Public Health Laboratories: Unprepared and Overwhelmed

Addresses the role of public health labs within the public health system and their ability to respond to specific chemical weapon events. Provides recommendations for improving response to terrorism as well as more conventional threats

Ready or Not? Protecting the Public's Health in the Age of Bioterrorism, 2004

Examines ten key indicators to evaluate state preparedness to respond to bioterrorist attacks and other public health emergencies. Evaluates the federal government's role and performance, and offers recommendations for improving readiness

F as in Fat: How Obesity Policies Are Failing in America, 2005

Examines national and state obesity rates and government policies. Challenges the research community to focus on major research questions to inform policy decisions, and policymakers to pursue actions to combat the obesity crisis

F as in Fat: How Obesity Policies Are Failing in America, 2004

Examines national and state obesity rates and government policies. Focuses on setting a baseline of current policies and programs, and offers a comprehensive look at their range and quality

Ready or Not? Protecting the Public's Health in the Age of Bioterrorism, 2005

Examines ten key indicators to evaluate state preparedness to respond to bioterrorist attacks and other public health emergencies. Evaluates the federal government's role and performance, and offers recommendations for improving readiness

Shortchanging America's Health: A State-by-State Look at How Federal Public Health Dollars Are Spent

Examines the allocation of federal health funds to emphasize that the U.S. is falling short on achieving federally established goals for reducing disease and improving health. Calls for a proactive approach, focusing on prevention of illness and injury

In-depth characterisation of the serum antibody epitope repertoire in Inflammatory Bowel Disease by high-throughput phage-displayed immunoprecipitation sequencing

BackgroundPatients with IBD show distinct antibody responses, particularly against microbiota. However, a comprehensive overview of the antibody epitope repertoire in IBD is lacking. Here, we characterized serum antibody responses in patients with IBD and population controls using a high-throughput phage-displayed immunoprecipitation sequencing (PhIP-seq) workflow and associated these to disease phenotypes and the faecal microbiome.MethodsPhIP-seq was leveraged to characterise antibody responses against 344,000 rationally selected peptide antigens in 497 patients with IBD which were compared with 1,326 individuals from a population-based cohort (Fig. 1A-B). Antibody profiles were linked to 23 IBD-specific clinical features such as disease location and surgical history and to faecal microbiota composition (Fig. 1C).ResultsPatients with IBD demonstrated distinct antibody epitope repertoires compared with individuals from the general population, with 373 differentially abundant antibody-bound peptides (202 overrepresented, 171 underrepresented) belonging to bacterial flagellins (69), virulence factors (102), other antigens of both commensal and pathogenic bacteria (90) as well as viruses (67) and food proteins (24) (Figure 2). In particular, antibody responses against bacterial flagellins, many of which belong to Lachnospiraceae bacteria (e.g. Roseburia spp.), but also Eubacterium spp. and pathogens (e.g. Legionella, Clostridium, Burkholderia) dominated in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD), and were associated with ileal disease involvement and more complicated disease behaviour (e.g. fibrostenotic disease, surgical history) as well as anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibody positivity. Furthermore, many other antigens were newly identified, e.g. decreased responses to E. coli virulence factors and genome polyproteins of enteroviruses, and increased responses to food antigens (wheat, barley) and autoantigens (particularly collagen type I and VI). Antibody epitope repertoires were able to accurately discriminate CD from population controls (area under the curve [AUC]=0.88, test set evaluation), showing very high discriminative performance (positive and negative predictive value of 72% and 93%, respectively, representing predicted classes in test set) (Fig. 3A-C), which was less accurate for ulcerative colitis (UC) (Fig. 3D-F).ConclusionThis study demonstrates the size, diversity and complexity of systemic antibody epitope repertoires in patients with IBD compared to controls, showing that distinct clinical phenotypes of IBD are characterized by unique antibody signatures. PhIP-seq is a powerful tool for identifying systemic immune-based biomarkers and exposing novel immunological targets in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases like IBD

Phage-display immunoprecipitation sequencing of the antibody epitope repertoire in inflammatory bowel disease reveals distinct antibody signatures

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs), e.g., Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), are chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. A comprehensive overview of an IBD-specific antibody epitope repertoire is, however, lacking. Using high-throughput phage-display immunoprecipitation sequencing (PhIP-Seq), we identified antibodies against 344,000 antimicrobial, immune, and food antigens in 497 individuals with IBD compared with 1,326 controls. IBD was characterized by 373 differentially abundant antibody responses (202 overrepresented and 171 underrepresented), with 17% shared by both IBDs, 55% unique to CD, and 28% unique to UC. Antibody reactivities against bacterial flagellins dominated in CD and were associated with ileal involvement, fibrostenotic disease, and anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibody positivity, but not with fecal microbiome composition. Antibody epitope repertoires accurately discriminated CD from controls (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.89), and similar discrimination was achieved when using only ten antibodies (AUC = 0.87). Individuals with IBD thus show a distinct antibody repertoire against selected peptides, allowing clinical stratification and discovery of immunological targets.</p

Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone vs In-Person Genetic Counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: A 12-Month Follow-Up

Background: Telephone delivery of genetic counseling is an alternative to in-person genetic counseling because it may extend the reach of genetic counseling. Previous reports have established the noninferiority of telephone counseling on short-term psychosocial and decision-making outcomes. Here we examine the long-term impact of telephone counseling (TC) vs inperson counseling (usual care [UC]). Methods: We recruited high-risk women for a noninferiority trial comparing TC with UC. Of 1057 potentially eligible women, 669 were randomly assigned to TC (n = 335) or UC (n = 334), and 512 completed the 12-month follow-up. Primary outcomes were patient-reported satisfaction with genetic testing decision, distress, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were uptake of cancer risk management strategies. Results: TC was noninferior to UC on all primary outcomes. Satisfaction with decision (d = 0.13, lower bound of 97.5% confidence interval [CI] = -0.34) did not cross its one-point noninferiority limit, cancer-specific distress (d = -2.10, upper bound of 97.5% CI = -0.07) did not cross its four-point noninferiority limit, and genetic testing distress (d = -0.27, upper bound of 97.5% CI = 1.46), physical function (d = 0.44, lower bound of 97.5% CI = -0.91) and mental function (d = -0.04, lower bound of 97.5% CI = -1.44) did not cross their 2.5-point noninferiority limit. Bivariate analyses showed no differences in risk-reducing mastectomy or oophorectomy across groups; however, when combined, TC had significantly more risk-reducing surgeries than UC (17.8% vs 10.5%; chi(2) = 4.43, P = .04). Conclusions: Findings support telephone delivery of genetic counseling to extend the accessibility of this service without long-termadverse outcomes.This study was supported by grants (R01 CA108933 and P30 CA051008) from the National Cancer Institute and by the Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research.Peer Reviewe