The expectations and realities of nutrigenomic testing in australia: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Consumer genomic testing for nutrition and wellness, (nutritional genomics), is becoming increasingly popular. Concurrently, health-care practitioners (HPs) working in private practice (including doctors interested in integrative medicine, private genetic counsellors, pharmacists, dieticians, naturopaths and nutritionists) are involved as test facilitators or interpreters. OBJECTIVE: To explore Australian consumers' and HPs' experiences with nutrigenomic testing. METHOD: Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted using predominantly purposive sampling. The two data sets were analysed individually, then combined, using a constant comparative, thematic approach. RESULTS: Overall, 45 interviews were conducted with consumers (n = 18) and HPs (n = 27). Many of the consumer interviewees experienced chronic ill-health. Nutrigenomic testing was perceived as empowering and a source of hope for answers. While most made changes to their diet/supplements post-test, self-reported health improvements were small. A positive relationship with their HP appeared to minimize disappointment. HPs' adoption and views of nutrigenomic testing varied. Those enthusiastic about testing saw the possibilities it could offer. However, many felt nutrigenomic testing was not the only 'tool' to utilize when offering health care. DISCUSSION: This research highlights the important role HPs play in consumers' experiences of nutrigenomics. The varied practice suggests relevant HPs require upskilling in this area to at least support their patients/clients, even if nutrigenomic testing is not part of their practice. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Advisory group included patient/public group representatives who informed study design; focus group participants gave feedback on the survey from which consumer interviewees were sourced. This informed the HP data set design. Interviewees from HP data set assisted with snowball sampling

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Investigating genomic medicine practice and perceptions amongst Australian non-genetics physicians to inform education and implementation

Abstract Genomic medicine is being implemented on a global scale, requiring a genomic-competent health workforce. To inform education as part of implementation strategies to optimize adoption of genomics by non-genetics physicians, we investigated current practices, perceptions and preferences relating to genomic testing and education. Australian non-genetics physicians completed an online survey; we conducted univariate and multivariate analyses of determinants of confidence and engagement with genomic medicine. Confident or engaged respondents were more likely to be pediatricians, have completed continuing genomics education (CGE) and/or have genomics research experience. Confident or engaged respondents were also more likely to prefer to request genomic testing with support from genetics services than other models. Respondents who had completed CGE and were engaged reported higher confidence than those who were not engaged. We propose a progression of genomic competence aligned with service delivery models, where education is one enabler of mastery or independence to facilitate genomic tests (from referral to requesting with or without clinical genetics support). Workplace learning could provide additional impetus for adoption

Attitudes of Australian dermatologists on the use of genetic testing: A cross-sectional survey with a focus on melanoma

Background: Melanoma genetic testing reportedly increases preventative behaviour without causing psychological harm. Genetic testing for familial melanoma risk is now available, yet little is known about dermatologists’ perceptions regarding the utility of testing and genetic testing ordering behaviours. Objectives: To survey Australasian Dermatologists on the perceived utility of genetic testing, current use in practice, as well as their confidence and preferences for the delivery of genomics education. Methods: A 37-item survey, based on previously validated instruments, was sent to accredited members of the Australasian College of Dermatologists in March 2021. Quantitative items were analysed statistically, with one open-ended question analysed qualitatively. Results: The response rate was 56% (256/461), with 60% (153/253) of respondents between 11 and 30 years post-graduation. While 44% (112/252) of respondents agreed, or strongly agreed, that genetic testing was relevant to their practice today, relevance to future practice was reported significantly higher at 84% (212/251) (t = -9.82, p \u3c 0.001). Ninety three percent (235/254) of respondents reported rarely or never ordering genetic testing. Dermatologists who viewed genetic testing as relevant to current practice were more likely to have discussed (p \u3c 0.001) and/or offered testing (p \u3c 0.001). Respondents indicated high confidence in discussing family history of melanoma, but lower confidence in ordering genetic tests and interpreting results. Eighty four percent (207/247) believed that genetic testing could negatively impact life insurance, while only 26% (63/244) were aware of the moratorium on using genetic test results in underwriting in Australia. A minority (22%, 55/254) reported prior continuing education in genetics. Face-to-face courses were the preferred learning modality for upskilling. Conclusion: Australian Dermatologists widely recognise the relevance of genetic testing to future practice, yet few currently order genetic tests. Future educational interventions could focus on how to order appropriate genetic tests and interpret results, as well as potential implications on insurance

DataSheet_1_The need for co-educators to drive a new model of inclusive, person-centred and respectful co-healthcare with people with intellectual disability.pdf

The full text of this article can be freely accessed on the publisher's website