With the development of next generation sequencing, beyond identifying the cause of manifestations that justified prescription of the test, other information with potential interest for patients and their families, defined as secondary findings (SF), can be provided once patients have given informed consent, in particular when therapeutic and preventive options are available. The disclosure of such findings has caused much debate. The aim of this work was to summarize all opinion-based studies focusing on SF, so as to shed light on the concerns that this question generate. A review of the literature was performed, focusing on all PubMed articles reporting qualitative, quantitative or mixed studies that interviewed healthcare providers, participants, or society regarding this subject. The methodology was carefully analysed, in particular whether or not studies made the distinction between actionable and non-actionable SF, in a clinical or research context. From 2010 to 2016, 39 articles were compiled. A total of 14,868 people were interviewed (1259 participants, 6104 healthcare providers, 7505 representatives of society). When actionable and non-actionable SF were distinguished (20 articles), 92% of respondents were keen to have results regarding actionable SF (participants: 88%, healthcare providers: 86%, society: 97%), against 70% (participants: 83%, healthcare providers: 62%, society: 73%) for non-actionable SF. These percentages were slightly lower in the specific situation of children probands. For respondents, the notion of the «patient's choice» is crucial. For healthcare providers, the importance of defining policies for SF among diagnostic lab, learning societies and/or countries is outlined, in particular regarding the content and extension of the list of actionable genes to propose, the modalities of information, and the access to information about adult-onset diseases in minors. However, the existing literature should be taken with caution, since most articles lack a clear definition of SF and actionability, and referred to hypothetical scenarios with limited information to respondents. Studies conducted by multidisciplinary teams involving patients with access to results are sadly lacking, in particular in the medium term after the results have been given. Such studies would feed the debate and make it possible to measure the impact of such findings and their benefit-risk ratio.

Exome sequencing (ES) has revolutionized diagnostic procedures in medical genetics, particularly for developmental diseases. The variety and complexity of the information produced has raised issues regarding its use in a clinical setting. Of particular interest are patients' expectations regarding the information disclosed, the accompaniment provided, and the value patients place on these. To explore these issues in parents of children with developmental disorders and no diagnosis with known etiology, a multidisciplinary group of researchers from social and behavioral sciences and patient organizations conducted a mixed-methodology study (quantitative and qualitative) in two centers of expertise for rare diseases in France. The quantitative study aimed to determine the preferences of 513 parents regarding the disclosure of ES results. It showed that parents wished to have exhaustive information, including variants of unknown significance possibly linked to their child's disorder and secondary findings. This desire for information could be a strategy to maximize the chances of obtaining a diagnosis. The qualitative study aimed to understand the expectations and reactions of 57 parents interviewed just after the return of ES results. In-depth analysis showed that parents had ambivalent feelings about the findings whatever the results returned. The contrasting results from these studies raise questions about the value of the information provided and parents' high expectations regarding the results. The nature of parental expectations has emerged as an important topic in efforts to optimize accompaniment and support for families during the informed decision-making process and after disclosure of the results in an overall context of uncertainty.

No abstract

No abstract

Background In France, the Ministry of Health has implemented a comprehensive program for rare diseases (RD) that includes an epidemiological program as well as the establishment of expert centers for the clinical care of patients with RD. Since 2007, most of these centers have entered the data for patients with developmental disorders into the CEMARA population-based registry, a national online data repository for all rare diseases. Through the CEMARA web portal, descriptive demographic data, clinical data, and the chronology of medical follow-up can be obtained for each center. We address the interest and ongoing challenges of this national data collection system 10 years after its implementation. Methods Since 2007, clinicians and researchers have reported the “minimum dataset (MDS)” for each patient presenting to their expert center. We retrospectively analyzed administrative data, demographic data, care organization and diagnoses. Results Over 10 years, 228,243 RD patients (including healthy carriers and family members for whom experts denied any suspicion of RD) have visited an expert center. Among them, 167,361 were patients affected by a RD (median age 11 years, 54% children, 46% adults, with a balanced sex ratio), and 60,882 were unaffected relatives (median age 37 years). The majority of patients (87%) were seen no more than once a year, and 52% of visits were for a diagnostic procedure. Among the 2,869 recorded rare disorders, 1,907 (66.5%) were recorded in less than 10 patients, 802 (28%) in 10 to 100 patients, 149 (5.2%) in 100 to 1,000 patients, and 11 (0.4%) in > 1,000 patients. Overall, 45.6% of individuals had no diagnosis and 6.7% had an uncertain diagnosis. Children were mainly referred by their pediatrician (46%; n = 55,755 among the 121,136 total children referrals) and adults by a medical specialist (34%; n = 14,053 among the 41,564 total adult referrals). Given the geographical coverage of the centers, the median distance from the patient’s home was 25.1 km (IQR = 6.3 km-64.2 km). Conclusions CEMARA provides unprecedented support for epidemiological, clinical and therapeutic studies in the field of RD. Researchers can benefit from the national scope of CEMARA data, but also focus on specific diseases or patient subgroups. While this endeavor has been a major collective effort among French RD experts to gather large-scale data into a single database, it provides tremendous potential to improve patient care.

Individuals with special education needs have been particularly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic as they have been shown to be at high risk of losing medical and institutional support at a time when people are being asked to stay isolated, suffering increased anxiety and depression as a consequence. Their families have often found themselves under tremendous pressure to provide support, engendering financial hardship, and physical and emotional strains. In such times, it is vital that international collaborations assess the impact on the individuals and their families, affording the opportunity to make national and international comparisons of how people have coped and what needs to be done to optimize the measures taken by families, associations and governments. This paper introduces one such collaboration.

Dans notre société, la montée en puissance de la médecine moderne scientifique, avec l’avènement de hautes technologies, semble laisser de moins en moins de place au hasard et alimente l’illusion du tout identifiable et du tout guérissable. Dans ce contexte, les attentes des parents autour de l’annonce d’un diagnostic chez leur enfant atteint d’anomalies du développement peuvent être très fortes. Ils attendent, voire exigent, du généticien l’énoncé d’un savoir scientifique concernant l’origine de la pathologie de leur enfant, ses manifestations et son pronostic d’évolution. Lorsque la maladie ne peut être nommée, l’errance diagnostique se prolonge, et avec elle de profonds et douloureux sentiments d’isolement et d’impuissance. Face à cet effondrement massif de repères, de surcroît imposé par la découverte du handicap de l’enfant, le besoin de réassurance parentale sous-tendrait une recherche profonde de sens, elle-même alimentée par une quête identitaire. Le mystère des origines et du devenir, associé au besoin impérieux de trouver des semblables et un groupe d’appartenance, peut s’en trouver exacerbé dans un contexte de maladies rares, d’autant plus avec l’arrivée de la médecine génomique. Dans cette optique, qu’un diagnostic advienne ou non, il n’apportera que des réponses partielles, il ne sera qu’une étape, parfois très importante certes, au fil de parcours individuels et familiaux. Un certain éloge de l’incertitude, irréductible et inhérente à l’avenir, contribue au travail d’élaboration psychique, au service d’une identité narrative qui ne cesse de se faire et de se défaire. C’est au fil de longs cheminements que l’accompagnement psychologique des familles a toute sa place.

No abstract