision making in men at risk for prostate cancer, or treatment choices in men with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, Cochrane Database and gray literature were searched from January 1990 through May 2012. Included studies were matched, and measured PCA3 and comparator(s) within a cohort. No matched analyses were possible. Differences in independent performance estimates between PCA3 and comparators were computed within studies. Studies were assessed for quality using QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) and for strength of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. RESULTS: Among 1,556 publications identified, 34 observational studies were analyzed (24 addressed diagnostic accuracy and 13 addressed treatment decisions). Most studies were conducted in opportunistic cohorts of men referred for procedures and were not designed to answer key questions. Two study biases (partial verification and sampling) were addressed by analyses, allowing some conclusions to be drawn. PCA3 was more discriminatory than total prostate specific antigen increases (eg at an observed 50% specificity, summary sensitivities were 77% and 57%, respectively). Analyses indicated that this finding holds for initial and repeat biopsies, and that the markers were independent predictors. For all other biopsy decision making comparisons and associated health outcomes, strength of evidence was insufficient. For treatment decision making, strength of evidence was insufficient for all outcomes and comparators. CONCLUSIONS: PCA3 had a higher diagnostic accuracy than total prostate specific antigen increases, but strength of evidence was low (limited confidence in effect estimates). Strength of evidence was insufficient to conclude that PCA3 testing leads to improved health outcomes. For all other outcomes and comparators, strength of evidence was insufficient.

Can Factor V Leiden and prothrombin G20210A testing in women with recurrent pregnancy loss result in improved pregnancy outcomes?: Results from a targeted evidence-based review.

Women with recurrent pregnancy loss are offered Factor V Leiden (F5) and/or prothrombin G20210A (F2) testing to identify candidates for anticoagulation to improve outcomes. A systematic literature review was performed to estimate test performance, effect sizes, and treatment effectiveness. Electronic searches were performed through April 2011, with review of references from included articles. English-language studies addressed analytic validity, clinical validity, and/or clinical utility and satisfied predefined inclusion criteria. Adequate evidence showed high analytic sensitivity and specificity for F5 and F2 testing. Evidence for clinical validity was adequate. The summary odds ratio for association of recurrent pregnancy loss with F5 in case-controlled studies was 2.02 (95% confidence interval, 1.60-2.55), with moderate heterogeneity and suggestion of publication bias. Longitudinal studies in women with recurrent pregnancy loss or unselected cohorts showed F5 carriers were more likely to have a subsequent loss than noncarriers (odds ratios: 1.93 and 2.03, respectively). Results for F2 testing were similar. For clinical utility, evidence was adequate that anticoagulation treatments were ineffective (except in antiphospholipid antibody syndrome) and had treatment-associated harms. The certainty of evidence is moderate (high, moderate, and low) that anticoagulation of women with recurrent pregnancy loss and F5/F2 variants would currently lead to net harms.

Use of genomic profiling to assess risk for cardiovascular disease and identify individualized prevention strategies--a targeted evidence-based review.

PURPOSE: To address the key question of whether using available "cardiogenomic profiles" leads to improved health outcomes (e.g., reduction in rates of myocardial infarction and stroke) and whether these profiles help in making medical or personal decisions. METHODS: A targeted evidence-based review based on published Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention methodologies. RESULTS: No study addressed the overarching question directly. Evidence for the analytic validity of genomic profiles was inadequate for most genes (scale: convincing, adequate, and inadequate), but based on gray data, the analytic sensitivity and specificity might be adequate. For the 29 candidate genes (58 separate associations reviewed), the credibility of evidence for clinical validity was weak (34 associations) to moderate (23 associations), based on limited evidence, potential biases, and/or variability between included studies. The association of 9p21 variants with heart disease had strong credibility with odds ratios of 0.80 (95% confidence interval: 0.77-0.82) and 1.25 (95% confidence interval: 1.21-1.30), respectively, for individuals with no, or two, at-risk alleles versus those with one at-risk allele. Using a multiplicative model, we combined information from 24 markers predicting heart disease and from 13 markers for stroke. The areas under the curves (64.7% and 55.2%, respectively), and overall screening performance (detection rates of 24% and 14% at a 10% false-positive rate, respectively) do not warrant use as stand-alone tests. CONCLUSION: Even if genomic markers were independent of traditional risk factors, reports indicate that cardiovascular disease risk reclassification would be small. Improvement in health could occur with earlier initiation or higher adherence to medical or behavioral interventions, but no prospective studies documented such improvements (clinical utility).

Outcomes of interest in evidence-based evaluations of genetic tests.

Genetic tests are increasingly available for use in traditional clinical practice settings and through direct-to-consumer marketing. The need for evidence-based information and guidance on their appropriate use has never been more apparent. The independent Working Group of the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Initiative commissions evidence-based reviews and develops recommendations to inform decision making surrounding the implementation of genetic tests and other applications of genomic technologies into clinical practice. A critical component of this analysis involves the identification and appropriate weighting of relevant health outcomes from genetic testing. Impacts of testing on morbidity and mortality are central considerations although research to document such outcomes can be challenging to conduct. In considering the broader impacts of genetic tests on the individual, familial and societal levels, psychosocial outcomes often take on increasing importance, and their systematic evaluation is a challenge for traditional methods of evidence-based review. Incorporating these types of outcomes in evidence-based processes is possible, however, and necessary to extract balanced and complete (or as complete as available data will allow) information on potential benefits and on potential harms. The framework used by the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Working Group in considering, categorizing, and weighting health-related outcomes as applied to genomic technologies is presented here.

Association between 9p21 genomic markers and heart disease: a meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Associations between chromosome 9p21 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and heart disease have been reported and replicated. If testing improves risk assessments using traditional factors, it may provide opportunities to improve public health. OBJECTIVES: To perform a targeted systematic review of published literature for effect size, heterogeneity, publication bias, and strength of evidence and to consider whether testing might provide clinical utility. DATA SOURCES: Electronic search via HuGE Navigator through January 2009 and review of reference lists from included articles. STUDY SELECTION: English-language articles that tested for 9p21 SNPs with coronary heart/artery disease or myocardial infarction as primary outcomes. Included articles also provided race, numbers of participants, and data to compute an odds ratio (OR). Articles were excluded if reporting only intermediate outcomes (eg, atherosclerosis) or if all participants had existing disease. Twenty-five articles were initially identified and 16 were included. A follow-up search identified 6 additional articles. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent extraction was performed by 2 reviewers and consensus was reached. Credibility of evidence was assessed using published Venice criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: Forty-seven distinct data sets from the 22 articles were analyzed, including 35 872 cases and 95 837 controls. The summary OR for heart disease among individuals with 2 vs 1 at-risk alleles was 1.25 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-1.29), with low to moderate heterogeneity. Age at disease diagnosis was a significant covariate, with ORs of 1.35 (95% CI, 1.30-1.40) for age 55 years or younger and 1.21 (95% CI, 1.16-1.25) for age 75 years or younger. For a 65-year-old man, the 10-year heart disease risk for 2 vs 1 at-risk alleles would be 13.2% vs 11%. For a 40-year-old woman, the 10-year heart disease risk for 2 vs 1 at-risk alleles would be 2.4% vs 2.0%. Nearly identical but inverse results were found when comparing 1 vs 0 at-risk alleles. Three studies showed net reclassification indexes ranging from -0.1% to 4.8%. CONCLUSION: We found a statistically significant association between 9p21 SNPs and heart disease that varied by age at disease onset, but the magnitude of the association was small.

Maternal urine and serum steroid measurements to identify steroid sulfatase deficiency (STSD) in second trimester pregnancies.

OBJECTIVE: To document the performance of second trimester maternal urine and serum steroid measurements for detecting fetal steroid sulfatase deficiency (STSD). METHODS: We studied detection rate and false positive rate (DR, FPR) of analytes in maternal urine [combinations of 16alpha-OH-dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (16alpha-OH-DHEAS), 11beta-hydroxyandrosterone, total estriol] and serum [combinations of 16alpha-OH-DHEAS, 11beta-hydroxyandrosterone, total estriol, unconjugated estriol (uE3)]. Samples were obtained from pregnancies which were screen positive for Smith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome (SLOS). RESULTS: Among 1 079 301 pregnancies, 3083 (0.29%) were screen positive for SLOS. Urine and/or serum samples were available from 917 viable pregnancies with known gender. We assigned likelihood ratios (LRs) to steroid measurements from male fetuses with known STSD and unaffected female fetuses. An LR > or = 100 was present in urine from 84 of 86 STSD pregnancies (98% DR, 95% CI 92-99), along with 0 of 198 pregnancies with normal female fetuses (0.0% FPR, CI 0-1.9). LRs were > or = 100 in 4 of 129 female fetuses with major abnormalities (3% FPR). In maternal serum, steroid measurements performed less effectively, achieving a 71% DR for STSD at a 1.6% FPR. CONCLUSION: Maternal urine steroid measurements are effective for detecting STSD, including those with point mutations and those with full deletions.

Can UGT1A1 genotyping reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan? An evidence-based review.

This evidence-based review addresses the question of whether testing for UGT1A1 mutations in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan leads to improvement in outcomes (e.g., irinotecan toxicity, response to treatment, morbidity, and mortality), when compared with no testing. No studies were identified that addressed this question directly. The quality of evidence on the analytic validity of current UGT1A1 genetic testing methods is adequate (scale: convincing, adequate, inadequate), with available data indicating that both analytic sensitivity and specificity for the common genotypes are high. For clinical validity, the quality of evidence is adequate for studies reporting concentration of the active form of irinotecan (SN-38), presence of severe diarrhea, and presence of severe neutropenia stratified by UGT1A1 common genotypes. The strongest association for a clinical endpoint is for severe neutropenia. Patients homozygous for the *28 allele are 3.5 times more likely to develop severe neutropenia compared with individuals with the wild genotype (risk ratio 3.51; 95% confidence interval 2.03-6.07). The proposed clinical utility of UGT1A1 genotyping would be derived from a reduction in drug-related adverse reactions (benefits) while at the same time avoiding declines in tumor response rate and increases in morbidity/mortality (harms). At least three treatment options for reducing this increased risk have been suggested: modification of the irinotecan regime (e.g., reduce initial dose), use of other drugs, and/or pretreatment with colony-stimulating factors. However, we found no prospective studies that examined these options, particularly whether a reduced dose of irinotecan results in a reduced rate of adverse drug events. This is a major gap in knowledge. Although the quality of evidence on clinical utility is inadequate, two of three reviewed studies (and one published since our initial selection of studies for review) found that individuals homozygous for the *28 allele had improved survival. Three reviewed studies found statistically significant higher tumor response rates among individuals homozygous for the *28 allele. We found little or no direct evidence to assess the benefits and harms of modifying irinotecan regimens for patients with colorectal cancer based on their UGT1A1 genotype; however, results of our preliminary modeling of prevalence, acceptance, and effectiveness indicate that reducing the dose would need to be highly effective to have benefits outweigh harms. An alternative is to increase irinotecan dose among wild-type individuals to improve tumor response with minimal increases in adverse drug events. Given the large number of colorectal cancer cases diagnosed each year, a randomized controlled trial of the effects of irinotecan dose modifications in patients with colorectal cancer based on their UGT1A1 genotype is feasible and could clarify the tradeoffs between possible reductions in severe neutropenia and improved tumor response and/or survival in patients with various UGT1A1 genotypes.

The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group.

The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Initiative, established by the National Office of Public Health Genomics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, supports the development and implementation of a rigorous, evidence-based process for evaluating genetic tests and other genomic applications for clinical and public health practice in the United States. An independent, non-federal EGAPP Working Group (EWG), a multidisciplinary expert panel selects topics, oversees the systematic review of evidence, and makes recommendations based on that evidence. This article describes the EGAPP processes and details the specific methods and approaches used by the EWG.

The evidence dilemma in genomic medicine.

An ongoing dilemma in genomic medicine is balancing the need for scientific innovation with appropriate evidence thresholds for moving technology into practice. The current low threshold allows unsubstantiated technologies to enter into practice, with the potential to overwhelm the health system. Alternatively, establishing an excessively high threshold for evidence could slow the integration of genomics into practice and present disincentives for investing in research and development. Also, variable coverage and reimbursement policies can lead to differential access to technology, exacerbating health disparities. There is an urgent need for a collaborative process for appropriate transition of genomic discoveries from research to practice.

A critical appraisal of the scientific basis of commercial genomic profiles used to assess health risks and personalize health interventions.

Predictive genomic profiling used to produce personalized nutrition and other lifestyle health recommendations is currently offered directly to consumers. By examining previous meta-analyses and HuGE reviews, we assessed the scientific evidence supporting the purported gene-disease associations for genes included in genomic profiles offered online. We identified seven companies that offer predictive genomic profiling. We searched PubMed for meta-analyses and HuGE reviews of studies of gene-disease associations published from 2000 through June 2007 in which the genotypes of people with a disease were compared with those of a healthy or general-population control group. The seven companies tested at least 69 different polymorphisms in 56 genes. Of the 56 genes tested, 24 (43%) were not reviewed in meta-analyses. For the remaining 32 genes, we found 260 meta-analyses that examined 160 unique polymorphism-disease associations, of which only 60 (38%) were found to be statistically significant. Even the 60 significant associations, which involved 29 different polymorphisms and 28 different diseases, were generally modest, with synthetic odds ratios ranging from 0.54 to 0.88 for protective variants and from 1.04 to 3.2 for risk variants. Furthermore, genes in cardiogenomic profiles were more frequently associated with noncardiovascular diseases than with cardiovascular diseases, and though two of the five genes of the osteogenomic profiles did show significant associations with disease, the associations were not with bone diseases. There is insufficient scientific evidence to conclude that genomic profiles are useful in measuring genetic risk for common diseases or in developing personalized diet and lifestyle recommendations for disease prevention.

A genetic history questionnaire-based system in primary prenatal care to screen for selected fetal disorders.

DNA (and other) diagnostic tests are now available for a number of serious, but uncommon, fetal disorders. We designed and evaluated a screening system for this purpose in primary care, coupled with targeted information for practitioners and patients. We developed a 15-question family history form for completion by office staff or patients, addressing conditions for which definitive diagnosis was available, linked to secondary questionnaires to follow up on "yes" answers. Guidelines for assessing risk, follow-up recommendations, and information resources were also linked. Following pilot testing, this screening system was introduced throughout Maine. We enrolled 212 providers (85-90% of the state's pregnancies). In a subsequent survey, 85% of the practices were screening all new patients and 3% some; 12% did not use the system. Time for form completion averaged 7 min. Overall, provider satisfaction was 4.4 on a five-point scale. Patients responded favorably; a minority was anxious or overwhelmed. Total referral calls to Maine's genetic/perinatal centers did not increase, but calls about family history of genetic disorders or maternal conditions increased significantly. This screening system for guiding appropriate use of DNA (and other) testing in pregnancy can be used successfully in primary care.

Genetic testing for susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer: evaluating the impact of a direct-to-consumer marketing campaign on physicians' knowledge and practices.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic testing for risk of breast and ovarian cancer by a biotechnology company on: 1) physicians' knowledge; 2) reasons given when asking questions about the test; and 3) physicians' practice patterns in two pilot cities where the campaign took place and two control cities. METHODS: Survey of randomly selected family physicians, internists, obstetrician-gynecologists, and oncologists from May 1-May 21, 2003. RESULTS: Physicians' knowledge did not differ between pilot and control cities. Significant differences (pilot versus control cities) were seen in the reasons patients gave for asking questions about testing. More physicians in pilot cities (14%) than control cities (7%) reported an increase in the number of times they ordered genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer risk in the previous 6 months (adjusted odds ratio 1.9, 95% confidence interval, 1.2-3.1). Awareness of professional guidelines and being in a practice with a policy on genetic testing for risk of breast and ovarian cancer were associated with physicians' behaviors and interest among patients in testing. CONCLUSIONS: Given the complexity and limitations of genetic testing for risk of breast and ovarian cancer, the development and broad dissemination of clinical guidelines and education of physicians are needed.

From genetics to genomics: using gene-based medicine to prevent disease and promote health in children.

The remarkable achievements of the Human Genome Project promise great opportunities for disease prediction, treatment, and prevention. In this paper, we discuss the continuum of genetic variation as medical practice begins to shift focus from the study of single genes (genetics) to the study of the entire genome (genomics). Pediatricians should anticipate an influx of genetic information and will need to become as facile in interpreting this type of predictive information as they are with other types of medical data, while recognizing the unique ethical, legal, and social implications of genetic testing in children. We discuss an approach to assist pediatricians in decision-making that emphasizes the need for knowledge about the analytic performance of genetic tests, their validity in predicting health outcomes, and the utility of the genetic information in improving health and preventing disease.

Technical standards and guidelines: venous thromboembolism (Factor V Leiden and prothrombin 20210G >A testing): a disease-specific supplement to the standards and guidelines for clinical genetics laboratories.

These standards and guidelines are designed primarily as an educational resource for clinical laboratory geneticists to help them provide quality clinical laboratory genetic services. Adherence to this statement does not necessarily ensure a successful medical outcome. These standards and guidelines should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of other procedures and tests that are reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, the clinical molecular geneticist should apply his or her own professional judgment to the specific clinical circumstances presented by the individual patient or specimen. It may be prudent, however, to document in the laboratory record the rationale for any significant deviation from these standards and guidelines.