Survey on patients' organisations' knowledge and position paper on screening for inherited neuromuscular diseases in Europe.

Neuromuscular diseases Newborn screening Patient organisations Pre-conception carrier screening Pre-implantation diagnosis Prenatal screening

Journal

Orphanet journal of rare diseases
ISSN: 1750-1172
Titre abrégé: Orphanet J Rare Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101266602

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 02 2021
Historique:
received: 21 08 2020
accepted: 23 12 2020
entrez: 11 2 2021
pubmed: 12 2 2021
medline: 22 6 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The development of new genetic testing methods and the approval of the first treatments raises questions regarding when and how to perform screening for inherited neuromuscular conditions. Screening directives and access to the different techniques is not uniform across Europe. The patient advisory board of the European reference network for rare neuromuscular diseases (NMD) conducted a qualitative study to understand the state of play of screening for inherited NMD in Europe and patients' needs. We collected answers from 30 patient organisations (POs) from 18 European countries. Fifteen acknowledge the existence of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis in their country. Regarding prenatal screening, we had 25 positive answers and 5 negative ones. Twenty-four POs mentioned that newborn screening was available in their country. We had some contradictory answers from POs from the same country and in some cases; diseases said to be part of the screening programmes were not hereditary disorders. Twenty-eight organisations were in favour of screening tests. The reasons for the two negative answers were lack of reimbursement and treatment, religious beliefs and eventual insurance constrains. Most POs (21) were in favour of systematic screening with the option to opt-out. Regarding the timing for screening, "at birth", was the most consensual response. The main priority to perform screening for NMDs was early access to treatment, followed by shorter time to diagnostic, preventive care and genetic counselling. This is the first study to assess knowledge and needs of POs concerning screening for NMDs. The knowledge of POs regarding screening techniques is quite uneven. This implies that, even in communities highly motivated and knowledgeable of the conditions they advocate for, there is a need for better information. Differences in the responses to the questions "how and when to screen" shows that the screening path depends on the disease and the presence of a disease modifying treatment. The unmet need for screening inherited NMDs should follow an adaptive pathway related to the fast moving medical landscape of NMDs. International coordination leading to a common policy would certainly be a precious asset tending to harmonize the situation amongst European countries.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
The development of new genetic testing methods and the approval of the first treatments raises questions regarding when and how to perform screening for inherited neuromuscular conditions. Screening directives and access to the different techniques is not uniform across Europe. The patient advisory board of the European reference network for rare neuromuscular diseases (NMD) conducted a qualitative study to understand the state of play of screening for inherited NMD in Europe and patients' needs.
RESULTS
We collected answers from 30 patient organisations (POs) from 18 European countries. Fifteen acknowledge the existence of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis in their country. Regarding prenatal screening, we had 25 positive answers and 5 negative ones. Twenty-four POs mentioned that newborn screening was available in their country. We had some contradictory answers from POs from the same country and in some cases; diseases said to be part of the screening programmes were not hereditary disorders. Twenty-eight organisations were in favour of screening tests. The reasons for the two negative answers were lack of reimbursement and treatment, religious beliefs and eventual insurance constrains. Most POs (21) were in favour of systematic screening with the option to opt-out. Regarding the timing for screening, "at birth", was the most consensual response. The main priority to perform screening for NMDs was early access to treatment, followed by shorter time to diagnostic, preventive care and genetic counselling.
CONCLUSIONS
This is the first study to assess knowledge and needs of POs concerning screening for NMDs. The knowledge of POs regarding screening techniques is quite uneven. This implies that, even in communities highly motivated and knowledgeable of the conditions they advocate for, there is a need for better information. Differences in the responses to the questions "how and when to screen" shows that the screening path depends on the disease and the presence of a disease modifying treatment. The unmet need for screening inherited NMDs should follow an adaptive pathway related to the fast moving medical landscape of NMDs. International coordination leading to a common policy would certainly be a precious asset tending to harmonize the situation amongst European countries.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33568176
doi: 10.1186/s13023-020-01670-8
pii: 10.1186/s13023-020-01670-8
pmc: PMC7874448
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

75

Investigateurs

Dimitrios Athanasiou (D)
Evy Reviers (E)
François Lamy (F)
Jean-Philippe Plançon (JP)
Judit Varadine Csapo (JV)
Madelon Kroneman (M)
Marisol Montolio (M)
Massimo Marra (M)
Michela Onali (M)
Patrizia Garzena (P)

Références

J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016 Oct;33(10):1279-1286
pubmed: 27423665
Genet Test. 1998;2(4):271-92
pubmed: 10464605
Bull World Health Organ. 2008 Apr;86(4):317-9
pubmed: 18438522
Nat Rev Genet. 2016 Sep 15;17(10):643-56
pubmed: 27629932
Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014 Jun;19(3):214-9
pubmed: 24315623
J Neuromuscul Dis. 2019;6(4):503-515
pubmed: 31594245
Eur J Hum Genet. 2008 Mar;16(3):290-9
pubmed: 18091772
Obstet Gynecol Annu. 1983;12:79-102
pubmed: 6346164
Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2016 Dec;3:41-47
pubmed: 28959787
JAMA Neurol. 2016 Jan;73(1):111-6
pubmed: 26594870
J Paediatr Child Health. 2015 Mar;51(3):271-9
pubmed: 24923490
Pediatr Neurol. 2017 Dec;77:12-22
pubmed: 29079012
J Inherit Metab Dis. 2018 Mar;41(2):209-219
pubmed: 29143201
Semin Perinatol. 2015 Apr;39(3):171-87
pubmed: 25979780
J Community Genet. 2012 Jul;3(3):193-203
pubmed: 22183783
Dev Med Child Neurol. 2020 Oct;62(10):1198-1204
pubmed: 32692451
Reproduction. 2020 Nov;160(5):A1-A11
pubmed: 32130205
Neuromuscul Disord. 2019 May;29(5):343-349
pubmed: 31030938

Auteurs

F Lamy (F)

Association Française contre les Myopathies, AFM-Téléthon, Evry, France.

A Ferlini (A)

Unit of Medical Genetics, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.

Teresinha Evangelista (T)

Neuromuscular Morphology Unit, Myology Institute, Groupe Hospitalier Universitaire La Pitié-Salpêtrière, 75013, Paris, France. t.evangelista@institut-myologie.org.
AP-HP, Centre de Référence des Maladies Neuromusculaires Nord/Est/Ile de France, Sorbonne Université - Inserm UMRS 974, Paris, France. t.evangelista@institut-myologie.org.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH