As genetics becomes increasingly integrated into all areas of health care and the use of complex genetic tests continues to grow, the clinical genetics workforce will likely face greatly increased demand for its services. To inform strategic planning by health-care systems to prepare to meet this future demand, we performed a scoping review of the genetics workforce in high-income countries, summarizing all available evidence on its composition and capacity published between 2010 and 2019. Five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PAIS, CINAHL, and Web of Science) and gray literature sources were searched, resulting in 162 unique studies being included in the review. The evidence presented includes the composition and size of the workforce, the scope of practice for genetics and nongenetics specialists, the time required to perform genetics-related tasks, case loads of genetics providers, and opportunities to increase efficiency and capacity. Our results indicate that there is currently a shortage of genetics providers and that there is a lack of consensus about the appropriate boundaries between the scopes of practice for genetics and nongenetics providers. Moreover, the results point to strategies that may be used to increase productivity and efficiency, including alternative service delivery models, streamlining processes, and the automation of tasks.

Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, public health measures such as isolation, quarantine, and social distancing are needed. Some of these measures can adversely affect mental health. Activities that can be performed at home may mitigate these consequences and improve overall mental well-being. In this study, home-based activities that have potential beneficial effects on mental health were examined. Methods A rapid review was conducted based on a search of the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PyscINFO, Global Health, epistemonikos.org, covid19reviews.org, and eppi.ioe.ac.uk/covid19_map_v13.html. Eligible studies include randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies published between 1/1/2000 and 28/05/2020 and that examined the impact of various activities on mental health outcomes in low-resource settings and contexts that lead to social isolation. Studies of activities that require mental health professionals or that could not be done at home were excluded. Two review authors performed title/abstract screening. At the full-text review stage, 25% of the potentially eligible studies were reviewed in full by two review authors; the rest were reviewed by one review author. Risk of bias assessment and data extraction were performed by one review author and checked by a second review author. The main outcome assessed was change or differences in mental health as expressed in Cohen’s d; analysis was conducted following the synthesis without meta-analysis guidelines (SWiM). PROSPERO registration: CRD42020186082. Results Of 1,236 unique records identified, 160 were reviewed in full, resulting in 16 included studies. The included studies reported on the beneficial effects of exercise, yoga, progressive muscle relaxation, and listening to relaxing music. One study reported on the association between solitary religious activities and post traumatic stress disorder symptoms. While most of the included studies examined activities in group settings, particularly among individuals in prisons, the activities were described as something that can be performed at home and alone. All included studies were assessed to be at risk of bias in one or more of the bias domains examined. Conclusions There is some evidence that certain home-based activities can promote mental wellness during the COVID-19 pandemic. Guidelines are needed to help optimize benefits while minimizing potential risks when performing these activities.

The risk of young-onset colorectal adenomas and cancer (yCRAC) in adults less than 50 years of age is increasing. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies to identify lifestyle and clinical risk factors associated with yCRAC risk. We searched Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies which: used an epidemiologic study design, involved individuals with yCRAC, evaluated at least 1 lifestyle or clinical factor, and applied multivariable regression approaches. We critically appraised the quality of included studies and calculated pooled measures of association (e.g. odds ratio [OR]) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. We identified 499 articles in our search with 9 included in a narrative synthesis and 6 included in a meta-analysis. We found in the pooled analysis that smoking and alcohol consumption were lifestyle factors associated with yCRAC, as were clinical factors including obesity elevated blood glucose, elevated blood pressure, and elevated triglycerides. We identified lifestyle and clinical risk factors associated with risk of yCRAC, which have potential implications for informing preventive efforts and modifying screening to target at-risk populations.

Aims The aim of this study was to synthesize the evidence on the effect of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) pharmacotherapy on health‐related quality of life (HRQoL). Methods and results We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in June 2020. Randomized placebo‐controlled trials evaluating contemporary HFrEF pharmacotherapy and reporting HRQoL as an outcome were included. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and GRADE certainty of evidence. The primary outcome was HRQoL at last available follow‐up analysed using a random‐effects model. We included 37 studies from 5770 identified articles. Risk of bias was low in 10 trials and high/unclear in 27 trials. High certainty evidence from meta‐analyses demonstrated improved HRQoL over placebo with sodium–glucose co‐transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors [standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08–0.23] and intravenous iron (SMD 0.52, 95% CI 0.04–1.00). Furthermore, high certainty evidence from ≥1 landmark trial further supported improved HRQoL with angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) (SMD 0.09, 95% CI 0.02–0.17), ivabradine (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.04–0.23), hydralazine–nitrate (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.04–0.44) vs. placebo, and for angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) compared with an angiotensin‐converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (SMD 0.09, 95% CI 0.02–0.17). Findings were inconclusive for ACE inhibitors, beta‐blockers, digoxin, and oral iron based on low‐to‐moderate certainty evidence. Conclusion ARBs, ARNIs, SGLT2 inhibitors, ivabradine, hydralazine–nitrate, and intravenous iron improved HRQoL in patients with HFrEF. These findings can be incorporated into discussions with patients to enable shared decision‐making.

Background Current heart failure (HF) guidelines recommend titrating angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and beta-blockers (BBs) to target doses used in pivotal placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Despite a number of RCTs comparing different doses (i.e. higher versus lower doses) of ACEIs, ARBs and BBs, the effects of higher versus lower doses on efficacy and safety remains unclear. For this reason, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of higher versus lower doses of ACEIs, ARBs and BBs in patients with HFrEF. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via Ovid from inception to April 25 th , 2018 and opentrials.net and clinicaltrials.gov for relevant trials that compared different doses of medications in heart failure. We analyzed trials by drug class (ACEIs, ARBs, and BBs) for efficacy outcomes (all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause hospitalizations, HF hospitalizations, HF worsening). For safety outcomes, we pooled trials within and across drug classes. Results Our meta-analysis consisted of 14 RCTs. Using GRADE criteria, the quality of evidence for ACEIs and ARBs was assessed as generally moderate for efficacy and high for adverse effects, whereas overall quality for BBs was very low to low. Over ~2–4 years higher versus lower doses of ACEIs, ARBs or BBs did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality [ACEIs relative risk (RR) 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.87–1.02)], ARBs RR 0.96 (0.87–1.04), BBs RR 0.25 (0.06–1.01)] or all cause hospitalizations [ACEIs relative risk (RR) 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.86–1.02)], ARBs RR 0.98 (0.93–1.04), BBs RR 0.93 (0.39–2.24)]. However, all point estimates favoured higher doses. Higher doses of ARBs significantly reduced hospitalization for HF [RR 0.89 (0.80–0.99)– 2.8% ARR], and higher doses of ACEIs and ARBs significantly reduced HF worsening [RR 0.85 (0.79–0.92)– 5.1% ARR and 0.91 (0.84–0.99)– 3.2% ARR, respectively] compared to lower doses. None of the differences between higher versus lower doses of BBs were significant; however, precision was low. Higher doses of these medications compared to lower doses increased the risk of discontinuation due to adverse events, hypotension, dizziness, and for ACEIs and ARBs, increased hyperkalemia and elevations in serum creatinine. Absolute increase in harms for adverse effects ranged from ~ 3 to 14%. Conclusions Higher doses of ACEIs and ARBs reduce the risk of HF worsening compared to lower doses, and higher doses of ARBs also reduce the risk of HF hospitalization but the evidence is sparse and imprecise. Higher doses increase the chance of adverse effects compared to lower doses. Evidence for BBs is inconclusive. These results support initially always starting at low doses of ACEIs/ARBs and only titr...