ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness of targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels in achieving a molecular diagnosis in Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT) and related disorders in a clinical setting.MethodsWe prospectively enrolled 220 patients from 2 tertiary referral centers, one in London, United Kingdom (n = 120), and one in Iowa (n = 100), in whom a targeted CMT NGS panel had been requested as a diagnostic test. PMP22 duplication/deletion was previously excluded in demyelinating cases. We reviewed the genetic and clinical data upon completion of the diagnostic process.ResultsAfter targeted NGS sequencing, a definite molecular diagnosis, defined as a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant, was reached in 30% of cases (n = 67). The diagnostic rate was similar in London (32%) and Iowa (29%). Variants of unknown significance were found in an additional 33% of cases. Mutations in GJB1, MFN2, and MPZ accounted for 39% of cases that received genetic confirmation, while the remainder of positive cases had mutations in diverse genes, including SH3TC2, GDAP1, IGHMBP2, LRSAM1, FDG4, and GARS, and another 12 less common genes. Copy number changes in PMP22, MPZ, MFN2, SH3TC2, and FDG4 were also accurately detected. A definite genetic diagnosis was more likely in cases with an early onset, a positive family history of neuropathy or consanguinity, and a demyelinating neuropathy.ConclusionsNGS panels are effective tools in the diagnosis of CMT, leading to genetic confirmation in one-third of cases negative for PMP22 duplication/deletion, thus highlighting how rarer and previously undiagnosed subtypes represent a relevant part of the genetic landscape of CMT.

Cardiovascular genetics is a rapidly evolving subspecialty within cardiovascular medicine, and its growth is attributed to advances in genome sequencing and genetic testing and the expanding understanding of the genetic basis of multiple cardiac conditions, including arrhythmias (channelopathies), heart failure (cardiomyopathies), lipid disorders, cardiac complications of neuromuscular conditions, and vascular disease, including aortopathies. There have also been great advances in clinical diagnostic methods, as well as in therapies to ameliorate symptoms, slow progression of disease, and mitigate the risk of adverse outcomes. Emerging challenges include interpretation of genetic test results and the evaluation, counseling, and management of genetically at-risk family members who have inherited pathogenic variants but do not yet manifest disease. With these advances and challenges, there is a need for specialized programs combining both cardiovascular medicine and genetics expertise. The integration of clinical cardiovascular findings, including those obtained from physical examination, imaging, and functional assessment, with genetic information allows for improved diagnosis, prognostication, and cascade family testing to identify and to manage risk, and in some cases to provide genotype-specific therapy. This emerging subspecialty may ultimately require a new cardiovascular subspecialist, the genetic cardiologist, equipped with these combined skills, to permit interpretation of genetic variation within the context of phenotype and to extend the utility of genetic testing. This scientific statement outlines current best practices for delivering cardiovascular genetic evaluation and care in both the pediatric and the adult settings, with a focus on team member expertise and conditions that most benefit from genetic evaluation.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the sensitivity of Rasch analysis-based, weighted Charcot-Marie-Tooth Neuropathy and Examination Scores (CMTNS-R and CMTES-R) to clinical progression in patients with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1A (CMT1A).MethodsPatients with CMT1A from 18 sites of the Inherited Neuropathies Consortium were evaluated between 2009 and 2018. Weighted CMTNS and CMTES modified category responses were developed with Rasch analysis of the standard scores. Change from baseline for CMTNS-R and CMTES-R was estimated with longitudinal regression models.ResultsBaseline CMTNS-R and CMTES-R scores were available for 517 and 1,177 participants, respectively. Mean ± SD age of participants with available CMTES-R scores was 41 ± 18 (range 4–87) years, and 56% were female. Follow-up CMTES-R assessments at 1, 2, and 3 years were available for 377, 321, and 244 patients. A mixed regression model showed significant change in CMTES-R score at years 2 through 6 compared to baseline (mean change from baseline 0.59 points at 2 years, p = 0.0004, n = 321). Compared to the original CMTES, the CMTES-R revealed a 55% improvement in the standardized response mean (mean change/SD change) at 2 years (0.17 vs 0.11). Change in CMTES-R at 2 years was greatest in mildly to moderately affected patients (1.48-point mean change, 95% confidence interval 0.99–1.97, p < 0.0001, for baseline CMTES-R score 0–9).ConclusionThe CMTES-R demonstrates change over time in patients with CMT1A and is more sensitive than the original CMTES. The CMTES-R was most sensitive to change in patients with mild to moderate baseline disease severity and failed to capture progression in patients with severe CMT1A.ClinicalTrials.gov identifierNCT01193075.