Review | Published:

From public health genomics to precision public health: a 20-year journey

Genetics in Medicine volume 20, pages 574582 (2018) | Download Citation

Abstract

In this paper, we review the evolution of the field of public health genomics in the United States in the past two decades. Public health genomics focuses on effective and responsible translation of genomic science into population health benefits. We discuss the relationship of the field to the core public health functions and essential services, review its evidentiary foundation, and provide examples of current US public health priorities and applications. We cite examples of publications to illustrate how Genetics in Medicine reflected the evolution of the field. We also reflect on how public-health genomics is contributing to the emergence of “precision public health” with near-term opportunities offered by the US Precision Medicine (AllofUs) Initiative.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    , , . Genetics and Public Health in the 21st Century: Using Genetic Information to Improve Health and Prevent Disease. Oxford University Press: New York, 2000.

  2. 2.

    . Public health genomics: the end of the beginning. Genet Med 2011;13:206–9.

  3. 3.

    , , et al. MLI Multilevel research and the challenges of implementing genomic medicine. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2012: 112–120.

  4. 4.

    Institute of MedicineThe Future of Public Health. National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1988.

  5. 5.

    Association for State and Territorial Health Officials. 2010 State Public Health Genomics Resource Guide. . Accessed 1 January 2011.

  6. 6.

    , , , . The integration of genomics into public health research, policy and practice in the United States. Community Genet 2001;4:2–11.

  7. 7.

    , , et al. Current priorities for public health practice in addressing the role of human genomics in improving population health. Am J Prev Med 2011;40:486–93.

  8. 8.

    , , et al. Decision-making process for conditions nominated to the recommended uniform screening panel: statement of the US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children. Genet Med 2014;16:183–187.

  9. 9.

    , , et al. The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group. Genet Med 2009;11:3–14.

  10. 10.

    , , et al. Implementing screening for Lynch syndrome among patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer: summary of a public health/clinical collaborative meeting. Genet Med. 2012;14:152–162.

  11. 11.

    , , et al. Stakeholder assessment of the evidence for cancer genomic tests: insights from three case studies. Genet Med 2012;14:656–662.

  12. 12.

    , , et al. Long-term follow-up to ensure quality care of individuals diagnosed with newborn screening conditions: early experience in New England. Genet Med 2010;12(12 suppl):S220–7.

  13. 13.

    , , et al. Experiences from a pilot program bringing BRCA1/2 genetic screening to the US Ashkenazi Jewish population. Genet Med 2017;19:529–536.

  14. 14.

    , , et al. Electronic health record interventions at the point of care improve documentation of care processes and decrease orders for genetic tests commonly ordered by nongeneticists. Genet Med 2017;19:112–120.

  15. 15.

    , , et al. Utilization of genetic tests: analysis of gene-specific billing in Medicare claims data. Genet Med. 2017;19:890–899.

  16. 16.

    , , et al. Clinical utility of family history for cancer screening and referral in primary care: a report from the Family Healthware Impact Trial. Genet Med 2011;13:956–965.

  17. 17.

    , , et al. Public awareness and use of direct-to-consumer personal genomic tests from four state population-based surveys, and implications for clinical and public health practice. Genet Med. 2012;14:860–867.

  18. 18.

    , , et al. Which BRCA genetic testing programs are ready for implementation in health care?: a systematic review of economic evaluations. Genet Med 2016;18:1171–1180.

  19. 19.

    , , . Training future physicians in the era of genomic medicine: trends in undergraduate medical genetics education. Genet Med. 2015;17:927–934.

  20. 20.

    , , et al. The NIH genetic testing registry: a new, centralized database of genetic tests to enable access to comprehensive information and improve transparency. Nucleic Acids Res 2013;41(Database issue):D925–35.

  21. 21.

    Task Force on Genetic Testing, National Institutes of Health, Department of Energy Working Group on Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Human Genome Research Promoting safe and effective genetic testing in the United States. September 1997. . Accessed 3 August 20 2017.

  22. 22.

    Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing. Enhancing the oversight of genetic tests: recommendations of the SACGT. July 2000. . Accessed 3 August 2017.

  23. 23.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ACCE model process for evaluating genetic tests. Accessed 3 August 2017. .

  24. 24.

    Committee on the Evidence Base for Genetic Testing, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. An evidence framework for genetic testing. 27 March 2017. . Accessed 3 August 2017.

  25. 25.

    , , et al. Prioritizing genomic applications for action by level of evidence: a horizon-scanning method. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2014;95:394–402.

  26. 26.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Public Health Genomics Knowledge Base, Tier table. Accessed 3 August 2017. .

  27. 27.

    , , et al. CDC grand rounds: family history and genomics as tools for cancer prevention and control. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016;65:1291–1294.

  28. 28.

    US Preventive Services Task Force US Preventive Services Task Force. Medications for risk reduction of primary breast cancer in women: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2013;159:698–708.

  29. 29.

    Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: genetic testing strategies in newly diagnosed individuals with colorectal cancer aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome in relatives. Genet Med 2009;11:35–41.

  30. 30.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Know: BRCA tool for providers and the public. Accessed 3 August 2017. .

  31. 31.

    Centers for Disease Control and PreventionBring Your Brave Campaign. Accessed 3 August 2017. .

  32. 32.

    National Cancer Institute. Cancer Moonshot Blue Ribbon Panel report 2016. Accessed 3 August 2017. .

  33. 33.

    National Cancer Institute. Approaches to Blue Ribbon Panel recommendations: the case of Lynch syndrome. 2017. Accessed 3 August 2017. .

  34. 34.

    National Cancer Institute. Upcoming Cancer Moonshot funding opportunities. Accessed 3 August 2017. .

  35. 35.

    , , . Cascade screening for familial hypercholesterolemia and the use of genetic testing. JAMA. 2017;318:381–382.

  36. 36.

    , , et al. Child-parent familial hypercholesterolemia screening in primary care. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1628–1637.

  37. 37.

    , , . Rapid identification of familial hypercholesterolemia from electronic health records. J Clin Lipidol 2016;10:1230–1239.

  38. 38.

    , , et al. Genetic identification of familial hypercholesterolemia within a single U.S. health care system. Science 2016;354:aaf7000.

  39. 39.

    , , . The need for a next-generation public health response to rare diseases. Genet Med 2016;19:489–490.

  40. 40.

    , , . Reflections on 50 years of newborn screening. Pediatrics 2014 Jun;133:961–963.

  41. 41.

    Newborn Screening Clearinghouse. Baby’s first test: conditions screened by state. Accessed 3 August 2017. .

  42. 42.

    , , et al. Newborn sequencing in genomic medicine and public health. Pediatrics 2017;139:e20162252.

  43. 43.

    , , et al. A curated gene list for reporting results of newborn genomic sequencing. Genet Med. 2017;19:809–818.

  44. 44.

    , , et al. Next-generation sequencing applied to rare diseases genomics. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2014;14:469–487.

  45. 45.

    , , et al. The rare and undiagnosed diseases diagnostic service – application of massively parallel sequencing in a state-wide clinical service. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2016;11:77.

  46. 46.

    . High-throughput sequencing as first-tier diagnostics in congenital and early-onset disorders. JAMA Pediatr 2017;171:833–835.

  47. 47.

    , , et al. Advances in public health surveillance and information dissemination at the centers for disease control and prevention. Public Health Rep 2017;132:403–410.

  48. 48.

    , , . Integrating advanced molecular detection technologies into public health. J Clin Microbiol 2017;55:703–714.

  49. 49.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Advanced Molecular Detection Initiative. Accessed 3 August 2017. .

  50. 50.

    , . A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med 2015;372:793–795.

  51. 51.

    National Institutes of Health. AllofUs Research Program. Accessed 3 August 2017. .

  52. 52.

    , . A public health perspective on a national precision medicine cohort: balancing long-term knowledge generation with early health benefit. JAMA 2015;313:2117–2118.

  53. 53.

    , , et al. Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med 2017;19:249–255.

  54. 54.

    , , . Precision public health for the era of precision medicine. Am J Prev Med 2016;50:398–401.

  55. 55.

    , , . Four steps to precision public health. Nature 2016;;540:189–191.

  56. 56.

    . The human microbiome. Adv Med Sci 2017;62:414–420.

  57. 57.

    Precision public health: harnessing the power of the microbiome. CDC blog post, 2016. Accessed 14 October 2015. .

  58. 58.

    , . Will precision medicine improve population health? JAMA. 2016;316:1357–1358.

  59. 59.

    , , et al. We screen newborns, don’t we? Realizing the promise of public health genomics. Genet Med. 2013;15:332–334.

  60. 60.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Genomics and Health Impact weekly update. Accessed 3 August 2017. .

  61. 61.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Human Genome Epidemiology Navigator. Accessed 3 August 2017. .

  62. 62.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Genomic Workforce Competencies. Accessed 3 August 2017. .

  63. 63.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. University Centers for Genomics and Public Health. Accessed 3 August 2017. .

  64. 64.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Family History Public Health Initiative. Accessed 3 August 2017. .

  65. 65.

    , , et al. Strategies, actions, and outcomes of pilot state programs in public health genomics, 2003–2008. Prev Chron Dis 2014;11:E97.

  66. 66.

    EGAPP Working Group. The EGAPP initiative: lessons learned. Genet Med 2014;16:217–224.

  67. 67.

    , , et al. The path from genome-based research to population health: development of an international public health genomics network. Genet Med 2006;8:451–458.

  68. 68.

    , , et al. The scientific foundation for personal genomics: recommendations from a National Institutes of Health-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention multidisciplinary workshop. Genet Med 2009;11:559–567.

  69. 69.

    , , , . Introduction to the 4th National Conference on Genomics and Public Health. Public Health Genomics 2012;15:117.

  70. 70.

    , , et al. The activities and impact of state programs to address hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, 2011-2014. Healthcare (Basel) 2015;3:948–963.

  71. 71.

    , , et al. Public health action in genomics is now needed beyond newborn screening. Public Health Genomics 2012;15:327–334.

  72. 72.

    , , et al. Prioritizing genomic applications for action by level of evidence: a horizon-scanning method. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2014;95:394–402.

  73. 73.

    , , et al. A knowledge base for tracking the impact of genomics on population health. Genet Med 2016;18:1312–1314.

  74. 74.

    , , et al. The current state of implementation science in genomic medicine: opportunities for improvement. Genet Med 2017;19:858–863.

  75. 75.

    , , et al. Making genomic medicine evidence based and patient-centered: a structured review and landscape analysis of comparative effectiveness research. Genet Med 2017;19:1081–1091.

  76. 76.

    , , et al. Evidence synthesis and guideline development in genomic medicine: current status and future prospects. Genet Med. 2015;17:63–67.

  77. 77.

    , , et al. A standardized, evidence-based protocol to assess clinical actionability of genetic disorders associated with genomic variation. Genet Med 2016;18:1258–1268.

  78. 78.

    , , . Diagnostic impact and cost-effectiveness of whole-exome sequencing for ambulant children with suspected monogenic conditions. JAMA Pediatrics 2017;171:855–862.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Scott Grosse for providing valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Office of Public Health Genomics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

    • Muin J Khoury
    • , M Scott Bowen
    • , W David Dotson
    • , Ridgely Fisk Green
    • , Katherine Kolor
    • , Anja Wulf
    •  & Wei Yu
  2. Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA

    • Mindy Clyne
  3. Office of Advanced Molecular Detection, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

    • Marta L Gwinn
  4. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

    • Juan L Rodriguez

Authors

  1. Search for Muin J Khoury in:

  2. Search for M Scott Bowen in:

  3. Search for Mindy Clyne in:

  4. Search for W David Dotson in:

  5. Search for Marta L Gwinn in:

  6. Search for Ridgely Fisk Green in:

  7. Search for Katherine Kolor in:

  8. Search for Juan L Rodriguez in:

  9. Search for Anja Wulf in:

  10. Search for Wei Yu in:

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muin J Khoury.

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2017.211