Investigating disparity in access to Australian clinical genetic health services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Globally, there is a recognised need that all populations should be able to access the benefits of genomics and precision medicine. However, achieving this remains constrained by a paucity of data that quantifies access to clinical genomics, particularly amongst Indigenous populations. Using administrative data from clinical genetic health services across three Australian jurisdictions (states/territories), we investigate disparities in the scheduling and attendance of appointments among Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people, compared to non-Indigenous people. For 14,870 appointments scheduled between 2014-2018, adjusted Multivariate Poisson Regression models revealed that Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people were scheduled fewer appointments (IRR 0.73 [0.68-0.80], <0.001) and attended at lower rates (IRR 0.85 [0.78-0.93], <0.001). Within this population, adults, females, remote residents, and those presenting in relation to cancer or prenatal indications experienced the greatest disparity in access. These results provide important baseline data related to disparities in access to clinical genomics in Australia.

"This is my boy's health! Talk straight to me!" perspectives on accessible and culturally safe care among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients of clinical genetics services.

BACKGROUND: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people do not enjoy equal access to specialist health services that adequately meet their needs. Clinical genetics services are at the vanguard of realising the health benefits of genomic medicine. As the field continues to expand in clinical utility and implementation, it is critical that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are able to participate and benefit equally to avoid further widening of the existing health gap. This is the first study to explore barriers to accessing clinical genetics services among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, which has been acknowledged as a key strategic priority in Australian genomic health policy. METHODS: A participatory design process engaged a majority-Aboriginal Project Reference Group and Aboriginal End-User Group. 63 semi-structured interviews were conducted with Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people who had accessed the government-funded clinical genetics service in Western Australia, Queensland or the Northern Territory between 2014 and 2018. The sample included patients, parents and carers. Participants were asked to recount their 'patient journey', from referral through to post-appointment and reflect on their perceptions of genetics and its implications for the health of themselves and their families. Analysis tracked chronological service engagement, followed by an inductive thematic approach. RESULTS: Barriers to access and engagement were present at each stage of the patient journey. These included challenges in obtaining a referral, long waiting periods, limited genetic literacy, absence of Aboriginal support services, communication challenges and lack of adequate psychosocial support and follow-up after attendance. Participants' overall experiences of attending a genetic health service were varied, with positive perceptions tied closely to a diagnosis being achieved. The experience of (and expectation for) recognition of cultural identity and provision of culturally safe care was low among participants. Unaddressed concerns continued to cause significant distress in some people years after their appointment took place. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant scope for improving the care provided to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people at clinical genetics services. Immediate attention to minimising logistical barriers, developing relationships with Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services and providing practical and specific cultural safety training for practitioners is required at the service-level. Our findings strongly support the development of guidelines or policies recognising the collective cultural needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in relation to genomic health care.

Relationship between Epigenetic Maturity and Respiratory Morbidity in Preterm Infants.

OBJECTIVE: To assess associations between epigenetic maturity of extremely preterm babies (born at less than 28 weeks of gestation), neonatal interventions, and respiratory outcomes, including the administration of surfactant and postnatal corticosteroids, duration of assisted ventilation, and development of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). STUDY DESIGN: DNA was extracted from neonatal blood spots collected after birth from 143 extremely preterm infants born 1991-1992 in Victoria, Australia and used to determined DNA methylation (DNAm). A DNAm based gestational age was determined using our previously published method. The residual of DNAm gestational age and clinically estimated gestational age (referred to as "gestational age acceleration") was used as a measure to assess developmental maturity. Associations between gestational age acceleration and respiratory interventions and morbidities were determined. RESULTS: Infants with higher gestational age acceleration were less likely to receive surfactant (P = .009) or postnatal corticosteroids (P = .008), had fewer days of assisted ventilation (P = .01), and had less BPD (P = .02). Respiratory measures are known to correlate with gestational age; however, models comparing each with clinically estimated gestational age were improved by the addition of the gestational age acceleration measure in the model. CONCLUSIONS: Gestational age acceleration correlates with respiratory interventions and outcomes of extremely preterm babies. Surfactant and postnatal corticosteroid use, assisted ventilation days, and BPD rates were all lower in babies who were epigenetically more mature than their obstetrically estimated gestational age. This suggests that gestational age acceleration is a clinically relevant metric of developmental maturity.

An epigenetic clock for gestational age at birth based on blood methylation data.

BACKGROUND: Gestational age is often used as a proxy for developmental maturity by clinicians and researchers alike. DNA methylation has previously been shown to be associated with age and has been used to accurately estimate chronological age in children and adults. In the current study, we examine whether DNA methylation in cord blood can be used to estimate gestational age at birth. RESULTS: We find that gestational age can be accurately estimated from DNA methylation of neonatal cord blood and blood spot samples. We calculate a DNA methylation gestational age using 148 CpG sites selected through elastic net regression in six training datasets. We evaluate predictive accuracy in nine testing datasets and find that the accuracy of the DNA methylation gestational age is consistent with that of gestational age estimates based on established methods, such as ultrasound. We also find that an increased DNA methylation gestational age relative to clinical gestational age is associated with birthweight independent of gestational age, sex, and ancestry. CONCLUSIONS: DNA methylation can be used to accurately estimate gestational age at or near birth and may provide additional information relevant to developmental stage. Further studies of this predictor are warranted to determine its utility in clinical settings and for research purposes. When clinical estimates are available this measure may increase accuracy in the testing of hypotheses related to developmental age and other early life circumstances.