4.5 Article

Genetic Testing for Congenital Bilateral Hearing Loss in the Context of Targeted Cytomegalovirus Screening

期刊

LARYNGOSCOPE
卷 130, 期 11, 页码 2714-2718

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lary.28536

关键词

Congenital cytomegalovirus; genetic testing; newborn hearing screen

资金

  1. National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders [R01 DC002842, R01 DC012049]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives/Hypothesis To determine the prevalence of children with genetic hearing loss who are cytomegalovirus (CMV) positive at birth and the relative proportion of genetic and CMV etiology among children with congenital bilateral hearing loss. Study Design Database review. Methods We performed a review of clinical test results for patients undergoing comprehensive genetic testing for all known hearing loss-associated genes from January 2012 to January 2019. This population was reviewed for reported CMV status and genetic causes of congenital bilateral hearing loss. Results In the OtoSCOPE database, 61/4,282 patients were found to have a documented CMV status, and 661/4282 had documented bilateral congenital hearing loss. Two patients were identified who had both a positive CMV result and a genetic cause for their hearing loss. Forty-eight percent of patients with bilateral congenital hearing loss (320/661) were found to have a genetic etiology. In 62% (198/320), the hearing loss was associated with pathogenic variants in GJB2, STRC, SLC26A4 or an Usher syndrome-associated gene. Conclusions We estimate that similar to 2% of CMV-positive newborns with hearing loss have a known genetic variant as a cause. The subcohort of CMV-positive newborns with symmetric mild-to-moderate bilateral hearing loss will have at least a 7% chance of having pathogenic gene variants associated with hearing loss. In a CMV-positive neonate who failed their newborn hearing screen bilaterally, genetic screening needs to be considered for accurate diagnosis and possible deferment of antiviral treatment.

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

4.5
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