4.7 Article

Addressing the routine failure to clinically identify monogenic cases of common disease

期刊

GENOME MEDICINE
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13073-022-01062-6

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Changes in medical practice are needed to improve the diagnosis of monogenic forms of common diseases. This article highlights the importance of universal genetic testing in common diseases where the standard clinical management diverges from specific monogenic forms. The authors provide evidence for the need of genetic testing, discuss barriers, and propose recommendations for changes in testing and care delivery.
Changes in medical practice are needed to improve the diagnosis of monogenic forms of selected common diseases. This article seeks to focus attention on the need for universal genetic testing in common diseases for which the recommended clinical management of patients with specific monogenic forms of disease diverges from standard management and has evidence for improved outcomes. We review evidence from genomic screening of large patient cohorts, which has confirmed that important monogenic case identification failures are commonplace in routine clinical care. These case identification failures constitute diagnostic misattributions, where the care of individuals with monogenic disease defaults to the treatment plan offered to those with polygenic or non-genetic forms of the disease. The number of identifiable and actionable monogenic forms of common diseases is increasing with time. Here, we provide six examples of common diseases for which universal genetic test implementation would drive improved care. We examine the evidence to support genetic testing for common diseases, and discuss barriers to widespread implementation. Finally, we propose recommendations for changes to genetic testing and care delivery aimed at reducing diagnostic misattributions, to serve as a starting point for further evaluation and development of evidence-based guidelines for implementation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据