Actionability Assertions

Gene Condition (MONDO ID) OMIM ID Final Assertion
No assertions found.

Actionability Assertion Rationale

  • This topic was initially scored prior to development of the process for making actionability assertions. The Actionability Working Group decided to defer making an assertion until after the topic could be reviewed through the update process.

Actionability Scores

Outcome / Intervention Pair Severity Likelihood Effectiveness Nature of Intervention Total Score
Clinically Significant Aortic Aneurysms / Surveillance 3 3C 3B 3 12CB
Aortic Dilation Progression / Beta-blockers 3 3C 3A 3 12CA
View scoring key
Domain of Actionability Scoring Metric State of the Knowledgebase
Severity: What is the nature of the threat to health to an individual? 3 = Sudden death as a reasonably possible outcome
2 = Reasonable possibility of death or major morbidity
1 = Modest morbidity
0 = Minimal or no morbidity
N/A
Likelihood: What is the chance that the outcome will occur? 3 = >40% chance
2 = 5%-39% chance
1 = 1%-4% chance
0 = <1% chance
A = Substantial evidence or evidence from a high tier (tier 1)
B = Moderate evidence or evidence from a moderate tier (tier 2)
C = Minimal evidence or evidence from a lower tier (tier 3 or 4)
D = Poor evidence or evidence not provided in the report
N = Evidence based on expert contributions (tier 5)
Effectiveness: What is the effectiveness of a specific intervention in preventing or diminishing the risk of harm? 3 = Highly effective
2 = Moderately effective
1 = Minimally effective
0 = Controversial or unknown effectiveness
IN = Ineffective/No interventiona
A = Substantial evidence or evidence from a high tier (tier 1)
B = Moderate evidence or evidence from a moderate tier (tier 2)
C = Minimal evidence or evidence from a lower tier (tier 3 or 4)
D = Poor evidence or evidence not provided in the report
N = Evidence based on expert contributions (tier 5)
Nature of intervention: How risky, medically burdensome, or intensive is the intervention? 3 = Low risk, or medically acceptable and low intensity
2 = Moderate risk, moderately acceptable or intensive
1 = Greater risk, less acceptable and substantial intensity
0 = High risk, poorly acceptable or intensive
N/A
a Do not score the remaining categories

Prevalence of the Genetic Condition

The prevalence of Marfan syndrome (MFS) has been estimated in the range of 1/5000 to 1/20,000.
View Citations

HC Dietz, et al. (2001) NCBI: NBK1335, Maron BJ, et al. (2005) PMID: 15837284, Arslan-Kirchner M, et al. (2010) PMID: 20372188, JCS Joint Working Group, et al. (2013) PMID: 23412710, (2011) URL: www.csanz.edu.au.

Clinical Features (Signs / symptoms)

The diagnosis of MFS is based on clinical features, even in the presence of a known FBN1 mutation. The cardinal features of MFS involve the cardiovascular, ocular, and skeletal systems. Patients are highly predisposed to thoracic aortic aneurysm and/or dissection, and may also have valvular disease, primarily mitral valve prolapse and regurgitation. Skeletal manifestations are the result of excessive linear growth of the long bones and connective tissue abnormalities, and include long extremities, pectus deformities, scoliosis, and joint laxity. The most common ocular manifestation is myopia, while ectopia lentis is the hallmark feature. Some patients develop progressive lung disease.
View Citations

HC Dietz, et al. (2001) NCBI: NBK1335, Maron BJ, et al. (2005) PMID: 15837284, JCS Joint Working Group, et al. (2013) PMID: 23412710, (2011) URL: www.csanz.edu.au., Hiratzka LF, et al. (2010) PMID: 20359588, Pyeritz RE, et al. (2012) PMID: 22237449, Pacini D, et al. (2013) PMID: 23273625

Natural History (Important subgroups & survival / recovery)

Virtually all patients have evidence of aortic disease at some point in their life, with these cardiovascular features being the major source of morbidity and early mortality, specifically aortic dilation, dissection, and rupture. Symptoms can appear at any age and vary greatly between individuals even within the same family. Without treatment, patients with MFS with aortic dissection have a reduced long-term survival, 50-70% at 10 years after diagnosis of aortic dissection. Survival in patients with MFS has been significantly improved with medical and surgical management of the aortic disease and may approach that of the general population. There are no ethnic/racial or gender differences observed. Pregnancy can be dangerous for women and complications include rapid progression of aortic root enlargement and aortic dissection or rupture during pregnancy, delivery, and the postpartum period.
View Citations

HC Dietz, et al. (2001) NCBI: NBK1335, (2011) URL: www.csanz.edu.au., Hiratzka LF, et al. (2010) PMID: 20359588, Marfan syndrome. Orphanet encyclopedia, ORPHA: 558.

Description of sources of evidence:

Tier 1: Evidence from a systematic review or a meta-analysis or clinical practice guideline clearly based on a systematic review.
Tier 2: Evidence from clinical practice guidelines or broad-based expert consensus with non-systematic evidence review.
Tier 3: Evidence from another source with non-systematic review of evidence with primary literature cited.
Tier 4: Evidence from another source with non-systematic review of evidence with no citations to primary data sources.
Tier 5: Evidence from a non-systematically identified source.

Mode of Inheritance

Autosomal Dominant

Prevalence of Genetic Variants

1-2 in 5000
The prevalence of FBN1 mutations is unknown, but should be similar to MFS prevalence as FBN1 mutations account for nearly 100% of MFS cases.
Tier 4 View Citations

Arslan-Kirchner M, et al. (2010) PMID: 20372188, HC Dietz, et al. (2001) NCBI: NBK1335

Mutation screening of FBN1 should yield a result in up to 97% of patients with MFS who meet the Ghent criteria.
Tier 4 View Citations

(2011) URL: www.csanz.edu.au.

Penetrance (Includes any high-risk racial or ethnic subgroups)

>= 40 %
Penetrance is high, with nearly all patients having evidence of aortic disease during their lifetime. (Tier 4)
Tier Not provided View Citations

HC Dietz, et al. (2001) NCBI: NBK1335, Hiratzka LF, et al. (2010) PMID: 20359588

Unknown
75-85% of patients have aortic root dilations.
Tier 3 View Citations

HC Dietz, et al. (2001) NCBI: NBK1335, Pacini D, et al. (2013) PMID: 23273625, Thakur V, et al. (2013) PMID: 23083542

Unknown
60% of patients have ectopia lentis.
Tier 4 View Citations

HC Dietz, et al. (2001) NCBI: NBK1335

Relative Risk (Includes any high-risk racial or ethnic subgroups)

Unknown
No information on relative risk was available.

Expressivity

The onset and rate of aortic dilation is highly variable. MFS demonstrates both intra- and inter-familial variability.
Tier 4 View Citations

HC Dietz, et al. (2001) NCBI: NBK1335, (2011) URL: www.csanz.edu.au.

Description of sources of evidence:

Tier 1: Evidence from a systematic review or a meta-analysis or clinical practice guideline clearly based on a systematic review.
Tier 2: Evidence from clinical practice guidelines or broad-based expert consensus with non-systematic evidence review.
Tier 3: Evidence from another source with non-systematic review of evidence with primary literature cited.
Tier 4: Evidence from another source with non-systematic review of evidence with no citations to primary data sources.
Tier 5: Evidence from a non-systematically identified source.

Patient Management

Pregnant patients with MFS are at an increased risk for aortic dissection at aortic diameters >4cm. Thus, for women contemplating pregnancy, aortic prophylactic surgery is recommended for aortic diameters >4.0 cm.
Tier 2 View Citations

JCS Joint Working Group, et al. (2013) PMID: 23412710, Hiratzka LF, et al. (2010) PMID: 20359588, Svensson LG, et al. (2013) PMID: 23688839, Vahanian A, et al. (2012) PMID: 22922415, Boodhwani M, et al. (2014) PMID: 24882528

Prophylactic surgical repair of the aorta is recommended for aortic diameters >5.0 cm, though some guidelines indicate repair at >4.0 or >4.5 cm with special consideration for the rate of aortic diameter expansion, progressive aortic regurgitation, family history of aortic dissection, and the height of the patient. Timely repair of aortic aneurysms among patients with MFS prolongs survival such that it approaches that of age-matched controls.
Tier 2 View Citations

JCS Joint Working Group, et al. (2013) PMID: 23412710, (2011) URL: www.csanz.edu.au., Hiratzka LF, et al. (2010) PMID: 20359588, Pyeritz RE, et al. (2012) PMID: 22237449, Svensson LG, et al. (2013) PMID: 23688839, Vahanian A, et al. (2012) PMID: 22922415, Boodhwani M, et al. (2014) PMID: 24882528

A systematic review of observational studies, beta blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and angiotensin II receptor blockers concluded that these medications slowed the progression of aortic dilation in MFS. Three of the included studies showed that the treatment group's aortic dilation progressed by roughly 1mm/year less than the non-treatment group, though no information was provided on how this impacted clinical outcomes.
Tier 1 View Citations

Thakur V, et al. (2013) PMID: 23083542

Use of prophylactic antibiotics in any invasive procedure such as tooth extraction and surgery is recommended in the presence of valvular disease.
Tier 2 View Citations

JCS Joint Working Group, et al. (2013) PMID: 23412710, Svensson LG, et al. (2013) PMID: 23688839

Surveillance

At the time of diagnosis, an echocardiogram of the entire aorta is recommended to determine the aortic root and ascending aortic diameters followed by a second echocardiogram 6 months later to determine rate of aortic enlargement.
Tier 2 View Citations

JCS Joint Working Group, et al. (2013) PMID: 23412710, Hiratzka LF, et al. (2010) PMID: 20359588, Svensson LG, et al. (2013) PMID: 23688839, Boodhwani M, et al. (2014) PMID: 24882528

Patients with documented stable aortic diameters are recommended to have annual echocardiograms. More frequent imaging should be considered for those with diameters >4.5 cm or those that show significant aortic diameter growth.
Tier 2 View Citations

JCS Joint Working Group, et al. (2013) PMID: 23412710, (2011) URL: www.csanz.edu.au., Hiratzka LF, et al. (2010) PMID: 20359588, Pyeritz RE, et al. (2012) PMID: 22237449, Svensson LG, et al. (2013) PMID: 23688839, Vahanian A, et al. (2012) PMID: 22922415, Boodhwani M, et al. (2014) PMID: 24882528

MRI or CT of the entire aorta is recommended starting in young adulthood. Repeat annually for patients with a history of aortic root replacement or dissection, less frequently for those without.
Tier 2 View Citations

Pyeritz RE, et al. (2012) PMID: 22237449

Annual ophthalmological exams are recommended, including monitoring for glaucoma. Removal of lenses may be indicated if vision is poor.
Tier 2 View Citations

(2011) URL: www.csanz.edu.au.

Orthopedic referral may be indicated for progressive scoliosis, followed by corrective bracing or surgery if needed.
Tier 2 View Citations

(2011) URL: www.csanz.edu.au.

Pre-pregnancy counselling should include full discussion of the risks and benefits of pregnancy and the alternatives (adoption, surrogate, etc.). Pregnant women should be followed by a high risk obstetrician both during pregnancy and through the immediate postpartum period. Women should undergo cardiovascular imaging with echocardiography prior to pregnancy and at least every three months during pregnancy. 4.4% of carefully monitored patients developed aortic dissection and in unmonitored patients, the risk is likely higher.
Tier 2 View Citations

(2011) URL: www.csanz.edu.au.

Circumstances to Avoid

Stent graphs to repair type B aortic dissection should be avoided in patients with MFS.
Tier 1 View Citations

Pacini D, et al. (2013) PMID: 23273625

Patients should avoid strenuous physical exercise, competitive, contact, and isometric sports, though specific recommendations for appropriate types of sports varies depending on degree of aortic enlargement, severity of mitral regurgitation, and family history of dissection or sudden death.
Tier 2 View Citations

(2011) URL: www.csanz.edu.au., Vahanian A, et al. (2012) PMID: 22922415

Patients should avoid activities that cause joint injury or pain; agents that stimulate the cardiovascular system such as decongestants and caffeine; LASIK correction of visual deficits; and breathing against a resistance or positive pressure ventilation for individuals at risk for recurrent pneumothorax.
Tier 4 View Citations

HC Dietz, et al. (2001) NCBI: NBK1335

Description of sources of evidence:

Tier 1: Evidence from a systematic review or a meta-analysis or clinical practice guideline clearly based on a systematic review.
Tier 2: Evidence from clinical practice guidelines or broad-based expert consensus with non-systematic evidence review.
Tier 3: Evidence from another source with non-systematic review of evidence with primary literature cited.
Tier 4: Evidence from another source with non-systematic review of evidence with no citations to primary data sources.
Tier 5: Evidence from a non-systematically identified source.

Nature of Intervention

The identified interventions involve invasive prophylactic surgery, which is likely associated with some risk for mortality and morbidity.
Context: Adult

Chance to Escape Clinical Detection

The major source of morbidity and mortality is aortic disease, with most cases of MFS presenting with a dilation of the aortic root or the ascending aorta or a Type A dissection (Tier 4), which would likely not be detected through routine clinical care.
Context: Adult
Tier 4 View Citations

HC Dietz, et al. (2001) NCBI: NBK1335, Hiratzka LF, et al. (2010) PMID: 20359588

Description of sources of evidence:

Tier 1: Evidence from a systematic review or a meta-analysis or clinical practice guideline clearly based on a systematic review.
Tier 2: Evidence from clinical practice guidelines or broad-based expert consensus with non-systematic evidence review.
Tier 3: Evidence from another source with non-systematic review of evidence with primary literature cited.
Tier 4: Evidence from another source with non-systematic review of evidence with no citations to primary data sources.
Tier 5: Evidence from a non-systematically identified source.
Gene Condition Associations
OMIM Identifier Primary MONDO Identifier Additional MONDO Identifiers

References List

Arslan-Kirchner M, Arbustini E, Boileau C, Child A, Collod-Beroud G, De Paepe A, Epplen J, Jondeau G, Loeys B, Faivre L. (2010) Clinical utility gene card for: Marfan syndrome type 1 and related phenotypes [FBN1]. European journal of human genetics : EJHG. 18(9).

Boodhwani M, Andelfinger G, Leipsic J, Lindsay T, McMurtry MS, Therrien J, Siu SC. (2014) Canadian Cardiovascular Society position statement on the management of thoracic aortic disease. The Canadian journal of cardiology. 30(6):577-89.

Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of Marfan Syndrome. Other (2011) URL: http://www.csanz.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Marfan_Syndrome.pdf

HC Dietz. Marfan Syndrome. (2001) [Updated Jun 12 2014]. In: RA Pagon, MP Adam, HH Ardinger, et al., editors. GeneReviews® [Internet]. Seattle (WA): University of Washington, Seattle; 1993-2026. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1335/

Hiratzka LF, Bakris GL, Beckman JA, Bersin RM, Carr VF, Casey DE Jr, Eagle KA, Hermann LK, Isselbacher EM, Kazerooni EA, Kouchoukos NT, Lytle BW, Milewicz DM, Reich DL, Sen S, Shinn JA, Svensson LG, Williams DM. (2010) 2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with thoracic aortic disease. A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American College of Radiology,American Stroke Association, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Interventional Radiology, Society of Thoracic Surgeons,and Society for Vascular Medicine. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 55(14):e27-e129.

JCS Joint Working Group. (2013) Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of aortic aneurysm and aortic dissection (JCS 2011): digest version. Circulation journal : official journal of the Japanese Circulation Society. 77(3):789-828.

Maron BJ, Ackerman MJ, Nishimura RA, Pyeritz RE, Towbin JA, Udelson JE. (2005) Task Force 4: HCM and other cardiomyopathies, mitral valve prolapse, myocarditis, and Marfan syndrome. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 45(8):1340-5.

Pacini D, Parolari A, Berretta P, Di Bartolomeo R, Alamanni F, Bavaria J. (2013) Endovascular treatment for type B dissection in Marfan syndrome: is it worthwhile?. The Annals of thoracic surgery. 95(2):737-49.

Pyeritz RE. (2012) Evaluation of the adolescent or adult with some features of Marfan syndrome. Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics. 14(1):171-7.

Svensson LG, Adams DH, Bonow RO, Kouchoukos NT, Miller DC, O'Gara PT, Shahian DM, Schaff HV, Akins CW, Bavaria JE, Blackstone EH, David TE, Desai ND, Dewey TM, D'Agostino RS, Gleason TG, Harrington KB, Kodali S, Kapadia S, Leon MB, Lima B, Lytle BW, Mack MJ, Reardon M, Reece TB, Reiss GR, Roselli EE, Smith CR, Thourani VH, Tuzcu EM, Webb J, Williams MR. (2013) Aortic valve and ascending aorta guidelines for management and quality measures. The Annals of thoracic surgery. 95(6 Suppl):S1-66.

Thakur V, Rankin KN, Hartling L, Mackie AS. (2013) A systematic review of the pharmacological management of aortic root dilation in Marfan syndrome. Cardiology in the young. 23(4):568-81.

Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F, Antunes MJ, Baron-Esquivias G, Baumgartner H, Borger MA, Carrel TP, De Bonis M, Evangelista A, Falk V, Iung B, Lancellotti P, Pierard L, Price S, Schafers HJ, Schuler G, Stepinska J, Swedberg K, Takkenberg J, Von Oppell UO, Windecker S, Zamorano JL, Zembala M. (2012) Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012). European heart journal. 33(19):2451-96.

Early Rule-Out Summary

This topic passed the early rule out stage

Findings of Early Rule-Out Assessment

  1. Is there a qualifying resource, such as a practice guideline or systematic review, for the genetic condition?
  2. Does the practice guideline or systematic review indicate that the result is actionable in one or more of the following ways?
  3. a. Patient Management

    b. Surveillance or Screening

    c. Circumstances to Avoid

  4. Is it actionable in an undiagnosed adult with the condition?
  5. Is this condition an important health problem?
  6. Is there at least on known pathogenic variant with at least moderate penetrance (≥40%) or moderate relative risk (≥2) in any population?