High rates of unsuccessful transfer to adult care among young adults with juvenile idiopathic arthritis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study aimed to describe the proportion of patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) who had experienced an unsuccessful transfer from a pediatric rheumatology team to an adult rheumatologist and to compare the characteristics of those who achieved successful transfer to those who did not.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a systematic chart review of all patients with JIA who attended their final Montreal Children's Hospital JIA clinic appointment between 1992 and 2005. We tracked these patients for the two years after transfer to an adult rheumatologist. We then compared characteristics of patients with successful and unsuccessful transfers of care. Variables pertaining to disease characteristics, disease severity and psychosocial factors were examined. Univariate analyses were performed to determine if any single factor was associated with the outcome of unsuccessful transfer of care.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>52% of patients fulfilled our criteria for unsuccessful transfer. Of the variables tested, an active joint count (AJC) of zero at last visit was associated with the outcome of unsuccessful transfer (OR = 2.67 (CI 1.16-6.16; p = 0.0199)).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Despite the presence of a coordinated process of transfer from pediatric to adult health care for the majority of the patients in this study, there was a high rate of unsuccessful transfer and/or sustained follow up which is disheartening. We found that patients with less active disease at the time of transfer, as indicated by a lower AJC, were more likely to be lost to follow up. Recent literature suggests that even in the least severe categories of JIA, 50% of patients persist with active disease into adulthood. Thus educating all JIA patients about the possibility of disease flare in adulthood may improve their adherence to recommendations for sustained follow-up in the adult milieu. This may lead to improvement of longitudinal outcomes for all JIA patients.</p

100,000 Genomes Pilot on Rare-Disease Diagnosis in Health Care — Preliminary Report

BACKGROUND: The U.K. 100,000 Genomes Project is in the process of investigating the role of genome sequencing in patients with undiagnosed rare diseases after usual care and the alignment of this research with health care implementation in the U.K. National Health Service. Other parts of this project focus on patients with cancer and infection. METHODS: We conducted a pilot study involving 4660 participants from 2183 families, among whom 161 disorders covering a broad spectrum of rare diseases were present. We collected data on clinical features with the use of Human Phenotype Ontology terms, undertook genome sequencing, applied automated variant prioritization on the basis of applied virtual gene panels and phenotypes, and identified novel pathogenic variants through research analysis. RESULTS: Diagnostic yields varied among family structures and were highest in family trios (both parents and a proband) and families with larger pedigrees. Diagnostic yields were much higher for disorders likely to have a monogenic cause (35%) than for disorders likely to have a complex cause (11%). Diagnostic yields for intellectual disability, hearing disorders, and vision disorders ranged from 40 to 55%. We made genetic diagnoses in 25% of the probands. A total of 14% of the diagnoses were made by means of the combination of research and automated approaches, which was critical for cases in which we found etiologic noncoding, structural, and mitochondrial genome variants and coding variants poorly covered by exome sequencing. Cohortwide burden testing across 57,000 genomes enabled the discovery of three new disease genes and 19 new associations. Of the genetic diagnoses that we made, 25% had immediate ramifications for clinical decision making for the patients or their relatives. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot study of genome sequencing in a national health care system showed an increase in diagnostic yield across a range of rare diseases. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and others.)