Are public health professionals prepared for public health genomics? A cross-sectional survey in Italy

Background: Public health genomics is an emerging multidisciplinary approach, which aims to integrate genome-based knowledge in a responsible and effective way into public health. Despite several surveys performed to evaluate knowledge, attitudes and professional behaviors of physicians towards predictive genetic testing, similar surveys have not been carried out for public health practitioners. This study is the first to assess knowledge, attitudes and training needs of public health professionals in the field of predictive genetic testing for chronic diseases. Methods: A self-administered questionnaire was used to carry out a cross-sectional survey of a random sample of Italian public health professionals. Results: A response rate of 67.4% (797 questionnaires) was achieved. Italian public health professionals have the necessary attitudinal background to contribute to the proper use of predictive genetic testing for chronic diseases, but they need additional training to increase their methodological knowledge. Knowledge significantly increases with exposure to predictive genetic testing during postgraduate training (odds ratio (OR) = 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.05-2.88), time dedicated to continuing medical education (OR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.14-2.04) and level of English language knowledge (OR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.07-1.72). Adequate knowledge is the strongest predictor of positive attitudes from a public health perspective (OR = 3.98, 95% CI = 2.44-6.50). Physicians show a lower level of knowledge and more public health attitudes than other public health professionals do. About 80% of public health professionals considered their knowledge inadequate and 86.0% believed that it should be improved through specific postgraduate training courses. Conclusions: Specific and targeted training initiatives are needed to develop a skilled public health workforce competent in identifying genomic technology that is ready for use in population health and in modeling public health genomic programs and primary care services that need to be developed, implemented and evaluated

How is genetic testing evaluated? A systematic review of the literature

open8Given the rapid development of genetic tests, an assessment of their benefits, risks, and limitations is crucial for public health practice. We performed a systematic review aimed at identifying and comparing the existing evaluation frameworks for genetic tests. We searched PUBMED, SCOPUS, ISI Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, Google, and gray literature sources for any documents describing such frameworks. We identified 29 evaluation frameworks published between 2000 and 2017, mostly based on the ACCE Framework (n = 13 models), or on the HTA process (n = 6), or both (n = 2). Others refer to the Wilson and Jungner screening criteria (n = 3) or to a mixture of different criteria (n = 5). Due to the widespread use of the ACCE Framework, the most frequently used evaluation criteria are analytic and clinical validity, clinical utility and ethical, legal and social implications. Less attention is given to the context of implementation. An economic dimension is always considered, but not in great detail. Consideration of delivery models, organizational aspects, and consumer viewpoint is often lacking. A deeper analysis of such context-related evaluation dimensions may strengthen a comprehensive evaluation of genetic tests and support the decision-making process.openPitini, Erica*; de Vito, Corrado; Marzuillo, Carolina; D’Andrea, Elvira; Rosso, Annalisa; Federici, Antonio; Di Maria, Emilio; Villari, PaoloPitini, Erica; de Vito, Corrado; Marzuillo, Carolina; D’Andrea, Elvira; Rosso, Annalisa; Federici, Antonio; Di Maria, Emilio; Villari, Paol

Which Lynch syndrome screening programs could be implemented in the "real world"? A systematic review of economic evaluations

Purpose: Lynch syndrome (LS) screening can significantly reduce cancer morbidity and mortality in mutation carriers. Our aim was to identify cost-effective LS screening programs that can be implemented in the "real world."Methods: We performed a systematic review of full economic evaluations of genetic screening for LS in different target populations; health outcomes were estimated in life-years gained or quality-adjusted life-years.Results: Overall, 20 studies were included in the systematic review. Based on the study populations, we identified six categories of LS screening program: colorectal cancer (CRC)-based, endometrial cancer-based, general population-based, LS family registry-based, cascade testing-based, and genetics clinic-based screening programs. We performed an in-depth analysis of CRC-based LS programs, classifying them into three additional subcategories: universal, age-targeted, and selective. In five studies, universal programs based on immunohistochemistry, either alone or in combination with the BRAF test, were cost-effective compared with no screening, while in two studies age-targeted programs with a cutoff of 70 years were cost-effective when compared with age-targeted programs with lower age thresholds. Conclusion: Universal or <70 years-age-targeted CRC-based LS screening programs are cost-effective and should be implemented in the "real world

The Athena X-ray Integral Field Unit: a consolidated design for the system requirement review of the preliminary definition phase

The Athena X-ray Integral Unit (X-IFU) is the high resolution X-ray spectrometer studied since 2015 for flying in the mid-30s on the Athena space X-ray Observatory. Athena is a versatile observatory designed to address the Hot and Energetic Universe science theme, as selected in November 2013 by the Survey Science Committee. Based on a large format array of Transition Edge Sensors (TES), X-IFU aims to provide spatially resolved X-ray spectroscopy, with a spectral resolution of 2.5 eV (up to 7 keV) over a hexagonal field of view of 5 arc minutes (equivalent diameter). The X-IFU entered its System Requirement Review (SRR) in June 2022, at about the same time when ESA called for an overall X-IFU redesign (including the X-IFU cryostat and the cooling chain), due to an unanticipated cost overrun of Athena. In this paper, after illustrating the breakthrough capabilities of the X-IFU, we describe the instrument as presented at its SRR (i.e. in the course of its preliminary definition phase, so-called B1), browsing through all the subsystems and associated requirements. We then show the instrument budgets, with a particular emphasis on the anticipated budgets of some of its key performance parameters, such as the instrument efficiency, spectral resolution, energy scale knowledge, count rate capability, non X-ray background and target of opportunity efficiency. Finally, we briefly discuss the ongoing key technology demonstration activities, the calibration and the activities foreseen in the X-IFU Instrument Science Center, touch on communication and outreach activities, the consortium organisation and the life cycle assessment of X-IFU aiming at minimising the environmental footprint, associated with the development of the instrument. Thanks to the studies conducted so far on X-IFU, it is expected that along the design-to-cost exercise requested by ESA, the X-IFU will maintain flagship capabilities in spatially resolved high resolution X-ray spectroscopy, enabling most of the original X-IFU related scientific objectives of the Athena mission to be retained. The X-IFU will be provided by an international consortium led by France, The Netherlands and Italy, with ESA member state contributions from Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain, Switzerland, with additional contributions from the United States and Japan.The French contribution to X-IFU is funded by CNES, CNRS and CEA. This work has been also supported by ASI (Italian Space Agency) through the Contract 2019-27-HH.0, and by the ESA (European Space Agency) Core Technology Program (CTP) Contract No. 4000114932/15/NL/BW and the AREMBES - ESA CTP No.4000116655/16/NL/BW. This publication is part of grant RTI2018-096686-B-C21 funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by “ERDF A way of making Europe”. This publication is part of grant RTI2018-096686-B-C21 and PID2020-115325GB-C31 funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033

Interaction Testing and Polygenic Risk Scoring to Estimate the Association of Common Genetic Variants with Treatment Resistance in Schizophrenia

Importance: About 20% to 30% of people with schizophrenia have psychotic symptoms that do not respond adequately to first-line antipsychotic treatment. This clinical presentation, chronic and highly disabling, is known as treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS). The causes of treatment resistance and their relationships with causes underlying schizophrenia are largely unknown. Adequately powered genetic studies of TRS are scarce because of the difficulty in collecting data from well-characterized TRS cohorts. Objective: To examine the genetic architecture of TRS through the reassessment of genetic data from schizophrenia studies and its validation in carefully ascertained clinical samples. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two case-control genome-wide association studies (GWASs) of schizophrenia were performed in which the case samples were defined as individuals with TRS (n = 10501) and individuals with non-TRS (n = 20325). The differences in effect sizes for allelic associations were then determined between both studies, the reasoning being such differences reflect treatment resistance instead of schizophrenia. Genotype data were retrieved from the CLOZUK and Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC) schizophrenia studies. The output was validated using polygenic risk score (PRS) profiling of 2 independent schizophrenia cohorts with TRS and non-TRS: a prevalence sample with 817 individuals (Cardiff Cognition in Schizophrenia [CardiffCOGS]) and an incidence sample with 563 individuals (Genetics Workstream of the Schizophrenia Treatment Resistance and Therapeutic Advances [STRATA-G]). Main Outcomes and Measures: GWAS of treatment resistance in schizophrenia. The results of the GWAS were compared with complex polygenic traits through a genetic correlation approach and were used for PRS analysis on the independent validation cohorts using the same TRS definition. Results: The study included a total of 85490 participants (48635 [56.9%] male) in its GWAS stage and 1380 participants (859 [62.2%] male) in its PRS validation stage. Treatment resistance in schizophrenia emerged as a polygenic trait with detectable heritability (1% to 4%), and several traits related to intelligence and cognition were found to be genetically correlated with it (genetic correlation, 0.41-0.69). PRS analysis in the CardiffCOGS prevalence sample showed a positive association between TRS and a history of taking clozapine (r2 = 2.03%; P =.001), which was replicated in the STRATA-G incidence sample (r2 = 1.09%; P =.04). Conclusions and Relevance: In this GWAS, common genetic variants were differentially associated with TRS, and these associations may have been obscured through the amalgamation of large GWAS samples in previous studies of broadly defined schizophrenia. Findings of this study suggest the validity of meta-analytic approaches for studies on patient outcomes, including treatment resistance