Racial and Ethnic Variations in Knowledge and Attitudes about Genetic Testing

This study was designed to shed light on whether differences in utilization of genetic testing by African-Americans, Latinos, and non-Hispanic Whites are due primarily to different preferences, or whether they instead reflect other values and beliefs or differential access. It explores the values, attitudes, and beliefs of African-Americans, Latinos, and non-Hispanic Whites with respect to genetic testing by means of a telephone survey of representative samples of these three groups. The study finds clear evidence that Latinos and African-Americans are, if anything, more likely to express preferences for both prenatal and adult genetic testing than White respondents. At the same time, they hold other beliefs and attitudes that may conflict with, and override, these preferences in specific situations. African-Americans and Latinos are also less knowledgeable about genetic testing than non-Hispanic Whites, and they are less likely to have the financial resources or insurance coverage that would facilitate access to testing.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/63127/1/109065704323016012.pd

Validation of a Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism-Based Non-Invasive Prenatal Test in Twin Gestations : Determination of Zygosity, Individual Fetal Sex, and Fetal Aneuploidy

We analyzed maternal plasma cell-free DNA samples from twin pregnancies in a prospective blinded study to validate a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) for zygosity, fetal sex, and aneuploidy. Zygosity was evaluated by looking for either one or two fetal genome complements, fetal sex was evaluated by evaluating Y-chromosome loci, and aneuploidy was assessed through SNP ratios. Zygosity was correctly predicted in 100% of cases (93/93; 95% confidence interval (CI) 96.1%-100%). Individual fetal sex for both twins was also called with 100% accuracy (102/102; 95% weighted CI 95.2%-100%). All cases with copy number truth were also correctly identified. The dizygotic aneuploidy sensitivity was 100% (10/10; 95% CI 69.2%-100%), and overall specificity was 100% (96/96; 95% weighted CI, 94.8%-100%). The mean fetal fraction (FF) of monozygotic twins (n = 43) was 13.0% (standard deviation (SD), 4.5%); for dizygotic twins (n = 79), the mean lower FF was 6.5% (SD, 3.1%) and the mean higher FF was 8.1% (SD, 3.5%). We conclude SNP-based NIPT for zygosity is of value when chorionicity is uncertain or anomalies are identified. Zygosity, fetal sex, and aneuploidy are complementary evaluations that can be carried out on the same specimen as early as 9 weeks' gestation

Safety and efficacy of vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor in adults with cystic fibrosis: randomised, double-blind, controlled, phase 2 trials

Background Elexacaftor–tezacaftor–ivacaftor has been shown to be safe and efficacious in people with cystic fibrosis and at least one F508del allele. Our aim was to identify a novel cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator combination capable of further increasing CFTR-mediated chloride transport, with the potential for once-daily dosing. Methods We conducted two phase 2 clinical trials to assess the safety and efficacy of a once-daily combination of vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor in participants with cystic fibrosis who were aged 18 years or older. A phase 2 randomised, double-blind, active-controlled study (VX18-561-101; April 17, 2019, to Aug 20, 2020) was carried out to compare deutivacaftor monotherapy with ivacaftor monotherapy in participants with CFTR gating mutations, following a 4-week ivacaftor monotherapy run-in period. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either ivacaftor 150 mg every 12 h, deutivacaftor 25 mg once daily, deutivacaftor 50 mg once daily, deutivacaftor 150 mg once daily, or deutivacaftor 250 mg once daily in a 1:1:2:2:2 ratio. The primary endpoint was absolute change in ppFEV1 from baseline at week 12. A phase 2 randomised, double-blind, controlled, proof-of-concept study of vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor (VX18-121-101; April 30, 2019, to Dec 10, 2019) was conducted in participants with cystic fibrosis and heterozygous for F508del and a minimal function mutation (F/MF genotypes) or homozygous for F508del (F/F genotype). Participants with F/MF genotypes were randomly assigned 1:2:2:1 to receive either 5 mg, 10 mg, or 20 mg of vanzacaftor in combination with tezacaftor–deutivacaftor or a triple placebo for 4 weeks, and participants with the F/F genotype were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive either vanzacaftor (20 mg)–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor or tezacaftor–ivacaftor active control for 4 weeks, following a 4-week tezacaftor–ivacaftor run-in period. Primary endpoints for part 1 and part 2 were safety and tolerability and absolute change in ppFEV1 from baseline to day 29. Secondary efficacy endpoints were absolute change from baseline at day 29 in sweat chloride concentrations and Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised (CFQ-R) respiratory domain score. These clinical trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03911713 and NCT03912233, and are complete. Findings In study VX18-561-101, participants treated with deutivacaftor 150 mg once daily (n=23) or deutivacaftor 250 mg once daily (n=24) had mean absolute changes in ppFEV1 of 3·1 percentage points (95% CI –0·8 to 7·0) and 2·7 percentage points (–1·0 to 6·5) from baseline at week 12, respectively, versus –0·8 percentage points (–6·2 to 4·7) with ivacaftor 150 mg every 12 h (n=11); the deutivacaftor safety profile was consistent with the established safety profile of ivacaftor 150 mg every 12 h. In study VX18-121-101, participants with F/MF genotypes treated with vanzacaftor (5 mg)–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor (n=9), vanzacaftor (10 mg)–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor (n=19), vanzacaftor (20 mg)–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor (n=20), and placebo (n=10) had mean changes relative to baseline at day 29 in ppFEV1 of 4·6 percentage points (−1·3 to 10·6), 14·2 percentage points (10·0 to 18·4), 9·8 percentage points (5·7 to 13·8), and 1·9 percentage points (−4·1 to 8·0), respectively, in sweat chloride concentration of −42·8 mmol/L (–51·7 to –34·0), −45·8 mmol/L (95% CI –51·9 to –39·7), −49·5 mmol/L (–55·9 to –43·1), and 2·3 mmol/L (−7·0 to 11·6), respectively, and in CFQ-R respiratory domain score of 17·6 points (3·5 to 31·6), 21·2 points (11·9 to 30·6), 29·8 points (21·0 to 38·7), and 3·3 points (−10·1 to 16·6), respectively. Participants with the F/F genotype treated with vanzacaftor (20 mg)–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor (n=18) and tezacaftor–ivacaftor (n=10) had mean changes relative to baseline (taking tezacaftor–ivacaftor) at day 29 in ppFEV1 of 15·9 percentage points (11·3 to 20·6) and −0·1 percentage points (−6·4 to 6·1), respectively, in sweat chloride concentration of −45·5 mmol/L (−49·7 to −41·3) and −2·6 mmol/L (−8·2 to 3·1), respectively, and in CFQ-R respiratory domain score of 19·4 points (95% CI 10·5 to 28·3) and −5·0 points (−16·9 to 7·0), respectively. The most common adverse events overall were cough, increased sputum, and headache. One participant in the vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor group had a serious adverse event of infective pulmonary exacerbation and another participant had a serious rash event that led to treatment discontinuation. For most participants, adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. Interpretation Once-daily dosing with vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor was safe and well tolerated and improved lung function, respiratory symptoms, and CFTR function. These results support the continued investigation of vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor in phase 3 clinical trials compared with elexacaftor–tezacaftor–ivacaftor. Funding Vertex Pharmaceuticals

Evidence-Based Guidelines on Health Promotion for Older People

The central aim of the healthPROelderly project was to contribute fundamentally to the development of health promotion for older people through producing guidelines and recommendations for potential actors in this field at EU, national and local level. The specific objectives of the healthPROelderly project were: ? to carry out a literature review concerning health promotion of older people in each of the participating countries. ? to identify models for health promotion for older people in each of the participating countries, evaluate three of them in each country and make them available in the form of a database on the website (www.healthproelderly.com). ? to inform and raise the awareness among experts and authorities throughout the EU about the issue of ageing and the impact of demographic change on our society