Direct notification by health professionals of relatives at-risk of genetic conditions (with patient consent): views of the Australian public.

Genetic risk information for medically actionable conditions has relevance for patients' blood relatives. However, cascade testing uptake in at-risk families is <50%, and the burden of contacting relatives is a significant barrier to dissemination of risk information. Health professionals (HPs) could notify at-risk relatives directly, with patients' consent. This practice is supported by international literature, including strong public support. However, there is little exploration of the Australian public's views about this issue. We surveyed Australian adults using a consumer research company. Respondents were provided a hypothetical scenario and asked about views and preferences regarding direct contact by HPs. 1030 members of the public responded, with median age 45 y and 51% female. The majority would want to be told about genetic risk for conditions that can be prevented/treated early (85%) and contacted directly by a HP (68%). Most preferred a letter that included specific information about the genetic condition in the family (67%) and had no privacy concerns about HPs sending a letter using contact details provided by a relative (85%). A minority (< 5%) had significant privacy concerns, mostly about use of personal contact information. Concerns included ensuring information was not shared with third parties. Almost 50% would prefer that a family member contacted them before the letter was sent, while about half did not prefer this or were unsure. The Australian public supports (and prefers) direct notification of relatives at risk of medically actionable genetic conditions. Guidelines would assist with clarifying clinicians' discretion in this area.

Population-based BRCA1/2 testing programmes are highly acceptable in the Jewish community: results of the JeneScreen Study.

BACKGROUND: Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) people have a higher incidence of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants (PVs) than unselected populations. Three BRCA-Jewish founder mutations (B-JFMs) comprise >90% of BRCA1/2 PVs in AJ people. Personal/family cancer history-based testing misses ≥50% of people with B-JFM. METHODS: We compared two population-based B-JFM screening programmes in Australia-using (1) an online tool (Sydney) and (2) in-person group sessions (Melbourne). RESULTS: Of 2167 Jewish people tested (Sydney n=594; Melbourne n=1573), 1.3% (n=28) have a B-JFM, only 2 of whom had a significant cancer family history (Manchester score ≥12). Pretest anxiety scores were normal (mean 9.9±3.5 (6-24)), with no significant post-result change (9.5±3.3). Decisional regret (mean 7.4±13.0 (0-100)), test-related distress (mean 0.8+/2.2 (0-30)) and positive experiences (reverse-scored) (mean 3.4±4.5 (1-20)) scores were low, with no significant differences between Sydney and Melbourne participants. Post-education knowledge was good overall (mean 11.8/15 (±2.9)) and significantly higher in Melbourne than Sydney. Post-result knowledge was the same (mean 11.7 (±2.4) vs 11.2 (±2.4)). Participants with a B-JFM had higher post-result anxiety and test-related distress and lower positive experiences, than those without a B-JFM, but scores were within the normal range. Family cancer history did not significantly affect knowledge or anxiety, or pretest perception of B-JFM or cancer risks. Most participants (93%) were satisfied/very satisfied with the programme. CONCLUSION: Both B-JFM screening programmes are highly acceptable to Australian Jewish communities. The programme enabled identification of several individuals who were previously unaware they have a B-JFM, many of whom would have been ineligible for current criteria-based testing in Australia.

Public willingness to participate in population DNA screening in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Population-based DNA screening for medically actionable conditions has the potential to improve public health by enabling early detection, treatment and/or prevention; however, public attitudes and willingness to participate in DNA screening have not been well investigated. METHODS: We presented a scenario to members of the Australian public, randomly selected from the electoral roll via the Australian Survey of Societal Attitudes, describing an adult population DNA screening programme currently under development, to detect risk of medically actionable cancers and heart disease. We asked questions regarding willingness to participate and pay, preferred delivery methods and concerns. RESULTS: We received 1060 completed questionnaires (response rate 23%, mean age 58 years). The vast majority (>92%) expressed willingness to undertake DNA screening. When asked about the optimal age of screening, most (56%) favoured early adulthood (aged 18-40 years) rather than at birth or childhood. Many respondents would prefer samples and data be kept for re-screening (36%) or research use (43%); some preferred samples to be destroyed (21%). Issues that decrease likelihood of participation included privacy (75%) and insurance (86%) implications. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates public willingness to participate in population DNA screening in Australia, and identifies barriers to participation, to be addressed in the design of screening programmes. Results are informing the development of a pilot national DNA screening programme.

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 < 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 < 0.001) and/or offered testing (p < 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.

Genomic discrimination in New Zealand health and life insurance. AGenDA: Against Genomic Discrimination in Aotearoa.

Nil.

A step forward, but still inadequate: Australian health professionals' views on the genetics and life insurance moratorium.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the Australian life insurance industry introduced a partial moratorium (ban) limiting the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting. The moratorium is industry self-regulated and applies only to policies below certain financial limits (eg, $500 000 of death cover). METHODS: We surveyed Australian health professionals (HPs) who discuss genetic testing with patients, to assess knowledge of the moratorium; reported patient experiences since its commencement; and HP views regarding regulation of genetic discrimination (GD) in Australia. RESULTS: Between April and June 2020, 166 eligible HPs responded to the online survey. Of these, 86% were aware of the moratorium, but <50% had attended related training/information sessions. Only 16% answered all knowledge questions correctly, yet 69% believed they had sufficient knowledge to advise patients. Genetics HPs' awareness and knowledge were better than non-genetics HPs' (p<0.05). There was some reported decrease in patients delaying/declining testing after the moratorium's introduction, however, 42% of HPs disagreed that patients were more willing to have testing post-moratorium. Although many (76%) felt the moratorium resolved some GD concerns, most (88%) still have concerns, primarily around self-regulation, financial limits and the moratorium's temporary nature. Almost half (49%) of HPs reported being dissatisfied with the moratorium as a solution to GD. The majority (95%) felt government oversight is required, and 93% felt specific Australian legislation regarding GD is required. CONCLUSION: While the current Australian moratorium is considered a step forward, most HPs believe it falls short of an adequate long-term regulatory solution to GD in life insurance.

Armodafinil as adjunctive therapy in adults with cognitive deficits associated with schizophrenia: a 4-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of armodafinil, the longer-lasting isomer of modafinil, as adjunctive therapy in patients with schizophrenia. METHOD: This 4-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept study was conducted between July and December 2007. Patients had a history of stable schizophrenia (DSM-IV-TR criteria) for ≥ 8 weeks and were treated with oral risperidone, olanzapine, or paliperidone for ≥ 6 weeks at stable doses for ≥ 4 weeks. Patients were randomly assigned to once-daily placebo or armodafinil 50, 100, or 200 mg. The primary efficacy measure was the Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) Consensus Cognitive Battery. Secondary outcome measures included the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and the Scale for Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS). RESULTS: Sixty patients were randomly assigned (15 in each group). No apparent differences between groups in the MATRICS composite score were observed (mean ± SD change from baseline to final visit: armodafinil 50 mg, 1.9 ± 6.22; 100 mg, 2.8 ± 7.98; 200 mg, 2.9 ± 4.72; placebo, 2.2 ± 5.06). The mean ± SD changes in PANSS total scores were -6.3 ± 7.25 for armodafinil 200 mg and -1.7 ± 4.89 for placebo at final visit (effect size=0.73; 95% CI, -0.08 to 1.54) and PANSS negative symptoms scores were -3.4 ± 2.07 and 0.1 ± 1.93 (effect size=1.69; 95% CI, 0.78 to 2.60), respectively. Although reductions in SANS total score were observed with both armodafinil and placebo at final visit, no between-group difference was shown. Armodafinil was generally well tolerated, with diarrhea and headache the most commonly reported adverse events. There was no evidence of worsening of psychosis with adjunctive armodafinil. CONCLUSIONS: In this 4-week study, adjunctive armodafinil was not associated with an improvement in cognitive measures, but armodafinil 200 mg/d appeared to mitigate the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. Treatment was generally well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00487942.

Adjunctive armodafinil for major depressive episodes associated with bipolar I disorder: a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of armodafinil, the longer-lasting isomer of modafinil, when used adjunctively in patients with bipolar depression. METHOD: In this 8-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted between June 2007 and December 2008, patients who were experiencing a major depressive episode associated with bipolar I disorder (according to DSM-IV-TR criteria) despite treatment with lithium, olanzapine, or valproic acid were randomly assigned to adjunctive armodafinil 150 mg/d (n = 128) or placebo (n = 129) administered once daily in the morning. The primary outcome measure was change from baseline in the total 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, Clinician-Rated (IDS-C30) score. Secondary outcomes included changes from baseline in scores on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, among other psychological symptom scales. Statistical analyses were performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with study drug and concurrent mood stabilizer treatment for bipolar disorder as factors and the corresponding baseline value as a covariate. A prespecified sensitivity analysis was done using analysis of variance (ANOVA) if a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline interaction was found. Tolerability was also assessed. RESULTS: A significant baseline-by-treatment interaction in the total IDS-C30 score (P = .08) was found. Patients administered adjunctive armodafinil showed greater improvement in depressive symptoms as seen in the greater mean ± SD change on the total IDS-C30 score (-15.8 ± 11.57) compared with the placebo group (-12.8 ± 12.54) (ANOVA: P = .044; ANCOVA: P = .074). No differences between treatment groups were observed in secondary outcomes. Adverse events reported more frequently in patients receiving adjunctive armodafinil were headache, diarrhea, and insomnia. Armodafinil was not associated with an increased incidence and/or severity of suicidality, depression, or mania or with changes in metabolic profile measurements. CONCLUSIONS: In this proof-of-concept study, adjunctive armodafinil 150 mg/d appeared to improve depressive symptoms according to some, but not all, measures and was generally well tolerated in patients with bipolar depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00481195.

A phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of armodafinil for excessive sleepiness associated with jet lag disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of armodafinil, the longer-lasting isomer of modafinil, on jet lag disorder. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: This double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study was conducted between September 18, 2008, and February 9, 2009. Adults with a history of jet lag symptoms on previous flights through multiple time zones flew from the United States to France (a 6-hour time zone change) for a 3-day laboratory-based study period. Participants received armodafinil (50 or 150 mg/d) or placebo each morning. Wakefulness was assessed by the coprimary outcomes, mean sleep latency on the Multiple Sleep Latency Test (MSLT) (average of all MSLT sessions across days 1 and 2) and Patient Global Impression of Severity in relation to jet lag symptoms (averaged across days 1 and 2). RESULTS: A total of 427 participants received armodafinil at 50 mg/d (n=142), armodafinil at 150 mg/d (n=143), or placebo (n=142). Armodafinil at 150 mg/d provided a significant benefit in sleep latency on the MSLT (days 1-2: mean, 11.7 minutes vs 4.8 minutes for placebo; P<.001) and participants' perception of their overall condition in relation to jet lag symptoms (Patient Global Impression of Severity, days 1-2: mean, 1.6 vs 1.9 for placebo; P<.05). The most frequently reported adverse events for armodafinil at 150 mg/d were headache (27%), nausea (13%), diarrhea (5%), circadian rhythm sleep disorder (5%), and palpitations (5%). CONCLUSION: Armodafinil increased wakefulness after eastward travel through 6 time zones. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00758498.