Understanding polygenic models, their development and the potential application of polygenic scores in healthcare.

The use of genomic information to better understand and prevent common complex diseases has been an ongoing goal of genetic research. Over the past few years, research in this area has proliferated with several proposed methods of generating polygenic scores. This has been driven by the availability of larger data sets, primarily from genome-wide association studies and concomitant developments in statistical methodologies. Here we provide an overview of the methodological aspects of polygenic model construction. In addition, we consider the state of the field and implications for potential applications of polygenic scores for risk estimation within healthcare

Are we nearly there yet? Starts and stops on the road to use of polygenic scores

As technological advancements expand the accessibility and availability of molecular genetic data, excitement over the potential use of genetic risk scores also known as polygenic scores (PGS) or polygenic indices for disease prevention has grown. At the same time, however, the translation of PGS into healthcare and social settings raises a host of social, ethical, and clinically relevant questions

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Birth Prevalence of Orofacial Clefts in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

BACKGROUND: In the last comprehensive review of the literature published in 2002, little information on the prevalence of orofacial clefts was available from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). OBJECTIVE: To analyze published data on the birth prevalence of cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) from LMIC. DESIGN: Systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of data from original papers on the birth prevalence of cleft lip and/or cleft palate (CL/P) in LMICs between 1990 and 2014. Secondary inclusion criteria were developed to analyze lower-quality studies from countries with scarce data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Birth prevalence of undifferentiated CL/P (with or without associated syndrome or other anomaly). RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies met strict inclusion criteria. Among 31,475,278 total births, the pooled birth prevalence of undifferentiated CL/P was 1.38 per 1000 births (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20 to 1.56). Four studies met criteria for secondary analysis, providing data on 75,627 births, with a pooled prevalence of 0.75 CL/P cases per 1000 births (95% CI: 0.56 to 0.95). Comparison of studies was limited by variable definitions of cases and of the reference population and by inconsistent reporting of outcomes. There is significant heterogeneity in the findings. CONCLUSIONS: In LMICs, approximately 1 in every 730 children is born with CL/P. To optimize comparability across settings, future research should use a standard classification system and standard criteria for data collection and presentation. As clefting is associated with deprivation, understanding the true scale, risks, and preventive measures for orofacial clefts in LMIC is a matter of both scientific and humanitarian importance

Estimates of global and regional prevalence of neural tube defects for 2015: a systematic analysis.

Neural tube defects (NTDs) are associated with substantial mortality, morbidity, disability, and psychological and economic costs. Many are preventable with folic acid, and access to appropriate services for those affected can improve survival and quality of life. We used a compartmental model to estimate global and regional birth prevalence of NTDs (live births, stillbirths, and elective terminations of pregnancy) and subsequent under-5 mortality. Data were identified through web-based reviews of birth defect registry databases and systematic literature reviews. Meta-analyses were undertaken where appropriate. For 2015, our model estimated 260,100 (uncertainty interval (UI): 213,800-322,000) NTD-affected birth outcomes worldwide (prevalence 18.6 (15.3-23.0)/10,000 live births). Approximately 50% of cases were elective terminations of pregnancy for fetal anomalies (UI: 59,300 (47,900-74,500)) or stillbirths (57,800 (UI: 35,000-88,600)). Of NTD-affected live births, 117,900 (∼75%) (UI: 105,500-186,600) resulted in under-5 deaths. Our systematic review showed a paucity of high-quality data in the regions of the world with the highest burden. Despite knowledge about prevention, NTDs remain highly prevalent worldwide. Lack of surveillance and incomplete ascertainment of affected pregnancies make NTDs invisible to policy makers. Improved surveillance of all adverse outcomes is needed to improve the robustness of total NTD prevalence estimation, evaluate effectiveness of prevention through folic acid fortification, and improve outcomes through care and rehabilitation

Estimating the birth prevalence and pregnancy outcomes of congenital malformations worldwide

Congenital anomaly registries have two main surveillance aims: firstly to define baseline epidemiology of important congenital anomalies to facilitate programme, policy and resource planning, and secondly to identify clusters of cases and any other epidemiological changes that could give early warning of environmental or infectious hazards. However, setting up a sustainable registry and surveillance system is resource-intensive requiring national infrastructure for recording all cases and diagnostic facilities to identify those malformations that that are not externally visible. Consequently, not all countries have yet established robust surveillance systems. For these countries, methods are needed to generate estimates of prevalence of these disorders which can act as a starting point for assessing disease burden and service implications. Here, we describe how registry data from high-income settings can be used for generating reference rates that can be used as provisional estimates for countries with little or no observational data on non-syndromic congenital malformations

Risk-Adjusted Cancer Screening and Prevention (RiskAP): Complementing Screening for Early Disease Detection by a Learning Screening Based on Risk Factors

Background: Risk-adjusted cancer screening and prevention is a promising and continuously emerging option for improving cancer prevention. It is driven by increasing knowledge of risk factors and the ability to determine them for individual risk prediction. However, there is a knowledge gap between evidence of increased risk and evidence of the effectiveness and efficiency of clinical preventive interventions based on increased risk. This gap is, in particular, aggravated by the extensive availability of genetic risk factor diagnostics, since the question of appropriate preventive measures immediately arises when an increased risk is identified. However, collecting proof of effective preventive measures, ideally by prospective randomized preventive studies, typically requires very long periods of time, while the knowledge about an increased risk immediately creates a high demand for action. Summary: Therefore, we propose a risk-adjusted prevention concept that is based on the best current evidence making needed and appropriate preventive measures available, and which is constantly evaluated through outcome evaluation, and continuously improved based on these results. We further discuss the structural and procedural requirements as well as legal and socioeconomical aspects relevant for the implementation of this concept

Personalized early detection and prevention of breast cancer: ENVISION consensus statement

Abstract: The European Collaborative on Personalized Early Detection and Prevention of Breast Cancer (ENVISION) brings together several international research consortia working on different aspects of the personalized early detection and prevention of breast cancer. In a consensus conference held in 2019, the members of this network identified research areas requiring development to enable evidence-based personalized interventions that might improve the benefits and reduce the harms of existing breast cancer screening and prevention programmes. The priority areas identified were: 1) breast cancer subtype-specific risk assessment tools applicable to women of all ancestries; 2) intermediate surrogate markers of response to preventive measures; 3) novel non-surgical preventive measures to reduce the incidence of breast cancer of poor prognosis; and 4) hybrid effectiveness–implementation research combined with modelling studies to evaluate the long-term population outcomes of risk-based early detection strategies. The implementation of such programmes would require health-care systems to be open to learning and adapting, the engagement of a diverse range of stakeholders and tailoring to societal norms and values, while also addressing the ethical and legal issues. In this Consensus Statement, we discuss the current state of breast cancer risk prediction, risk-stratified prevention and early detection strategies, and their implementation. Throughout, we highlight priorities for advancing each of these areas