Loss of function,missense, and intronic variants in NOTCH1 confer different risks for left ventricular outflow tract obstructive heart defects in two European cohorts

Loss of function variants in NOTCH1 cause left ventricular outflow tract obstructive defects (LVOTO). However, the risk conferred by rare and noncoding variants in NOTCH1 for LVOTO remains largely uncharacterized. In a cohort of 49 families affected by hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a severe form of LVOTO, we discovered predicted loss of function NOTCH1 variants in 6% of individuals. Rare or low-frequency missense variants were found in 16% of families. To make a quantitative estimate of the genetic risk posed by variants in NOTCH1 for LVOTO, we studied associations of 400 coding and noncoding variants in NOTCH1 in 1,085 cases and 332,788 controls from the UK Biobank. Two rare intronic variants in strong linkage disequilibrium displayed significant association with risk for LVOTO amongst European-ancestry individuals. This result was replicated in an independent analysis of 210 cases and 68,762 controls of non-European and mixed ancestry. In conclusion, carrying rare predicted loss of function variants in NOTCH1 confer significant risk for LVOTO. In addition, the two intronic variants seem to be associated with an increased risk for these defects. Our approach demonstrates the utility of population-based data sets in quantifying the specific risk of individual variants for disease-related phenotypes.     

Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: Can We Afford the Cost of Cardioverter-Defibrillators? Data from the Search-MI Registry-Italian Sub-study

Background: Large randomized trials show that in appropriately selected patients with left ventricular dysfunction, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) can improve overall survival at 2–5 years. Since direct implementation of the criteria used in the MADIT II and SCD-HeFT will lead to a marked rise in ICD implants, there is a growing fear that increased use of ICDs may cause a dramatic burden to health care systems. The ICD has traditionally been seen as an expensive form of treatment, which is difficult to accept at the first look. This is mainly due to the nonlinear character of the ICD investment, characterized by high initial expenditure, followed by a deferred pay-off in terms of clinical benefits. Cost-effectiveness analysis may help provide a different perspective on the problem of ICD cost, as may estimation of the daily cost of ICD treatment, assuming a time horizon of 5–7 years—a particularly interesting subject for further registry studies.
Methods and Results: Based on real expenditure data from 2002 to 2005, as recorded in the Search-MI Registry-Italian Sub-study of patients implanted on MADIT II indications, we estimated the daily costs associated with the device and leads. Over a 5–7 year time horizon, the average daily cost was estimated to be €4.60–€6.70. Translation of these figures into U.S. market conditions suggests a daily cost of around $7.90–$11.40.
Conclusions: These findings appear useful to help evaluate the affordability of ICD in comparison with other therapeutic options in a context of limited available economic resources.