The evolution of comprehensive genetic analysis in neurology: Implications for precision medicine

Education and training in neurology: developments and future challenges

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Training and education is essential for best practice medicine and is especially important in a rapidly evolving field such as neurology. Due to improved imaging techniques and laboratory testing, there is a better understanding of the pathophysiology of diseases. As a result more treatments have become available. The most important developments in neurology over the last two decades and their effect on training and education are described. In addition, how future training should be aware of the challenges ahead of us is described.

METHODS

This is a narrative review describing developments and challenges based on personal experience and the literature.

RESULTS

Due to major developments in radiological and immunological testing, major changes have been seen in different subspecialties of neurology, including but not limited to, the treatment of ischaemic stroke, the development of new entities in the field of demyelinating diseases and auto-immune encephalitis, and diffuse glioma. These developments challenge the education and training in neurology with, ahead of us, technological developments, an aging population, and potentially more superspecialization.

CONCLUSION

Although there are differences in the training curricula between European countries, the developments and future challenges within the field of neurology are very similar. In the development of future curricula it is important to face these developments and challenges and to adapt to them.

Innovation at the Intersection: Emerging Translational Research in Neurology and Psychiatry

Translational research in neurological and psychiatric diseases is a rapidly advancing field that promises to redefine our approach to these complex conditions [...].

Leveraging multiple approaches for the detection of pathogenic deep intronic variants in developmental and epileptic encephalopathies: A case report

About 50% of individuals with developmental and epileptic encephalopathies (DEEs) are unsolved following genetic testing. Deep intronic variants, defined as >100 bp from exon-intron junctions, contribute to disease by affecting the splicing of mRNAs in clinically relevant genes. Identifying deep intronic pathogenic variants is challenging and resource intensive, and interpretation is difficult due to limited functional annotations. We aimed to identify deep intronic variants in individuals suspected to have unsolved single gene DEEs. In a research cohort of unsolved cases of DEEs, we searched for children with a DEE syndrome predominantly caused by variants in specific genes in >80% of described cases. We identified two children with Dravet syndrome and one individual with classic lissencephaly. Multiple sequencing and bioinformatics strategies were employed to interrogate intronic regions in SCN1A and PAFAH1B1. A novel de novo deep intronic 12 kb deletion in PAFAH1B1 was identified in the individual with lissencephaly. We showed experimentally that the deletion disrupts mRNA splicing, which results in partial intron retention after exon 2 and disruption of the highly conserved LisH motif. We demonstrate that targeted interrogation of deep intronic regions using multiple genomics technologies, coupled with functional analysis, can reveal hidden causes of unsolved monogenic DEE syndromes. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Deep intronic variants can cause disease by affecting the splicing of mRNAs in clinically relevant genes. A deep intronic deletion that caused abnormal splicing of the PAFAH1B1 gene was identified in a patient with classic lissencephaly. Our findings reinforce that targeted interrogation of deep intronic regions and functional analysis can reveal hidden causes of unsolved epilepsy syndromes.

Disparities in Genetic Testing for Neurologic Disorders

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Genetic testing is now the standard of care for many neurologic conditions. Health care disparities are unfortunately widespread in the US health care system, but disparities in the utilization of genetic testing for neurologic conditions have not been studied. We tested the hypothesis that access to and results of genetic testing vary according to race, ethnicity, sex, socioeconomic status, and insurance status for adults with neurologic conditions.

METHODS

We analyzed retrospective data from patients who underwent genetic evaluation and testing through our institution's neurogenetics program. We tested for differences between demographic groups in 3 steps of a genetic evaluation pathway: (1) attending a neurogenetic evaluation, (2) completing genetic testing, and (3) receiving a diagnostic result. We compared patients on this genetic evaluation pathway with the population of all neurology outpatients at our institution, using univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

Between 2015 and 2022, a total of 128,440 patients were seen in our outpatient neurology clinics and 2,540 patients underwent genetic evaluation. Black patients were less than half as likely as White patients to be evaluated (odds ratio [OR] 0.49, p < 0.001), and this disparity was similar after controlling for other demographic factors in multivariable analysis. Patients from the least wealthy quartile of zip codes were also less likely to be evaluated (OR 0.67, p < 0.001). Among patients who underwent evaluation, there were no disparities in the likelihood of completing genetic testing, nor in the likelihood of a diagnostic result after adjusting for age. Analyses restricted to specific indications for genetic testing supported these findings.

DISCUSSION

We observed unequal utilization of our clinical neurogenetics program for patients from marginalized and minoritized demographic groups, especially Black patients. Among patients who do undergo evaluation, all groups benefit similarly from genetic testing when it is indicated. Understanding and removing barriers to accessing genetic testing will be essential to health care equity and optimal care for all patients with neurologic disorders.