Search

Genomic testing is becoming routine for diagnosing rare childhood genetic disease. Evidence underlying sustainable implementation is limited, focusing on short-term endpoints such as diagnostic yield, unable to fully characterize patient and family valued outcomes. Although genomic testing is becoming widely available, evidentiary and outcomes uncertainty persist as key challenges for implementation. We examine whether the current evidence base reflects public tolerance for uncertainty for genomics to diagnose rare childhood genetic disease. We conducted focus groups with general population parents in Vancouver, Canada, and Oxford, United Kingdom, to discuss expectations and concerns related to genomic testing to diagnose rare childhood genetic disease. Applying a purposive sampling technique, recruitment continued until thematic saturation was reached. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Thirty-three parents participated across four focus groups. Participants valued causal diagnoses alongside management strategies to improve patient health and wellbeing. Further, participants valued expanding the evidence base to reduce evidentiary uncertainty while ensuring security of information. Willingness to pay out of pocket for testing reflected perceived familial health benefit. Diagnostic yield fails to fully capture valued outcomes, and efforts to resolve uncertainty better reflect public priorities. Evaluations of genomic testing that fully integrate valued endpoints are necessary to ensure consistency with best practices and public willingness to accept the uncertain familial benefit.

Background Asthma is associated with enormous healthcare expenditures that include both direct and indirect costs. It is also associated with the loss of future potential earnings related to both morbidity and mortality. The objective of the study is to determine the burden of disease costs associated with asthma. Methods We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CDSR, OHE-HEED, and Web of Science Databases between 1966 and 2008. Results Sixty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Hospitalization and medications were found to be the most important cost driver of direct costs. Work and school loss accounted for the greatest percentage of indirect costs. The cost of asthma was correlated with comorbidities, age, and disease severity. Conclusion Despite the availability of effective preventive therapy, costs associated with asthma are increasing. Strategies including education of patients and physicians, and regular follow-up are required to reduce the economic burden of asthma.

Background: Asthma is difficult to diagnose in children and at times misdiagnosis of an infection can occur. However, little is known about the magnitude and patterns of antibiotic consumption in children with asthma relative to those without asthma. Methods: Using population-based data, 128,872 children were identified with at least 6 years of follow-up. The adjusted rate-ratio (RR) of antibiotics dispensed to asthmatic as compared to non-asthmatic children was determined. Results: At age six, the RR of antibiotic consumption for asthmatics compared to non-asthmatics varied between, 1.66 to 2.32, depending on the year of asthma diagnosis. Of the 18,864 children with asthma at ages 2-8, 52% (n = 9,841) had antibiotics dispensed in the 6 months prior to their index date of asthma diagnosis. The RR of antibiotic consumption in the 1 month prior to asthma diagnosis compared to 5 months prior was 1.66 (95% CI 1.60-1.71). The RR was lower in males compared to females (1.58 vs 1.77), and lower in those who received antibiotics in the first year of life relative to those that did not (1.60 vs. 1.76). Conclusions: There is higher antibiotic consumption in children with asthma compared to those without asthma. The pattern of antibiotic use suggests that diagnosis guidelines are difficult to follow in young children leading to misdiagnosis and over treatment with antibiotics.

Background: The osmole gap is used routinely as a screening test for the presence of exogenous osmotically active substances, such as the toxic alcohols ethylene glycol and methanol, particularly when the ability to measure serum concentrations of the substances is not available. The objectives of this study were: 1) to measure the diagnostic accuracy of the osmole gap for screening for ethylene glycol and methanol exposure, and 2) to identify whether a recently proposed modification of the ethanol coefficient affects the diagnostic accuracy. Methods: Electronic laboratory records from two tertiary-care hospitals were searched to identify all patients for whom a serum ethylene glycol and methanol measurement was ordered between January 1, 1996 and March 31, 2002. Cases were eligible for analysis if serum sodium, blood urea nitrogen, glucose, ethanol, ethylene glycol, methanol, and osmolality were measured simultaneously. Serum molarity was calculated using the Smithline and Gardner equation and ethanol coefficients of 1 and 1.25 mOsm/mM. The diagnostic accuracy of the osmole gap was evaluated for identifying patients with toxic alcohol levels above the recommended threshold for antidotal therapy and hemodialysis using receiver-operator characteristic curves, likelihood ratios, and positive and negative predictive values. Results: One hundred and thirty-one patients were included in the analysis, 20 of whom had ethylene glycol or methanol serum concentrations above the threshold for antidotal therapy. The use of an ethanol coefficient of 1.25 mOsm/mM yielded higher specificities and positive predictive values, without affecting sensitivity and negative predictive values. Employing an osmole gap threshold of 10 for the identification of patients requiring antidotal therapy resulted in a sensitivity of 0.9 and 0.85, and a specificity of 0.22 and 0. 5, with equations 1 and 2 respectively. The sensitivity increased to 1 for both equations for the identification of patients requiring dialysis. Conclusion: In this sample, an osmole gap threshold of 10 has a sensitivity and negative predictive value of 1 for identifying patients for whom hemodialysis is recommended, independent of the ethanol coefficient applied. In patients potentially requiring antidotal therapy, applying an ethanol coefficient of 1.25 resulted in a higher specificity and positive predictive value without compromising the sensitivity.