C16orf72/HAPSTR1/TAPR1 functions with BRCA1/Senataxin to modulate replication-associated R-loops and confer resistance to PARP disruption.

While the toxicity of PARP inhibitors to cells with defects in homologous recombination (HR) is well established, other synthetic lethal interactions with PARP1/PARP2 disruption are poorly defined. To inform on these mechanisms we conducted a genome-wide screen for genes that are synthetic lethal with PARP1/2 gene disruption and identified C16orf72/HAPSTR1/TAPR1 as a novel modulator of replication-associated R-loops. C16orf72 is critical to facilitate replication fork restart, suppress DNA damage and maintain genome stability in response to replication stress. Importantly, C16orf72 and PARP1/2 function in parallel pathways to suppress DNA:RNA hybrids that accumulate at stalled replication forks. Mechanistically, this is achieved through an interaction of C16orf72 with BRCA1 and the RNA/DNA helicase Senataxin to facilitate their recruitment to RNA:DNA hybrids and confer resistance to PARP inhibitors. Together, this identifies a C16orf72/Senataxin/BRCA1-dependent pathway to suppress replication-associated R-loop accumulation, maintain genome stability and confer resistance to PARP inhibitors.

A National Survey of Assertive Outreach Treatment Services for People Who Frequently Attend Hospital due to Alcohol-Related Reasons in England.

AIMS: To characterize England's alcohol assertive outreach treatment (AAOT) services for people who frequently attend hospital due to alcohol-related reasons according to their concordance with six core AAOT components. METHODS: A cross-sectional national survey using structured telephone interviews with health professionals examining 6 essential AAOT components. High-level AAOT services were those that delivered 5 or more components, mid-level 3 to 4 components, low-level AAOT services 2 or less. RESULTS: The analysis included 37 services that were classified according to their concordance with the 6 AAOT components. Six were identified as high-level AAOT services, 13 as mid-level AAOT services and 18 as low-level services. Extended support covering housing, mental and physical health over and above alcohol consumption was the most commonly delivered AAOT component provided. Having a multidisciplinary team was the least observed component, delivered in 33% high-level AAOT services and in 15% mid-level AAOT services. None of the low-level AAOT services had a multidisciplinary team. CONCLUSIONS: Access to AAOT services developed to support high-cost and high-needs frequent hospital attenders varies across the nation. Further research, service evaluation and AAOT implementation should focus on essential AAOT components rather than self-defined labels of AAOT. SHORT SUMMARY: The study investigated alcohol assertive outreach treatment (AAOT) services in England. The study found variability in service provision across AAOT services when measured against six essential AAOT components. Improvement of AAOT in England's hospitals should focus on the implementation of essential AAOT components.

Impact of primary healthcare providers' initial role security and therapeutic commitment on implementing brief interventions in managing risky alcohol consumption: a cluster randomised factorial trial.

BACKGROUND: Brief interventions in primary healthcare are cost-effective in reducing drinking problems but poorly implemented in routine practice. Although evidence about implementing brief interventions is growing, knowledge is limited with regard to impact of initial role security and therapeutic commitment on brief intervention implementation. METHODS: In a cluster randomised factorial trial, 120 primary healthcare units (PHCUs) were randomised to eight groups: care as usual, training and support, financial reimbursement, and the opportunity to refer patients to an internet-based brief intervention (e-BI); paired combinations of these three strategies, and all three strategies combined. To explore the impact of initial role security and therapeutic commitment on implementing brief interventions, we performed multilevel linear regression analyses adapted to the factorial design. RESULTS: Data from 746 providers from 120 PHCUs were included in the analyses. Baseline role security and therapeutic commitment were found not to influence implementation of brief interventions. Furthermore, there were no significant interactions between these characteristics and allocated implementation groups. CONCLUSIONS: The extent to which providers changed their brief intervention delivery following experience of different implementation strategies was not determined by their initial attitudes towards alcohol problems. In future research, more attention is needed to unravel the causal relation between practitioners' attitudes, their actual behaviour and care improvement strategies to enhance implementation science. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01501552.

Improving the delivery of brief interventions for heavy drinking in primary health care: outcome results of the Optimizing Delivery of Health Care Intervention (ODHIN) five-country cluster randomized factorial trial.

AIM: To test if training and support, financial reimbursement and option of referring screen-positive patients to an internet-based method of giving advice (eBI) can increase primary health-care providers' delivery of Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT)-C-based screening and advice to heavy drinkers. DESIGN: Cluster randomized factorial trial with 12-week implementation and measurement period. SETTING: Primary health-care units (PHCU) in different locations throughout Catalonia, England, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 120 PHCU, 24 in each of Catalonia, England, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden. INTERVENTIONS: PHCUs were randomized to one of eight groups: care as usual, training and support (TS), financial reimbursement (FR) and eBI; paired combinations of TS, FR and eBI, and all of FR, TS and eBI. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of eligible adult (age 18+ years) patients screened during a 12-week implementation period. Secondary outcome measures were proportion of screen-positive patients advised; and proportion of consulting adult patients given an intervention (screening and advice to screen-positives) during the same 12-week implementation period. FINDINGS: During a 4-week baseline measurement period, the proportion of consulting adult patients who were screened for their alcohol consumption was 0.059 per PHCU (95% CI 0.034 to 0.084). Based on the factorial design, the ratio of the logged proportion screened during the 12-week implementation period was 1.48 (95% CI = 1.13-1.95) in PHCU that received TS versus PHCU that did not receive TS; for FR, the ratio was 2.00 (95% CI = 1.56-2.56). The option of referral to eBI did not lead to a higher proportion of patients screened. The ratio for TS plus FR was 2.34 (95% CI = 1.77-3.10), and the ratio for TS plus FR plus eBI was1.68 (95% CI = 1.11-2.53). CONCLUSIONS: Providing primary health-care units with training, support and financial reimbursement for delivering Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-C-based screening and advice to heavy drinkers increases screening for alcohol consumption. Providing primary health-care units with the option of referring screen-positive patients to an internet-based method of giving advice does not appear to increase screening for alcohol consumption.

Professional's Attitudes Do Not Influence Screening and Brief Interventions Rates for Hazardous and Harmful Drinkers: Results from ODHIN Study.

AIMS: To determine the relation between existing levels of alcohol screening and brief intervention rates in five European jurisdictions and role security and therapeutic commitment by the participating primary healthcare professionals. METHODS: Health care professionals consisting of, 409 GPs, 282 nurses and 55 other staff including psychologists, social workers and nurse aids from 120 primary health care centres participated in a cross-sectional 4-week survey. The participants registered all screening and brief intervention activities as part of their normal routine. The participants also completed the Shortened Alcohol and Alcohol Problems Perception Questionnaire (SAAPPQ), which measure role security and therapeutic commitment. RESULTS: The only significant but small relationship was found between role security and screening rate in a multilevel logistic regression analysis adjusted for occupation of the provider, number of eligible patients and the random effects of jurisdictions and primary health care units (PHCU). No significant relationship was found between role security and brief intervention rate nor between therapeutic commitment and screening rate/brief intervention rate. The proportion of patients screened varied across jurisdictions between 2 and 10%. CONCLUSION: The findings show that the studied factors (role security and therapeutic commitment) are not of great importance for alcohol screening and BI rates. Given the fact that screening and brief intervention implementation rate has not changed much in the last decade in spite of increased policy emphasis, training initiatives and more research being published, this raises a question about what else is needed to enhance implementation.

Identifying the gap between need and intervention for alcohol use disorders in Europe.

AIMS: A literature review of existing research on the prevalence of alcohol use disorders (AUDs) and availability of alcohol interventions in Europe was conducted. The review also explored what is known about the gap between need and provision of alcohol interventions in Europe. METHODS: The review search strategy included: (i) descriptive studies of alcohol intervention systems in Europe; (ii) studies of alcohol service provision in Europe; and (iii) studies of prevalence of AUD and alcohol needs assessment in Europe. RESULTS: Europe has a relatively high level of alcohol consumption and the resulting disabilities are the highest in the world. Most research on implementation of alcohol interventions in Europe has been restricted to screening and brief interventions. Alcohol needs assessment methodology has been developed but has not been applied in comparative studies across countries in Europe. CONCLUSIONS: This review points to key gaps in knowledge related to alcohol interventions in Europe. There is a lack of comparative data on variations in alcohol treatment systems across European countries and there is also a lack of comparative data on the prevalence of alcohol use disorders across European countries and the relative gap between need and access to treatment. The forthcoming Alcohol Measures for Public Health Research Alliance (AMPHORA) research project work package on 'Early identification and treatment' aims to address these gaps.