Public Health Genomics最新文献

Background: Published data on the association between the MTNR1B rs1387153 polymorphism and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) risk are controversial.

Objective: A meta-analysis was performed to assess whether the polymorphism of MTNR1B rs1387153 is associated with GDM risk.

Method: Medline, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Chinese Biomedicine Databases were searched to identify eligible studies. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for MTNR1B rs1387153 polymorphism and GDM were appropriately derived from fixed-effects or random effects models.

Results: A total of 8 studies were enrolled in this meta-analysis. The pooled analyses revealed that MTNR1B rs1387153 polymorphism significantly increased the risk of GDM in all models (allele contrast (C vs. T): OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.73-0.83; homozygote (CC vs. TT): OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.53-0.69; heterozygote (CT vs. TT): OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89; dominant model (CC + CT vs. TT): OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.63-0.80; recessive model (CC vs. CT + TT): OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.67-0.81). Further subgroup analyses by ethnicity of participants yielded similar positive results.

Conclusions: Present meta-analysis reveals that MTNR1B rs1387153 variant may serve as genetic biomarkers of GDM.

Introduction: Research on the perceived utility of genomic sequencing has focused primarily on pediatric populations and on individuals and families with rare genetic diseases. Here, we evaluate how well a multifaceted perceived utility model developed with these populations applies to a diverse, adult population aged 18-49 at risk for hereditary cancer and propose new considerations for the model.

Methods: Participants received clinical genomic sequencing in the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with a subset of participants at 1 and 6 months after results disclosure. We used an approach influenced by grounded theory to examine perceptions of the utility of genomic sequencing and analyzed how utility in CHARM mapped to the published multifaceted perceived utility model, noting which domains were represented or absent and which were most salient to our population.

Results: Participants' discussions of utility often involved multiple domains and revealed the variety of ways in which receiving sequencing results can impact one's life. Results demonstrated that an individual's perception of utility can change over the life course when sequenced at a relatively young age and may be influenced by the resources available to them to act on the results.

Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate the relevance of a multifaceted perceived utility model for a diverse adult population at risk for hereditary cancer. We identified refinements that could make the model more robust, including emphasizing the overlapping nature of the domains and the importance of life stage and personal resources to the perception of utility.

Introduction: Early adopters play a critical role in the diffusion of medical innovations by spreading awareness, increasing acceptability, and driving demand. Understanding the role of race in the context of other characteristics of potential early adopters can shed light on disparities seen in the early implementation of genomic medicine. We aimed to understand the association between self-identified race and individual experience with genetic testing outside of the research context.

Methods: We assessed factors associated with the odds of having ever received genetic testing prior to enrollment in a genomic sequencing study among 674 self-identified white and 407 self-identified African, African American, or Afro-Caribbean ("Black") individuals.

Results: Controlling for individual determinants of healthcare use (demographics, personality traits, knowledge and attitudes, and health status), identifying as Black was associated with lower odds of prior genetic testing (OR = 0.43, 95% CI [0.27-0.68], p < 0.001). In contrast, self-identified race was not associated with the use of non-genetic clinical screening tests (e.g., echocardiogram, colonoscopy). Black and white individuals were similar on self-reported personality traits tied to early adoption but differed by sociodemographic and resource facilitators of early adoption.

Conclusion: Persistent racial disparities among early adopters may represent especially-entrenched disparities in access to and knowledge of genomic technologies in clinical settings.

Introduction: Encouraging family communication about possible genetic risk has become among the most important avenues for achieving the full potential of genomic discovery for primary and secondary prevention. Yet, effective family-wide risk communication (i.e., conveying genetic risk status and its meaning for other family members) remains a critical gap in the field. We aim to describe the iterative process of developing a scalable population-based communication outreach intervention, Your Family Connects, to reach ovarian cancer survivors and close relatives to communicate the potential for inherited risk and to consider genetic counseling.

Methods: Relational-level theories (e.g., interdependence theory) suggest that interventions to promote family cancer risk communication will be most effective if they consider the qualities of specific relationships and activate motives to preserve the relationship. Informed by these theories, we collaborated with 14 citizen scientists (survivors of ovarian cancer or relatives) and collected 261 surveys and 39 structured interviews over 12 weeks of citizen science activities in 2020.

Results: The citizen science findings and consideration of relational-level theories informed the content and implementation of Your Family Connects (www.yourfamilyconnects.org). CS results showed survivors favor personal contact with close relatives, but relatives were open to alternative contact methods, such as through health professionals. Recognizing the need for varied approaches based on relationship dynamics, we implemented a relative contact menu to enable survivors identify at-risk relatives and provide multiple contact options (i.e., survivor contact, health professional contact, and delayed contact). In line with relational autonomy principles, we included pros and cons for each option, assisting survivors in choosing suitable contact methods for each relative.

Discussion: Our developed intervention represents a novel application of relational-level theories and partnership with citizen scientists to expand genetic services reach to increase the likelihood for fair distribution of cancer genomic advances. The Your Family Connects intervention as part of a randomized trial in collaboration with the Georgia Cancer Registry compared with standard outreach.

Introduction: Federal agencies have instituted guidelines to prioritize the enrollment and retention of diverse participants in precision medicine research (PMR). Prior studies examining participation of minoritized communities have shown that potential benefits represent a key determinant. Human subject research guidance, however, conceptualizes potential benefits narrowly, emphasizing generalized advances in medical knowledge. Further, few studies have provided qualitative data that critically examine how the concept of "benefit" is interpreted or challenged in the context of research practice. This paper examines the experiences of PMR investigators and frontline research staff to understand how standard approaches to benefit are received, contested, and negotiated "on the ground."

Methods: Findings are drawn from a qualitative project conducted across five US-based, federally funded PMR studies. Data collection included 125 in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of investigators, research staff, community advisory board members, and NIH program officers associated with these PMR studies.

Results: Researchers report that the standard approach to benefit - which relies on the premise of altruism and the promise of incrementally advancing scientific knowledge - is frequently contested. Researchers experience moral distress over the unmet clinical, psychosocial, and material needs within the communities they are engaging. Many believe the broader research enterprise has a responsibility to better address these needs.

Conclusion: Researchers frequently take issue with and sometimes negotiate what is owed to participants and to their communities in exchange for the data they provide. These experiences of moral distress and these improvisations warrant systematic redress, not by individual researchers but by the broader research ethics infrastructure.

Introduction: The Brazilian Policy for Comprehensive Care for People with Rare Diseases (BPCCPRD) was published in 2014, accrediting several reference centers and incorporating many genetic tests for the diagnosis of rare diseases (RDs). The Brazilian Network of Rare Diseases (RARAS) comprises more than 40 institutions that offer diagnosis and treatment for RDs in Brazil. This network includes Reference Services for Rare Diseases (RDRS), Reference Services for Newborn Screening (NSRS), and University Hospitals distributed in all Brazilian regions.

Objective: The aim of the study was to map the availability and distribution of the BPCCPRD diagnostic procedures in the Brazilian Unified Health System through RARAS.

Method: Data were collected through a questionnaire on the Research Electronic Data Capture platform, with 22 questions regarding the availability of procedures. Thirty-seven coordinators from RARAS participating centers received the questionnaire link for participation by email from August/2020 to March/2021. All participating institutions ethically approved this project.

Results: Of the 37 institutions, 23 (62.16%) offered cytogenetic tests, 20 (54.05%) offered molecular procedures, and 22 (59.46%) offered inborn errors of metabolism diagnostic tests. The Southern blot analysis, enzyme assays on cultured tissue and urinary organic acid tests had the highest outsourcing rate. On the other hand, the procedures most frequently performed on-site were bone marrow karyotype and long-term cultured karyotype. It was observed that 10 of the 37 centers (27%) did not provide access to investigated procedures (on-site or outsourced). The North and Midwest regions stood out in terms of the unavailability of such techniques in at least 40% of the evaluated institutions.

Discussion and conclusion: This study reveals large discrepancies in the supply of diagnostic procedures in the Brazilian territory. Moreover, there is a broad collaboration between services through the outsourcing of multiple diagnostic techniques to address this issue. Finally, this work corroborates the importance of mapping services for the diagnosis and treatment of individuals with RDs to propose actions for the better supply and distribution of these procedures.

Introduction: Genetic discrimination (GD) in the context of life insurance is a perennial concern in Australia and internationally. To address such concerns in Australia, an industry self-regulated Moratorium on Genetic Tests in Life Insurance was introduced in 2019 to restrict life insurers from using genetic test results in underwriting for policies under certain limits. Financial advisers (FAs) are sometimes engaged by clients to provide financial advice and assist them to apply for life insurance. They are therefore well-placed to comment on GD and the operation of the Moratorium. Despite this, the financial advising sector in Australia has yet to be studied empirically with regards to GD and the Moratorium. This study aims to capture this perspective by reporting on interviews with the financial advising sector.

Methods: Ten semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with FAs and key informants and were analysed using thematic analysis.

Conclusion(s): Participants' level of awareness and understanding of the Moratorium varied. Participants reported mixed views on the Moratorium's effectiveness, how it operates in practice, and perceived industry compliance. Participants also provided reflections on Australia's current approach to regulating GD, with most participants supporting the concept of industry self-regulation but identifying a need for this to be supplemented with external oversight and meaningful recourse mechanisms for consumers. Our results suggest that there is scope to increase FAs' awareness of GD, and that further research, consultation, and policy consideration are required to identify an optimal regulatory response to GD in Australia.

Introduction: Many individuals who previously received negative genetic test results are eligible for updated testing. This study examined intention to communicate updated genetic test results to relatives in participants who previously received negative genetic test results.

Methods: Women with a personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer who tested negative for BRCA1/2 before 2013 were enrolled between April 2018 and October 2019. Proportions were calculated to assess intention to communicate updated genetic test results to living immediate family, extended family, and all family. Potential predictors of intentions from the theory of planned behavior (attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control) were assessed. The three outcomes were analyzed using generalized linear models with a quasi-binomial probability distribution.

Results: 110 women completed the baseline assessment prior to updated testing. Participants intended to communicate genetic test results to 90% of immediate family, 51% of extended family, and 66% of all living relatives. Participants with higher subjective norms (aOR = 1.93, 95% CI: 1.08-3.57) had higher intentions to communicate genetic test results to extended family, while participants with more positive attitudes (aOR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.01-1.60) had higher intentions to communicate to all family. Placing higher importance on genetic information was associated with higher intentions to communicate to immediate family (aOR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.06-1.83). Lower subjective numeracy was associated with higher intentions to communicate to extended family (aOR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.32-0.76).

Conclusion: Attitudes and subjective norms were predictors of intention to communicate updated genetic information to at-risk biological relatives, and predictors may vary by degree of relationship.