Cardiovascular Autonomic Regulation, ETCO2 and the Heart Rate Response to the Tilt Table Test in Patients with Orthostatic Intolerance.

Chronic orthostatic intolerance (COI) is defined by changes in heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), respiration, symptoms of cerebral hypoperfusion and sympathetic overactivation. Postural tachycardia syndrome (POTS) is the most common form of COI in young adults and is defined by an orthostatic increase in heart rate (HR) of ≥ 30 bpm in the absence of orthostatic hypotension. However, some patients referred for evaluation of COI symptoms do not meet the orthostatic HR response criterion of POTS despite debilitating symptoms. Such patients are ill defined, posing diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. This study explored the relationship among cardiovascular autonomic control, the orthostatic HR response, EtCO2 and the severity of orthostatic symptoms and fatigue in patients referred for evaluation of COI. Patients (N = 108) performed standardized testing protocol of the Autonomic Reflex Screen and completed the Composite Autonomic Symptom Score (COMPASS-31) and the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS). Greater severity of COI was associated with younger age, larger phase IV amplitude in the Valsalva maneuver and lower adrenal baroreflex sensitivity. Greater fatigue severity was associated with a larger reduction in ETCO2 during 10 min of head-up tilt (HUT) and reduced low-frequency (LF) power of heart rate variability. This study suggests that hemodynamic changes associated with the baroreflex response and changes in EtCO2 show a stronger association with the severity of orthostatic symptoms and fatigue than the overall orthostatic HR response in patients with COI.

A genome sequencing program for novel undiagnosed diseases.

PURPOSE: The Scripps Idiopathic Diseases of Man (IDIOM) study aims to discover novel gene-disease relationships and provide molecular genetic diagnosis and treatment guidance for individuals with novel diseases using genome sequencing integrated with clinical assessment and multidisciplinary case review. Here we describe the operational protocol and initial results of the IDIOM study. METHODS: A total of 121 cases underwent first-tier review by the principal investigators to determine whether the primary inclusion criteria were satisfied, 59 (48.8%) underwent second-tier review by our clinician-scientist review panel, and 17 patients (14.0%) and their family members were enrolled. RESULTS: 60% of cases resulted in a plausible molecular diagnosis, and 18% of cases resulted in a confirmed molecular diagnosis. Two of three confirmed cases led to the identification of novel gene-disease relationships. In the third confirmed case a previously described but unrecognized disease was revealed. In all three confirmed cases a new clinical management strategy was initiated based on the genetic findings. CONCLUSION: Genome sequencing provides tangible clinical benefit for individuals with idiopathic genetic disease, not only in the context of molecular genetic diagnosis of known rare conditions but also in cases where prior clinical information regarding a new genetic disorder is lacking.

Toward clinical genomics in everyday medicine: perspectives and recommendations.

Precision or personalized medicine through clinical genome and exome sequencing has been described by some as a revolution that could transform healthcare delivery, yet it is currently used in only a small fraction of patients, principally for the diagnosis of suspected Mendelian conditions and for targeting cancer treatments. Given the burden of illness in our society, it is of interest to ask how clinical genome and exome sequencing can be constructively integrated more broadly into the routine practice of medicine for the betterment of public health. In November 2014, 46 experts from academia, industry, policy and patient advocacy gathered in a conference sponsored by Illumina, Inc. to discuss this question, share viewpoints and propose recommendations. This perspective summarizes that work and identifies some of the obstacles and opportunities that must be considered in translating advances in genomics more widely into the practice of medicine.

The n-of-1 clinical trial: the ultimate strategy for individualizing medicine?

N-of-1 or single subject clinical trials consider an individual patient as the sole unit of observation in a study investigating the efficacy or side-effect profiles of different interventions. The ultimate goal of an n-of-1 trial is to determine the optimal or best intervention for an individual patient using objective data-driven criteria. Such trials can leverage study design and statistical techniques associated with standard population-based clinical trials, including randomization, washout and crossover periods, as well as placebo controls. Despite their obvious appeal and wide use in educational settings, n-of-1 trials have been used sparingly in medical and general clinical settings. We briefly review the history, motivation and design of n-of-1 trials and emphasize the great utility of modern wireless medical monitoring devices in their execution. We ultimately argue that n-of-1 trials demand serious attention among the health research and clinical care communities given the contemporary focus on individualized medicine.