Key result
Eight cases of dual genetic diagnoses highlight that a second genetic condition should be considered when a patient's phenotype is atypical or more severe than expected for their primary diagnosis.
Case Report (n=8)
When a patient's clinical picture is atypical or more severe than expected for their primary genetic diagnosis, clinicians should consider the possibility of a dual diagnosis.
May support considering dual diagnoses in atypical phenotypes; leaves open whether expanded testing improves diagnostic yield.
Reports of patients with concomitant diagnoses of two inherited genetic disorders, sometimes referred to as "double trouble," have appeared intermittently in the medical literature. We report eight additional cases with dual diagnoses of two genetic conditions. All cases had a phenotype atypical for their primary diagnosis, leading to the search for a second genetic diagnosis. These cases highlight the importance of the history, physical examination and continued work-up if the phenotype of the patient falls drastically outside what has been reported with their primary diagnosis. Some of the diagnoses of the patients presented here (e.g., Myotonic Dystrophy Type 1, fascioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy) would not have been identified by genetic testing done on a next generation sequencing backbone (e.g., panel or exome sequencing). When the clinical picture is atypical or more severe than expected the possibility of a dual diagnosis (double trouble) should be considered. Identification of a second genetic condition can impact management and genetic counseling.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hannah‐Shmouni et al. (2020) conducted a case report in Inherited genetic disorders (n=8). Dual genetic diagnoses was evaluated on Identification of a second genetic condition. Eight cases of dual genetic diagnoses highlight that a second genetic condition should be considered when a patient's phenotype is atypical or more severe than expected for their primary diagnosis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: