Search

Background. Little is known about patients’ opinions upon the development of non-medical prescribing (NMP). [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Purpose. The implementation of supplementary prescribing by pharmacists within primary care trusts (PCTs) and secondary care trusts (SCTs) in England was studied. Methods. A survey was developed and sent to pharmacists in PCTs and SCTs in England who would oversee the implementation of supplementary prescribing by pharmacists. Results. The response rate was 68% for both surveys. The majority of SCTs and PCTs intended to implement supplementary prescribing by pharmacists by the end of 2005 (57% and 56%, respectively). The majority of SCT respondents did not believe that it would be more difficult to recruit designated medical practitioners to supervise supplementary prescribing training for pharmacists as opposed to nurses (67%, n = 43), whereas the largest group of PCT pharmacists believed it would be (47%, n = 86). Within secondary care, the clinical areas in which pharmacists were intending to work as supplementary prescribers were those where they already had established roles. Within primary care, the main clinical areas for pharmacists were influenced by those areas in the new General Medical Services contract Quality and Outcomes Framework for general practitioners. Conclusion. A survey investigating the implementation of supplementary prescribing by pharmacists in England found that there were significantly more barriers to its establishment within primary care than secondary care settings. Within primary care, supplementary prescribing is being implemented to develop new services. Within secondary care, the supplementary prescribing model is more often used to legitimize services already being provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genetically determined disorders are highly heterogenous in clinical presentation and underlying molecular mechanism. The evidence underpinning these conditions in the peer-reviewed literature requires robust critical evaluation for diagnostic use. Here, we present a structured curation process for Gene2Phenotype (G2P). This draws on multiple lines of clinical, bioinformatic and functional evidence. The process utilises and extends existing terminologies, allows for precise definition of the molecular basis of disease, and confidence levels to be attributed to a given gene-disease assertion. In-depth disease curation using this process will prove useful in applications including in diagnostics, research and development of targeted therapeutics. G2P: www.ebi.ac.uk/gene2phenotype. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND Pediatric disorders include a range of highly penetrant, genetically heterogeneous conditions amenable to genomewide diagnostic approaches. Finding a molecular diagnosis is challenging but can have profound lifelong benefits. METHODS We conducted a large-scale sequencing study involving more than 13,500 families with probands with severe, probably monogenic, difficult-to-diagnose developmental disorders from 24 regional genetics services in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Standardized phenotypic data were collected, and exome sequencing and microarray analyses were performed to investigate novel genetic causes. We developed an iterative variant analysis pipeline and reported candidate variants to clinical teams for validation and diagnostic interpretation to inform communication with families. Multiple regression analyses were performed to evaluate factors affecting the probability of diagnosis. RESULTS A total of 13,449 probands were included in the analyses. On average, we reported 1.0 candidate variant per parent–offspring trio and 2.5 variants per singleton proband. Using clinical and computational approaches to variant classification, we made a diagnosis in approximately 41% of probands (5502 of 13,449). Of 3599 probands in trios who received a diagnosis by clinical assertion, approximately 76% had a pathogenic de novo variant. Another 22% of probands (2997 of 13,449) had variants of uncertain significance in genes that were strongly linked to monogenic developmental disorders. Recruitment in a parent–offspring trio had the largest effect on the probability of diagnosis (odds ratio, 4.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.16 to 5.31). Probands were less likely to receive a diagnosis if they were born extremely prematurely (i.e., 22 to 27 weeks’ gestation; odds ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.68), had in utero exposure to antiepileptic medications (odds ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.67), had mothers with diabetes (odds ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.67), or were of African ancestry (odds ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.78). CONCLUSIONS Among probands with severe, probably monogenic, difficult-to-diagnose developmental disorders, multimodal analysis of genomewide data had good diagnostic power, even after previous attempts at diagnosis. (Funded by the Health Innovation Challenge Fund and Wellcome Sanger Institute.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]