Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to navigation Skip directly to page options Skip directly to site content

Main|Search|PHGKB
Search PHGKB:

Last Posted: Sep 23, 2024
spot light Highlights

Wilson and Jungner Revisited: Are Screening Criteria Fit for the 21st Century?

From the abstract: "This systematic review revealed a set of general limitations of the WJ criteria, such as imprecise terminology, lack of measurability and objectivity, missing pediatric focus, and absent guidance on program management. Furthermore, it unraveled specific aspects of criticism on clinical, diagnostic, therapeutic, and economical aspects. A major obstacle was found to be the incompletely understood natural history and phenotypic diversity of rare diseases prior to NBS implementation, resulting in uncertainty about case definition, risk stratification, and indications for treatment. This gap could be closed through the systematic collection and evaluation of real-world evidence on the quality, safety, and (cost-)effectiveness of NBS, as well as the long-term benefits experienced by screened individuals. "

Health Care Costs After Genome-Wide Sequencing for Children With Rare Diseases in England and Canada

From the abstract: "Is diagnosis from genome-wide sequencing associated with reduced health care costs for children with suspected rare diseases? Findings: In this cohort study of 3 groups of children who underwent genome-wide sequencing in England (7775 children in a research study) or Canada (118 children who received publicly funded sequencing and 77 children in a research study), diagnosis from genome-wide sequencing was not associated with changes in health care or diagnostic costs. Meaning: These findings suggest that sustainable clinical implementation of genome-wide sequencing must be motivated by evidence of patient and family benefit and cost-effectiveness rather than promises of cost savings from earlier diagnosis. "

Family cascade screening for equitable identification of familial hypercholesterolemia: study protocol for a hybrid effectiveness-implementation type III randomized controlled trial

From the abstract: " Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is a heritable disorder affecting 1.3 million individuals in the USA. Eighty percent of people with FH are undiagnosed, particularly minoritized populations including Black or African American people, Asian or Asian American people, and women across racial groups. Family cascade screening is an evidence-based practice that can increase diagnosis and improve health outcomes but is rarely implemented in routine practice, representing an important care gap. In pilot work, we leveraged best practices from behavioral economics and implementation science—including mixed-methods contextual inquiry with clinicians, patients, and health system constituents—to co-design two patient-facing implementation strategies to address this care gap..."

Systematic reanalysis of genomic data by diagnostic laboratories: a scoping review of ethical, economic, legal and (psycho)social implications.
Marije A van der Geest et al. Eur J Hum Genet 2024 3

From the abstract: "In total, we identified nine ELSI aspects, such as (perceived) professional responsibilities, implications for consent and cost-effectiveness. The identified ELSI aspects brought forward necessary trade-offs for GHPs to consciously take into account when considering responsible implementation of systematic reanalysis of NGS data in routine diagnostics, balancing the various strains on their laboratories and personnel while creating optimal results for new and former patients. "


Disclaimer: Articles listed in the Public Health Genomics and Precision Health Knowledge Base are selected by the CDC Office of Public Health Genomics to provide current awareness of the literature and news. Inclusion in the update does not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nor does it imply endorsement of the article's methods or findings. CDC and DHHS assume no responsibility for the factual accuracy of the items presented. The selection, omission, or content of items does not imply any endorsement or other position taken by CDC or DHHS. Opinion, findings and conclusions expressed by the original authors of items included in the update, or persons quoted therein, are strictly their own and are in no way meant to represent the opinion or views of CDC or DHHS. References to publications, news sources, and non-CDC Websites are provided solely for informational purposes and do not imply endorsement by CDC or DHHS.

TOP