Rare diseases, an emerging global public health priority, require an evidence-based estimate of the global point prevalence to inform public policy. We used the publicly available epidemiological data in the Orphanet database to calculate such a prevalence estimate. Overall, Orphanet contains information on 6172 unique rare diseases; 71.9% of which are genetic and 69.9% which are exclusively pediatric onset. Global point prevalence was calculated using rare disease prevalence data for predefined geographic regions from the 'Orphanet Epidemiological file' (http://www.orphadata.org/cgi-bin/epidemio.html). Of the 5304 diseases defined by point prevalence, 84.5% of those analysed have a point prevalence of <1/1 000 000. However 77.3-80.7% of the population burden of rare diseases is attributable to the 4.2% (n = 149) diseases in the most common prevalence range (1-5 per 10 000). Consequently national definitions of 'Rare Diseases' (ranging from prevalence of 5 to 80 per 100 000) represent a variable number of rare disease patients despite sharing the majority of rare disease in their scope. Our analysis yields a conservative, evidence-based estimate for the population prevalence of rare diseases of 3.5-5.9%, which equates to 263-446 million persons affected globally at any point in time. This figure is derived from data from 67.6% of the prevalent rare diseases; using the European definition of 5 per 10 000; and excluding rare cancers, infectious diseases, and poisonings. Future registry research and the implementation of rare disease codification in healthcare systems will further refine the estimates.

The profession of genetic counseling (also called genetic counselling in many countries) began nearly 50 years ago in the United States, and has grown internationally in the past 30 years. While there have been many papers describing the profession of genetic counseling in individual countries or regions, data remains incomplete and has been published in diverse journals with limited access. As a result of the 2016 Transnational Alliance of Genetic Counseling (TAGC) conference in Barcelona, Spain, and the 2017 World Congress of Genetic Counselling in the UK, we endeavor to describe as fully as possible the global state of genetic counseling as a profession. We estimate that in 2018 there are nearly 7000 genetic counselors with the profession established or developing in no less than 28 countries.

Autosomal dominant osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) is caused by mutations in the genes (COL1A1 or COL1A2) encoding the chains of type I collagen. Recently, dysregulation of hydroxylation of a single proline residue at position 986 of both the triple-helical domains of type I collagen α1(I) and type II collagen α1(II) chains has been implicated in the pathogenesis of recessive forms of OI. Two proteins, CRTAP, or cartilage-associated protein, and prolyl-3-hydroxylase-1 (P3H1, encoded by the LEPRE1 gene) form a complex that performs the hydroxylation and brings the prolyl cis-trans isomerase cyclophilin-B (CYPB) to the unfolded collagen. In our screen of 78 subjects diagnosed with OI type II or III, we identified three probands with mutations in CRTAP and sixteen with mutations in LEPRE1. The latter group includes a mutation in patients from the Irish Traveller population, a genetically isolated community with increased incidence of OI. The clinical features resulting from CRTAP or LEPRE1 loss of function mutations were difficult to distinguish at birth. Infants in both groups had multiple fractures, decreased bone modeling (affecting especially the femurs), and extremely low bone mineral density. Interestingly, “popcorn” epiphyses may reflect underlying cartilaginous and bone dysplasia in this form of OI. These results expand the range of CRTAP/LEPRE1 mutations that result in recessive OI and emphasize the importance of distinguishing recurrence of severe OI of recessive inheritance from those that result from parental germline mosaicism for COL1A1 or COL1A2 mutations.

No abstract

No abstract

Quality genetic healthcare services should be available throughout Europe. However, due to enhanced diagnostic and genetic testing options, the pressure on genetic counselling services has increased. It has been shown in many countries that appropriately trained genetic counsellors and genetic nurses can offer clinical care for patients seeking information or testing for a wide range of genetic conditions. The European Society of Human Genetics is setting up a system of accreditation for genetic counsellors, to ensure safe practice, however there has been little information about the practice and education of non-medical genetic counsellors in Europe. To collect baseline data, we approached key informants (leaders in national genetics organisations or experienced practitioners) to complete an online survey, reporting on the situation in their own country. Twenty-nine practitioners responded, providing data from 18 countries. The findings indicate huge variation in genetic counsellor numbers, roles, and education across Europe. For example, in UK and The Netherlands, there are more than four counsellors per million population, while in Germany, Hungary, Turkey, and Czech Republic, there are no non-medical counsellors. There are specific educational programmes for genetic counsellors in seven countries, but only France has a specific governing legal framework for genetic counsellors. In the post-genomic era, with added pressure on health systems due to increases in availability and use of genetic testing, these disparities are likely to result in inequalities in service provided to European citizens. This study underpins the need for a coherent European approach to accreditation of genetic counsellors.

No abstract

Advances in genetics have meant that the genetic services are now accessed by increasing numbers of patients. One way of dealing with the pressure on services without jeopardising patient care is the inclusion of nonmedical genetic counsellors and genetic nurses in the genetic services team. However, a cohesive approach to the profession has been lacking in Europe, and an educational programme and registration system for European practitioners is required. The aim of this study was to ascertain the type of work undertaken by genetic nurses and counsellors in Europe and the context in which they practised. We used a cross-sectional survey design to collect data from 213 practitioners, either genetic nurses or genetic counsellors, from 18 European countries. Respondents completed the survey online, and data were analysed using descriptive statistics and cross-tabulations. The majority were involved in undertaking the initial contact with the patient (89.9 %) and explaining the genetic test to the patient (91.5 %), while 74 % ordered tests and 91.4 % obtained informed consent for such tests. Psychological support before and after genetic testing was provided by 80.2 % of respondents, and 82.1 % reported regularly managing cases autonomously. While the genetic counselling profession is barely established in some countries, counsellors are able to contribute substantially to patient care as part of the multi-disciplinary team. Further efforts to establish the profession at the European level through a registration process will enhance the confidence in this new group of allied health professionals.