4.5 Article

Value of genetic testing for pediatric epilepsy: Driving earlier diagnosis of ceroid lipofuscinosis type 2 Batten disease

期刊

EPILEPSIA
卷 63, 期 7, 页码 E68-E73

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/epi.17269

关键词

Batten disease; developmental delay; enzyme replacement therapy; genetic epilepsy; genetic testing; neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis

资金

  1. BioMarin Pharmaceutical, Inc

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study assessed the effectiveness of genetic testing in shortening the time to diagnosis of late infantile neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis type 2 (CLN2) disease. The findings indicate that facilitated access to early epilepsy gene panel testing helps to increase diagnostic yield for CLN2 disease and shortens the time to diagnosis, enabling earlier intervention.
This study assessed the effectiveness of genetic testing in shortening the time to diagnosis of late infantile neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis type 2 (CLN2) disease. Individuals who received epilepsy gene panel testing through Behind the Seizure (R), a sponsored genetic testing program (Cohort A), were compared to children outside of the sponsored testing program during the same period (Cohort B). Two cohorts were analyzed: children aged >= 24 to <= 60 months with unprovoked seizure onset at >= 24 months between December 2016 and January 2020 (Cohort 1) and children aged 0 to <= 60 months at time of testing with unprovoked seizure onset at any age between February 2019 and January 2020 (Cohort 2). The diagnostic yield in Cohort 1A (n = 1814) was 8.4% (n = 153). The TPP1 diagnostic yield within Cohort 1A was 2.9-fold higher compared to Cohort 1B (1.0%, n = 18/1814 vs. .35%, n = 8/2303; p = .0157). The average time from first symptom to CLN2 disease diagnosis was significantly shorter than previously reported (9.8 vs. 22.7 months, p < .001). These findings indicate that facilitated access to early epilepsy gene panel testing helps to increase diagnostic yield for CLN2 disease and shortens the time to diagnosis, enabling earlier intervention.

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