Archive for the ‘Genetic Testing’ Category

Prenatal Genetic Testing Market report provides (6 Year Forecast 2020-2026) including detailed Coronavirus (COVID-19) impact analysis on Market Size, Regional and Country-Level Market Size, Segmentation Market Growth, Market Share, Competitive Landscape, Sales Analysis and Value Chain Optimization. This Prenatal Genetic Testing market competitive landscape offers details by topmost key manufactures (Sequenom Laboratories, Illumina, Natera, Ariosa Diagnostics, BGI Health, Natera, LifeCodexx) including Company Overview, Company Total Revenue (Financials), Market Potential, Presence, Prenatal Genetic Testing industry Sales and Revenue Generated, Market Share, Price, Production Sites and Facilities, SWOT Analysis, Product Launch. For the period 2014-2020, this study provides the Prenatal Genetic Testing sales, revenue and market share for each player covered in this report.

Key Target Audience of Prenatal Genetic Testing Market: Manufacturers of Prenatal Genetic Testing, Raw material suppliers, Market research and consulting firms, Government bodies such as regulating authorities and policy makers, Organizations, forums and alliances related to Prenatal Genetic Testing market.

Get Free Sample PDF (including COVID-19 Impact Analysis, full TOC, Tables and Figures)of Prenatal Genetic Testing[emailprotected]https://www.researchmoz.us/enquiry.php?type=S&repid=2288758

Synopsis of Prenatal Genetic Testing Market:In 2018, the global Prenatal Genetic Testing market size was million US$ and it is expected to reach million US$ by the end of 2025, with a CAGR of during 2019-2025.

Based onProduct Type, Prenatal Genetic Testing market report displays the manufacture, profits, value, and market segment and growth rate of each type, covers:

Diagnostic Test Chorionic Villi Sampling (CVS) Amniocentesis Placental Biopsy Cordocentesis Fetal Biopsy Screening Test Carrier Screening Sequential Screening Maternal Serum Quad Screening

Based onend users/applications, Prenatal Genetic Testing market report focuses on the status and outlook for major applications/end users, sales volume, market share and growth rate for each application, this can be divided into:

Hospitals Clinics Diagnostic Centers

Prenatal Genetic Testing Market: Regional analysis includes:

Do You Have Any Query Or Specific Requirement? Ask to Our Industry[emailprotected]https://www.researchmoz.us/enquiry.php?type=E&repid=2288758

The Prenatal Genetic Testing Market Report Can Answer The Following Questions:

What are the Upstream Raw Materials And Manufacturing Equipment of Prenatal Genetic Testing? What is the manufacturing process of Prenatal Genetic Testing?

Who are the key manufacturers of Prenatal Genetic Testing market? How are their operating situation (Capacity, Production, Price, Cost, Gross and Revenue)?

Economic impact on Prenatal Genetic Testing industry and development trend of Prenatal Genetic Testing industry.

What is the (North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Middle East, Asia, China, Japan) Production, Production Value, Consumption, Consumption Value, Import And Export of Prenatal Genetic Testing?

What will the Prenatal Genetic Testing Market Size and The Growth Rate be in 2026?

What are the key market trends impacting the growth of the Prenatal Genetic Testing market?

What are the Prenatal Genetic Testing Market Challenges to market growth?

What are the types and applications of Prenatal Genetic Testing? What is the market share of each type and application?

What are the key factors driving the Prenatal Genetic Testing market?

What are the Prenatal Genetic Testing market opportunities and threats faced by the vendors in the Prenatal Genetic Testing market?

Contact:

ResearchMozMr. Rohit Bhisey,Tel: +1-518-621-2074USA-Canada Toll Free: 866-997-4948Email:[emailprotected]

Browse More Reports Visit @https://www.mytradeinsight.blogspot.com/

See more here:
Coronavirus threat to global Prenatal Genetic Testing Market 2020 Industry Share, Size, Consumption, Growth, Top Manufacturers, Type and Forecast to...

A business intelligence report on theglobal Genetic Testing Services marketoffers quantitative estimation of the opportunities and qualitative assessment various growth dynamics. The study highlights estimations of the opportunities in the historical period, and offers several projections during the forecast period.

The following are taken into consideration:

Request to View Sample of Research Report @https://www.factmr.com/connectus/sample?flag=S&rep_id=4744

Key Focus Areas of Report on Global Genetic Testing Services Market

The study on the Genetic Testing Services market includes detailed market estimations of opportunities in various segments and their share/size globally in each year during the forecast period. The following are the broad insights that form the backbone of the evaluation of the Genetic Testing Services market.

Segmental Analysis Comprise the following.

Based on End-use Industry/Application,

Based on Product/Technology,

Based on Region,

Top players include

What Businesses Can Hope to Get in Business Intelligence on Genetic Testing Services Market?

The study insights on the Genetic Testing Services market growth dynamics and opportunities highlights various key aspects, in which crucial ones are:

To Know More Information about This Report, Ask The Analyst @https://www.factmr.com/connectus/sample?flag=AE&rep_id=4744

Insights and Perspectives that make this Study on Genetic Testing Services Market Stand Out

The analysts who have prepared the report have been keen observers of the dynamism due to macroeconomic upheavals. Using the best industry assessment quantitative methods and data integration technologies, they have come out with a holistic overview of the future growth trajectories of the Genetic Testing Services market. Fact-based insights and easy-to-comprehend information based on wide spectrum of market data is what makes this study different from competitors.

The following evaluations create a differentiating approach towards understanding the market dynamics and presenting the crux to its readers:

About Fact.MR

Fact.MR is a fast-growing market research firm that offers the most comprehensive suite of syndicated and customized market research reports. We believe transformative intelligence can educate and inspire businesses to make smarter decisions. We know the limitations of the one-size-fits-all approach; thats why we publish multi-industry global, regional, and country-specific research reports.

Contact Us

Fact.MR

11140 Rockville Pike

Suite 400

Rockville, MD 20852

United States

Email:sales@factmr.com

Blog:https://currentmarketnewsblog.wordpress.com/

Media Release:https://www.factmr.com/media-release/1504/global-genetic-testing-services-market

Read the original here:
Genetic Testing Services Market to Witness Positive Growth owing to Outbreak of COVID-19, Projects Fact.MR - The Cloud Tribune

Global Animal Genetic Marketis expected to rise from its estimated value of USD 4.39 billion in 2018 to an estimated value of USD 8.68 billion by 2026 registering a CAGR of 8.9% in the forecast period of 2019-2026.The upcoming market report contains data for historic years 2017, the base year of calculation is 2018 and the forecast period is 2019 to 2026.Few of the major market competitors currently working in the animal genetics market areNEOGEN CORPORATION, Zoetis, Envigo, Animal Genetics Inc., VetGen, Groupe Grimaud, Hendrix Genetics BV, EW Nutrition GmbH, Alta Genetics Inc., Genus, Topigs Norsvin, CRV Holding B.V., URUS, Trans Ova Genetics., Inguran LLC dba STgenetics., Semex, Beacon Automation Pty Ltd., Cogent, EVOLUTION International , Genex Services, LLC, Rockway, Inc., River Valley Dairy., ABS GLOBAL, INC., Anicam Enterprises Inc., Milk Source. among others

Competitive Analysis: Global Animal Genetic Market

The global animal genetics market is highly fragmented and the major players have used various strategies such as new product launches, expansions, agreements, joint ventures, partnerships, acquisitions, and others to increase their footprints in this market. The report includes market shares of global animal genetics market for Global, Europe, North America, Asia Pacific, South America and Middle East & Africa.

Global Animal Genetic Market By Product (Live Animals (Poultry, Porcine, Bovines, Canine, Others), Genetic Material (Semens, Embroys)), Genetic Testing Services (DNA typing, genetic trait tests, genetic disease tests, and others), Geography (North America, South America, Europe, Asia-Pacific and Middle East and Africa) Industry Trends & Forecast to 2026;

Market Definition: Global Animal Genetic Market

Animal genetics is the branch of science which deals with the study of inheritance and gene variation in domestic and wild animals. Animal genetics are mostly used for genetic trait testing, DNA testing, and genetic disease traiting. The animal genetics market is expected to increase due to the fast demand, ingesting of animal proteins, and surge in urban population, which shows demand for meat products across the globe during the forecast period.

Market Drivers

Market Restraints

Segmentation: Global Animal Genetic Market

By Product

By Genetic Testing Services

Key Developments in the Market:

Reasons to Purchase this Report

Customization of the Report:

Note: If you have any special requirements, please let us know and we will offer you the report as you want.

About Data Bridge Market Research:

Data Bridge Market Researchset forth itself as an unconventional and neoteric Market research and consulting firm with unparalleled level of resilience and integrated approaches. We are determined to unearth the best market opportunities and foster efficient information for your business to thrive in the market. Data Bridge endeavors to provide appropriate solutions to the complex business challenges and initiates an effortless decision-making process.

Contact:

Data Bridge Market Research

US: +1 888 387 2818

UK: +44 208 089 1725

Hong Kong: +852 8192 7475

Email:[emailprotected]

Go here to read the rest:
Animal Genetic Market 2020 Industry Analysis and Detailed Profiles of Top Industry Players NEOGEN CORPORATION, Zoetis, Envigo, Animal Genetics Inc.,...

Genetic testing in men with prostate cancer can identify pathogenic variants early on that may inform proactive treatment, management of disease, and can be a resource in providing information about increased risks for other cancers for both the patient and their family members. Although the utility of genetic testing has been increasingly recognized for men with prostate cancer, determining which men to test has been an ongoing challenge. In 2017, expert consensus guidelines recommended genetic testing for men with at least one of the following.1

We analyzed 1,812 men with prostate cancer who underwent clinical genetic testing at a commercial genetic testing laboratory and performed stepwise logistic regression of the clinical variables reported on the test requisition forms to determine the most reliable predictors of positive results. Pathogenic variants were found in 12% of men who underwent multigene panel testing who had no prior genetic testing. This result was similar to comparable studies of the yield of multi-gene panel test results in men with prostate cancer.2,3Predictors of positive results included: increasing Gleason score, personal history of breast or pancreatic cancer, family history of breast, ovarian or pancreatic cancer, and family history of Lynch-syndrome associated cancers.

These results support the 2017 guidelines including testing men with aggressive disease or with a family history of cancers related to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer or Lynch syndrome. Similar to previous studies, we did not find an association between men who met the definition of hereditary prostate cancer and positive test results.1We were unable to confirm the association between mCRPC and positive results, as this clinical information was missing for 86.9% of the men in this cohort. However, other studies strongly support this association.2,4Likewise, prior somatic test results were not reported for most men in the study. It is unclear if somatic test results were not reported because most men did not have somatic testing, or if clinicians chose not to include this information on the test requisition form. Increasingly, clinicians will have somatic genetic results available for prostate cancer patients, as somatic testing is recommended for patients with mCRPC by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Somatic testing may identify pathogenic variants that require additional testing to determine if they are of germline origin, and typically providers will want to include somatic test results with the germline test requisition form so that the coverage of the exact alteration identified in the tumor can be confirmed in the germline.

We found that among all men with no prior genetic testing, the pooled frequency of pathogenic variants in therapeutically actionable genes at the time of the study (BRCA1/2 and mismatch repair genes) was 7.4%. Genetic testing is becoming increasingly relevant in this context considering the FDAs recent approval of olaparib and rucaparib for mCRPC patients with somatic and germline pathogenic variants in certain genes. Among men with prior genetic testing, 15% were found to have pathogenic variants via multi-gene panel testing that may have been missed based on previous test results (immunohistochemistry [IHC], limited germline testing). This included two men with normal IHC results who were found to have a pathogenic variant in a non-mismatch repair gene; one man who was found to have a mismatch repair mutation with discordant IHC results; and three men with previously limited germline testing who were found to have germline pathogenic variants upon expanded testing. These results highlight the importance of genetic testing and the utility of a multi-gene panel testing approach.

Written by:Mary Pritzlaff, MS, Reporting Genetic Counselor, CGC Ambry Genetics

References:

Original post:
Diagnosing Hereditary Cancer Predisposition in Men with Prostate Cancer - Beyond the Abstract - UroToday

Study evaluates ovarian cancer risk detection in pre-menopausal womenPatients with and without genetic predisposition that are not planning surgery to be monitored with OVANex

AUSTIN, Texas, June 29, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Aspira Womens Health, Inc. (Nasdaq: AWH), a bioanalytical-based womens health company, today announced the first patient enrolled in a national clinical study of benign pelvic mass management. The study will enroll over 1,000 women for assessing ovarian cancer risk in women who have an adnexal mass and a high probability for developing the disease.

Many women who develop pelvic masses are hesitant to have surgery for a variety of reasons, clinical and personal, said Charles Dunton, MD, Global Medical Director, Aspira Womens Health (AWH). This study should confirm that this new multi-biomarker test can identify patients that are low risk and can wait to have surgery or perhaps avoid it entirely.

In this recently launched study, ovarian cancer risk will be assessed by a newly developed, multi-biomarker, proprietary algorithm based on AWHs experience and vast specimen bank in developing algorithms and FDA-cleared products for assessing ovarian cancer risk (OVA1 and OVERA). This study will enroll women in three distinct cohorts; women with pelvic masses without symptoms, women with pelvic masses with indeterminate symptoms, and women without pelvic masses that are high risk for ovarian cancer due to hereditary genetic risk. The primary objective is to determine which patients are low risk and can be monitored without surgery, and which women are at higher risk and need to be sent for further clinical assessment.

Today there are 1.2-1.5M women in the US with indeterminate pelvic masses which could be monitored. Providing a monitoring test where surgery is not clinically indicated, will help to reassure who is at low risk of developing ovarian cancer, and potentially who can safely wait for surgery or for their mass to resolve, said Valerie Palmieri, President, and CEO of AWH. Leveraging our proprietary technology with our over 10 years of expertise in Ovarian Cancer Risk assessment, has positioned us to develop this algorithm, and we are pleased to have launched this study. We are now one step closer in bringing this test to ALL women with pelvic masses.

About Aspira Womens Health Inc.ASPIRA Womens Health, Inc. (prior company name, Vermillion,Nasdaq:VRML) is transforming womens health with the discovery, development, and commercialization of innovative testing options and bio-analytical solutions that help physicians assess risk, optimize patient management and improve gynecologic health outcomes for women. ASPIRA is particularly focused on closing the ethnic disparity gap in ovarian cancer risk assessment and developing solutions for pelvic diseases such as pelvic mass risk assessment and endometriosis.OVA1plus includes our FDA-cleared products, OVA1and OVERAto detect risk of ovarian malignancy in women with adnexal masses. ASPIRA GenetiXTMtesting offers both targeted and comprehensive genetic testing options with a gynecologic focus. With over 10 years of expertise in ovarian cancer risk assessment, ASPIRA is delivering a portfolio of pelvic mass products over a patients lifetime with our cutting-edge research. The next generation of products in development are OVANEXTMand EndoCheckTM.Visit our website for more information at http://www.aspirawh.com.

Investor Relations Contact:Ashley R. RobinsonLifeSci Advisors, LLCTel 617-430-7577Arr@lifesciadvisors.com

Originally posted here:
Aspira Women's Health, Inc. Announces First Patient Enrolled in Prospective OVANex Study for Benign Pelvic Mass Monitoring - GlobeNewswire

Overview Of Oligonucleotides Industry 2020-2026:

The Oligonucleotides Market analysis summary by Reports Insights is a thorough study of the current trends leading to this vertical trend in various regions. Research summarizes important details related to market share, market size, applications, statistics and sales. In addition, this study emphasizes thorough competition analysis on market prospects, especially growth strategies that market experts claim.

Oligonucleotides are short nucleic acid polymers used in research, genetic testing and forensics.

Oligonucleotides are usually made up of 13 to 25 nucleotides and are designed to hybridize specifically to DNA or RNA sequences. Solid-phase clinical synthesis is used to manufacture these small bits of nucleic acid for use in polymerase chain reaction (PCR), DNA sequencing, library construction and artificial gene synthesis.

Oligonucleotide is widely used in Research, Pharmaceutical and Diagnostic. The most proportion of Oligonucleotide used in Research, and the revenue in 2018 is 409.97 M USD. Moreover, increase in focus on targeted gene therapies has revolutionized treatment of incurable conditions caused by genetic mutations. Increase in demand for sequencing applications by clinical, diagnostic, academic, and drug development is witnessed by manufactures.North America is the largest customer of Oligonucleotide, with a revenue market share nearly 37.51% in 2018. Europe is the second largest consumer of Oligonucleotide, enjoying revenue market share nearly 30.5% in 2018. Asian countries are recognized as the fastest adopters of sequencing, array technology, and PCR products due to rapid progress in genomics studies and the healthcare sector. Japan and China are considered as the most attractive markets with respect to expansion and growth opportunities present in these countries. In addition, changing economic scenario, along with high investments in healthcare, life science-related research programs, and genetics, has encouraged global players to enter the Asia Pacific market, thus aiding its growth.

Oligonucleotides Market competition by top manufacturers as follow: , Integrated DNA Technologies, Agilent, Sigma-aldrich, Eurofins Genomics, L.G.C Biosearch Technologies, Eurogentec S.A, Nitto Denko Avecia Inc, GenScript, BBI Life Sciences, GeneDesign, TriLink BioTechnologies, SGS DNA, LC Sciences, Twist Bioscience, Creative Biogene, General Biosystems

Get a Sample PDF copy of the report @ https://reportsinsights.com/sample/77236

This has brought along several changes in This report also covers the impact of COVID-19 on the global market.

The global Oligonucleotides market has been segmented on the basis of technology, product type, application, distribution channel, end-user, and industry vertical, along with the geography, delivering valuable insights.

The Type Coverage in the Market are: DNA OligosRNA Oligos

Market Segment by Applications, covers:PharmaceuticalResearchDiagnostic

Market segment by Regions/Countries, this report coversNorth AmericaEuropeChinaRest of Asia PacificCentral & South AmericaMiddle East & Africa

Major factors covered in the report:

To get this report at a profitable rate.: https://reportsinsights.com/discount/77236

The analysis objectives of the report are:

Access full Report Description, TOC, Table of Figure, Chart, [emailprotected] https://reportsinsights.com/industry-forecast/Oligonucleotides-Market-77236

About US:

Reports Insights is the leading research industry that offers contextual and data-centric research services to its customers across the globe. The firm assists its clients to strategize business policies and accomplish sustainable growth in their respective market domain. The industry provides consulting services, syndicated research reports, and customized research reports.

Contact US:

:(US) +1-214-272-0234

:(APAC) +91-7972263819

Email:[emailprotected]

Sales:[emailprotected]

Read more here:
COVID-19 Impact: Oligonucleotides Market | Strategic Industry Evolutionary Analysis Focus on Leading Key Players and Revenue Growth Analysis by...

A clinical trial examines the emotional impact of at-home genetic testing for cancer, when pre-test counseling is skipped.

PORTLAND, Ore. There are DNA tests available for people to take at home to learn if theyre at high risk for developing certain cancers. For women, that includes ovarian cancer. But is it a good idea, emotionally, to use an at-home test to get potentially life-altering information?

A recent clinical trial set out to answer that question. The trial is called MAGENTA, which stands for Making GENetic Testing Accessible. It was sponsored by Stand Up to Cancer, the Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance and the National Ovarian Cancer Coalition.

The clinical trial involved nearly 4,000 women from across the country. They were asked to test for the most serious cancer-causing gene mutations using a saliva-based test kit at home. Researchers then studied the results of different combinations of remote pre and post-test genetic counseling for cancer risk. The trial concluded that genetic testing can be provided remotely and that genetic counseling before and after testing can be skipped without causing increased distress to patients.

We weren't sure if it was safe to be testing this way, said Dr. Elizabeth Swisher, a co-leader of the Stand Up to Cancer Dream Team and based out of the University of Washington. She said the trial also showed that participants who were required to have pre-test counseling were less likely to complete the process. She said that's key, since their goal is getting more women tested for ovarian cancer, which is hard to detect before it spreads. Doctors note women with the BRCA1 BRCA2 gene mutations were 20 to 40% more likely to develop breast and ovarian cancer than those without it.

That risk doesn't go away if you hide your head in the sand, but if you know that information then you can do something about it and change outcomes, said Swisher. Ultimately, if we're going to catch this risk, we can't just target this testing towards women with a strong family history; we really need to do it at a population level.

Stand Up to Cancer teamed up with Color Genomics for the trial. The genetic testing company offers a similar test to the public now for $249 which includes post-results counseling. Many insurance providers will offset the cost for patients with an applicable family history of cancer.

Portland oncology nurse Tricia Laine participated in the clinical trial after learning about it at a medical conference.

My grandmother died of ovarian cancer when she was 52, when my mother was in college, said Laine, 34. Its always been something that's been in our family history.

Laine said despite the convenience of the test, choosing to take it was a decision she approached thoughtfully.

I had to ask my family first if it was OK that I did this, said Laine. Because it would tell us a lot of information.

Laines test results came back negative, though she doesnt believe it means her future is necessarily clear of cancer. She said she will use the test result knowledge as power, and hopes others will do the same.

I don't think you should not [take the test] out of fear.

See the original post:
'That risk doesn't go away if you hide your head in the sand': New study validates at-home DNA tests for cancer risk - KGW.com

NICE has publisheddraft recommendationson testing for Lynch syndrome in people with endometrial cancer.

The draft guidance recommends testing for Lynch syndrome in people with endometrial cancer. The following tests are recommended:

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) testing to identify tumours with mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency.

MLH1 promoter hypermethylation testing of tumour DNA, if IHC is positive.

If MLH1 promoter hypermethylation test is negative, confirm Lynch syndrome by genetic testing of germline DNA.

Genetic testingcan also be offered to relatives with the aim of preventing Lynch syndrome-associated cancer developing or detecting it at an early stage. Discussions about genetic testing should be done by a healthcare professional with appropriate training.

While testing for Lynch syndrome is recommended after a diagnosis of colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer is often the first cancer that people with Lynch syndrome develop. NICE says Lynch syndrome could be identified earlier if tests were done after a diagnosis of endometrial cancer.

Economic modelling has shown that IHC testing then MLH1 promoter testing is likely to be the most cost-effective approach. If it looks like a person may have Lynch syndrome after both tumour tests have been done, genetic testing of non-tumour DNA should be done to confirm this.

The draft recommendations are open forconsultationuntil 13 July.

This article originally appeared on Univadis, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

Follow this link:
NICE Guidance on Testing for Lynch Syndrome in People with Endometrial Cancer - Medscape

Theglobal direct-to-consumer genetic testing marketis primarily segmented based on different technology, test type, distribution channel and region.

On the basis technology, market is segmented into targeted analysis, single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) chips, and whole genome sequencing (WGS).

Direct-to-Consumer Geneticprovides people access to their genetic information without necessarily involving a healthcare provider or health insurance company in the process.

These genetic tests are marketed directly to customers via television, print advertisements, or the Internet, and the tests can be bought online or in stores.

Get Sample Copy of this Report @https://www.orianresearch.com/request-sample/1261431

Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Industry report offers a comprehensive insight into the development policies and plans in addition to manufacturing processes and cost structures. On the basis of product, this report displays the cost structure, sales revenue, sales volume, gross margin, market share and growth rate.

Report Covers Market Segment by Manufacturers:

Ancestory 23andMe, Color Family Tree DNA EasyDNA Helix Indentigene Full Genomes Genesis HealthCare .

Report Covers Market Segment by Types:

Carrier Testing Predictive Testing Ancestory & Relationship Testing Nutrigenomics Testing Other Testing

Global Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Industry 2019 Market Research Report is spread across 114 pages and provides exclusive vital statistics, data, information, trends and competitive landscape details in this niche sector.

Order Copy of this Report 2019 @https://www.orianresearch.com/checkout/1261431

Report Covers Market Segment by Applications:

Targeted Analysis Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) Chips Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS)

Key Benefits of the Report:

Global, and regional, product type & application market size and their forecast from 2019-2026 Identification and detailed analysis on key market dynamics, such as, drivers, restraints, opportunities, and challenges influencing the growth of the market

Detailed analysis on industry outlook with market specific PEST analysis, and Supply Chain to better understand the market and build expansion strategies Identification of key market players and comprehensively analyze their market share and core competencies, detailed financial positions, key products, and unique selling points Analysis on key players strategic initiatives and competitive developments, such as agreements & joint ventures, mergers & acquisitions, expansion, and new product launches in the market Expert interviews and their insights on market trends, market shift, current and future outlook, and factors impacting vendors short term & long term strategies Detailed insights on emerging regions, product type and application with qualitative and quantitative information and facts Identification of the key patents filed in the field of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing equipment and other related technologies.

Target Audience:

Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing providers Traders, Importer and Exporter Raw material suppliers and distributors Research and consulting firms Government and research organizations Associations and industry bodies

Inquire more about Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Market report @https://www.orianresearch.com/enquiry-before-buying/1261431

Research Methodology

The market is derived through extensive use of secondary, primary, in-house research followed by expert validation and third party perspective like analyst report of investment banks. The secondary research forms the base of our study where we conducted extensive data mining, referring to verified data sources such as white papers government and regulatory published materials, technical journals, trade magazines, and paid data sources.

For forecasting, regional demand & supply factor, investment, market dynamics including technical scenario, consumer behavior, and end use industry trends and dynamics, capacity Types, spending were taken into consideration.

We have assigned weights to these parameters and quantified their market impacts using the weighted average analysis to derive the expected market growth rate.

The market estimates and forecasts have been verified through exhaustive primary research with theKey Industry Participants (KIPs) which typically include:

Original Equipment Manufacturer Component Supplier Distributors Government Body & Associations Research Institute

Table of Content

1 Executive Summary2 Methodology And Market Scope3 Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Market Industry Outlook4 Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Market By End User5 Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Market Type6 Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Market Regional Outlook7 Competitive LandscapeEnd of the report

Disclaimer

Customization Service of the Report:Orian Research provides customisation of reports as per your need. This report can be personalised to meet your requirements. Get in touch with our sales team, who will guarantee you to get a report that suits your necessities.

About Us:Orian Research is one of the most comprehensive collections of market intelligence reports on the World Wide Web. Our reports repository boasts of over 500000+ industry and country research reports from over 100 top publishers. We continuously update our repository so as to provide our clients easy access to the worlds most complete and current database of expert insights on global industries, companies, and products. We also specialize in custom research in situations where our syndicate research offerings do not meet the specific requirements of our esteemed clients.

Contact Us:Ruwin MendezVice President Global Sales & Partner RelationsOrian Research ConsultantsUS: +1 (832) 380-8827 | UK: +44 0161-818-8027Email:[emailprotected]Website: http://www.orianresearch.com/

Original post:
COVID-19 Impact on Global Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Industry 2020: Industry Trends, Size, Applications, SWOT Analysis by Top Key Players and...

The report provides an exhaustive calculation of the Breast Cancer Predictive Genetic Testing comprising of industry chain structure, market drivers, opportunities, future roadmap, industry news analysis, industry policy analysis, market player profiles and strategies. The report offers a comprehensive insight into the development policies and plans in addition to manufacturing processes and cost structures.

Complete report on Breast Cancer Predictive Genetic Testing market spread across 142 pages, profiling companies and supported with tables and figures is now available @ https://www.insidemarketreports.com/sample-request/10/370072/Breast-Cancer-Predictive-Genetic-Testing

Our industry professionals are working reluctantly to understand, assemble and timely deliver assessment on impact of COVID-19 disaster on many corporations and their clients to help them in taking excellent business decisions. We acknowledge everyone who is doing their part in this financial and healthcare crisis.

With tables and figures helping analyze worldwide Breast Cancer Predictive Genetic Testing market, this research provides key statistics on the state of the industry and is a valuable source of guidance and direction for companies and individuals interested in the market. Companies profiled and studied for this Breast Cancer Predictive Genetic Testing market report include Roche, Thermo Fisher Scientific, PerkinElmer, Quest Diagnostics, Myriad Genetics, Iverson Genetics, Cancer Genetics, OncoCyte Corporation, NeoGenomics, Invitae and others.

The report is based upon arduous data analysis carried out by industry doyens. The all-inclusive analysis of these data provides an in-depth and detailed insight into the global Breast Cancer Predictive Genetic Testing market. The report further provides the new and existing players with information such as company profiles, facts and figures, product picture and specifications, sales, market share and contact information.

Major Points covered in this report are as below

For the data information by region, company, type and application, 2019 is considered as the base year. Whenever data information was unavailable for the base year, the prior year has been considered.

Purchase the copy of this report at: https://www.insidemarketreports.com/buy-now/10/370072/Breast-Cancer-Predictive-Genetic-Testing/single

Purchase this Report now by availing up to 40% Discount and free consultation.Offer is valid for June 2020 only.

Why Inside Market Reports:

For all your Research needs, reach out to us at:

Email: [emailprotected]

Phone: +1-617-230-0741

Original post:
How Corona Pandemic will impact Breast Cancer Predictive Genetic Testing market and what change Development Strategy 2020-25 - Cole of Duty

The globalDirect-to-Consumer (DTC) Genetic Testing Marketis carefully researched in the report while largely concentrating on top players and their business tactics, geographical expansion, market segments, competitive landscape, manufacturing, and pricing and cost structures. Each section of the research study is specially prepared to explore key aspects of the global Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Genetic Testing market. For instance, the market dynamics section digs deep into the drivers, restraints, trends, and opportunities of the global Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Genetic Testing market. With qualitative and quantitative analysis, we help you with thorough and comprehensive research on the global Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Genetic Testing market. We have also focused on SWOT, PESTLE, and Porters Five Forces analyses of the global Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Genetic Testing market.

Leading players of the global Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Genetic Testing market are analyzed taking into account their market share, recent developments, new product launches, partnerships, mergers or acquisitions, and markets served. We also provide an exhaustive analysis of their product portfolios to explore the products and applications they concentrate on when operating in the global Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Genetic Testing market. Furthermore, the report offers two separate market forecasts one for the production side and another for the consumption side of the global Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Genetic Testing market. It also provides useful recommendations for new as well as established players of the global Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Genetic Testing market.

Request sample copy of this report:https://www.reporthive.com/request_sample/2292341

Major Players:

23andMedeCODEmeDNA DTCGeneByGeneGenecodebook OyGenetrainerMD RevolutionMyriad GeneticsNavigenics

Segmentation by Product:

Genome Data Bank Material ModelIndividual Health Planning ModelComprehensive Genome Tests ModelMedical Precision Tests ModelRestricted Trait Tests Model

Segmentation by Application:

Doctor OfficeInternetOthers

Regions and Countries:U.S, Canada, France, Germany, UK, Italy, Rest of Europe, India, China, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Australia, Rest of APAC, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Rest of LATAM, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, UAE.

Report Objectives

Table of Contents

Report Overview:It includes major players of the global Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Genetic Testing market covered in the research study, research scope, and Market segments by type, market segments by application, years considered for the research study, and objectives of the report.

Global Growth Trends:This section focuses on industry trends where market drivers and top market trends are shed light upon. It also provides growth rates of key producers operating in the global Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Genetic Testing market. Furthermore, it offers production and capacity analysis where marketing pricing trends, capacity, production, and production value of the global Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Genetic Testing market are discussed.

Market Share by Manufacturers:Here, the report provides details about revenue by manufacturers, production and capacity by manufacturers, price by manufacturers, expansion plans, mergers and acquisitions, and products, market entry dates, distribution, and market areas of key manufacturers.

Market Size by Type:This section concentrates on product type segments where production value market share, price, and production market share by product type are discussed.

Market Size by Application:Besides an overview of the global Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Genetic Testing market by application, it gives a study on the consumption in the global Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Genetic Testing market by application.

Production by Region:Here, the production value growth rate, production growth rate, import and export, and key players of each regional market are provided.

Consumption by Region:This section provides information on the consumption in each regional market studied in the report. The consumption is discussed on the basis of country, application, and product type.

Company Profiles:Almost all leading players of the global Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Genetic Testing market are profiled in this section. The analysts have provided information about their recent developments in the global Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Genetic Testing market, products, revenue, production, business, and company.

Market Forecast by Production:The production and production value forecasts included in this section are for the global Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Genetic Testing market as well as for key regional markets.

Market Forecast by Consumption:The consumption and consumption value forecasts included in this section are for the global Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Genetic Testing market as well as for key regional markets.

Value Chain and Sales Analysis:It deeply analyzes customers, distributors, sales channels, and value chain of the global Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Genetic Testing market.

Key Findings:This section gives a quick look at important findings of the research study.

Request for Customization:https://www.reporthive.com/request_customization/2292341

About us:

Our research base consists of a wide spectrum of premium market research reports. Apart from comprehensive syndicated research reports, our in-house team of research analysts leverages excellent research capabilities to deliver highly customized tailor-made reports. The market entry strategies presented in our reports has helped organizations of all sizes to generate profits by making timely business decisions. The research information including market size, sales, revenue, and competitive analysis offered, is the product of our excellence in the market research domain.

The rest is here:
Impact of Corona on Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Genetic Testing Market Key Manufactures and Business Overview till 2026 - 3rd Watch News

Adults under 40 who develop cancers that are rare for their age bracket have a high rate of inherited gene mutations associated with cancer.

People with inherited genetic mutations who develop such cancersknown as early-onset cancersare more likely to develop new malignancies unrelated to their first cancer and to experience other health complications.

The most common early-onset cancers, which by definition are rare malignancies among younger adults, are breast, colon, pancreas kidney, prostate and ovarian cancer. These are distinct from other types of cancer that are more commonly seen among young adults, such as sarcoma and brain cancer.

Thus, the new findings from a recent study, presented this week at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Virtual Annual Meeting II, have important implications for how younger adults with cancer might receive genetic counseling that could inform their treatment as well as their ongoing monitoring as they progress through life.

This study supports a role for genetic testing irrespective of tumor types, Zsofia Stadler, MD, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said at an AACR press briefing.

Stadler and her colleagues assessed inherited genetic mutations among 1,201 young adults diagnosed with cancer at Sloan Kettering between 2015 and 2019, looking specifically for up to 88 genes known to be linked to a higher risk of cancer.

Eight hundred seventy-seven of the participants had early-onset cancermost commonly colorectal, breast, kidney, pancreatic and ovarian cancer; 324 had young-adult cancers that are common in this age groupmost commonly sarcoma and brain, testicular and thyroid cancer.

The researchers found that 21% of those with early-onset cancers and 13% of those with young-adult cancers had inherited genetic mutations (also known as germline mutations).

Among people with early-onset cancers, BRCA gene mutations and those associated with Lynch syndrome (the most common cause of hereditary colon cancer) were seen most often. Among those with young-adult cancers, inherited TP53 mutations were more common; these are characteristic of Li-Fraumeni syndrome, which is associated with childhood cancers.

Although they only represent about 4% of all cancers, young adults with cancer, defined as those diagnosed with cancer between the ages of 18 and 39, face unique challenges, said Stadler. Identifying whether a young patients cancer occurred in the setting of an inherited cancer predisposition syndrome is important as it can result in a substantial change in clinical management, such as increased cancer surveillance aimed at early detection and risk-reducing surgery to prevent new cancers and may even have reproductive implications for young families.

To read the study abstract, click here.

To read a press release about the study, click here.

Read this article:
Inherited Genetic Mutations Are Common in Young Adults With Early-Onset Cancer - Cancer Health Treatment News

Point-of-Care Genetic Testing Market 2020

This report studies the Point-of-Care Genetic Testing Market with many aspects of the industry like the market size, market status, market trends and forecast, the report also provides brief information of the competitors and the specific growth opportunities with key market drivers. Find the complete Point-of-Care Genetic Testing Market analysis segmented by companies, region, type and applications in the report.

The major players covered in Point-of-Care Genetic Testing Market Abbott (US), Roche (Switzerland), Thermo Fisher Scientific (US), Cepheid (US), IQuum (US), Biocartis (Switzerland), Idaho Technologies (US), Optigene (UK), and Lumora (UK)

The final report will add the analysis of the Impact of Covid-19 in this report Point-of-Care Genetic Testing industry.

Get a Free Sample Copy @ https://www.reportsandmarkets.com/sample-request/global-point-of-care-genetic-testing-market-size-status-and-forecast-2022-one?utm_source=3wnews&utm_medium=36

Point-of-Care Genetic Testing Market continues to evolve and expand in terms of the number of companies, products, and applications that illustrates the growth perspectives. The report also covers the list of Product range and Applications with SWOT analysis, CAGR value, further adding the essential business analytics. Point-of-Care Genetic Testing Market research analysis identifies the latest trends and primary factors responsible for market growth enabling the Organizations to flourish with much exposure to the markets.

Market Segment by Regions, regional analysis covers

North America (United States, Canada and Mexico)

Europe (Germany, France, UK, Russia and Italy)

Asia-Pacific (China, Japan, Korea, India and Southeast Asia)

South America (Brazil, Argentina, Colombia etc.)

Middle East and Africa (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa)

Research objectives:

To study and analyze the global Point-of-Care Genetic Testing market size by key regions/countries, product type and application, history data from 2013 to 2017, and forecast to 2026.

To understand the structure of Point-of-Care Genetic Testing market by identifying its various sub segments.

Focuses on the key global Point-of-Care Genetic Testing players, to define, describe and analyze the value, market share, market competition landscape, SWOT analysis and development plans in next few years.

To analyze the Point-of-Care Genetic Testing with respect to individual growth trends, future prospects, and their contribution to the total market.

To share detailed information about the key factors influencing the growth of the market (growth potential, opportunities, drivers, industry-specific challenges and risks).

To project the size of Point-of-Care Genetic Testing submarkets, with respect to key regions (along with their respective key countries).

To analyze competitive developments such as expansions, agreements, new product launches and acquisitions in the market.

To strategically profile the key players and comprehensively analyze their growth strategies.

The Point-of-Care Genetic Testing Market research report completely covers the vital statistics of the capacity, production, value, cost/profit, supply/demand import/export, further divided by company and country, and by application/type for best possible updated data representation in the figures, tables, pie chart, and graphs. These data representations provide predictive data regarding the future estimations for convincing market growth. The detailed and comprehensive knowledge about our publishers makes us out of the box in case of market analysis.

Table of Contents: Point-of-Care Genetic Testing Market

Chapter 1: Overview of Point-of-Care Genetic Testing Market

Chapter 2: Global Market Status and Forecast by Regions

Chapter 3: Global Market Status and Forecast by Types

Chapter 4: Global Market Status and Forecast by Downstream Industry

Chapter 5: Market Driving Factor Analysis

Chapter 6: Market Competition Status by Major Manufacturers

Chapter 7: Major Manufacturers Introduction and Market Data

Chapter 8: Upstream and Downstream Market Analysis

Chapter 9: Cost and Gross Margin Analysis

Chapter 10: Marketing Status Analysis

Chapter 11: Market Report Conclusion

Chapter 12: Research Methodology and Reference

Key questions answered in this report

What will the market size be in 2026 and what will the growth rate be?

What are the key market trends?

What is driving this market?

What are the challenges to market growth?

Who are the key vendors in this market space?

What are the market opportunities and threats faced by the key vendors?

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the key vendors?

Inquire More about This https://www.reportsandmarkets.com/enquiry/global-point-of-care-genetic-testing-market-size-status-and-forecast-2022-one?utm_source=3wnews&utm_medium=36

About Us:

Reports and Markets is not just another company in this domain but is a part of a veteran group called Algoro Research Consultants Pvt. Ltd. It offers premium progressive statistical surveying, market research reports, analysis & forecast data for a wide range of sectors both for the government and private agencies all across the world. The database of the company is updated on a daily basis. Our database contains a variety of industry verticals that include: Food Beverage, Automotive, Chemicals and Energy, IT & Telecom, Consumer, Healthcare, and many more. Each and every report goes through the appropriate research methodology, Checked from the professionals and analysts.

Contact Us:

Sanjay Jain

Manager Partner Relations & International Marketing

http://www.reportsandmarkets.com

Ph: +1-352-353-0818 (US)

Read more:
Impact of COVID-19 Outbreak on Point-of-Care Genetic Testing Market to Witness Abbott (US), Roche (Switzerland), Thermo Fisher Scientific (US),...

Pierce Brosnan, 67, returns to the screen Friday as Will Ferrells father in the upcoming Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga on Netflix. Brosnan shares the photo above with the man himself and actor Bjorn Stefansson.Before playing comedic roles in Mama Mia and now Eurovision Brosnan overcame tragedy when ovarian cancer ended the lives

RELATED: Has Ovarian Cancer Treatment Changed During COVID-19?

of his first wife, Cassandra, their daughter Charlotte, and Cassandras mother. His life now inspires others in the cancer community.

I play Erick, the father, possibly the most handsome man in Iceland.' Brosnan told RTE. The song contest, Brosnan told The List,is like Americas Got Talent they battle it out and its the birthplace of ABBA, he says, adding; The films got heart.

Doting family man, Pierce Brosnan, 67, has lived through the tragedy of ovarian cancer. His first wife, Cassandra died after undergoing four years of treatment for the disease. Cassandra Brosnans mother also died of ovarian cancer.

RELATED: Pierce Brosnan, a Role Model for Finding Joy After Cancer, Celebrates His Granddaughter on Instagram

In 2013, their daughter, Charlotte, lost her battle with ovarian cancer as well.The familys tragedy underscores why doctors urge women with a family history of ovarian cancer to pursue genetic testing.I was in a helpless state of confusion and anger, he told PEOPLE, of his grief.

He credits his wife of 26 years, Keely, who joined him in Iceland for the movies filming, with restoring his happiness.

Brosnan was quiet during the early days of quarantine, but hes become a thoughtful presence on social media, sharingcomforting words with his followers: In the face of such uncertainty, it has never been more important for us to think, create and imagine a better future, he wrote. We may be confined to our houses at the moment, but our imaginations are still free to dream, create, and collaborate.

The actor has been celebratinghappy milestones lately. In May, he marked his son, Dylans graduation fromUSC School of Cinematic Arts with the words:Go forth into this new world and make it your own. Be fearless, courageous and generous. Love, Dad.

Joanna Gutermuth, an ovarian cancer survivor, shares how genetic testing saved her life.

He capped his May 14th birthday with loving words for his wife: Thank you for the moon and sun and all the days of our lives together my darling heart Keely. I had a great 67th birthday. Thanks to one and all of you out there who wished me so. God bless, stay strong. The two recently celebrated their 26th wedding anniversary.

The link between the ovarian cancer deaths of Brosnans first wife, Cassandra, her mother, and their daughter is likely in the womens shared genes, and their story could be an important one to note for other women diagnosed with ovarian cancer.

RELATED: Ovarian Cancer And COVID-19: How Has Treatment Changed?

Dr. Beth Karlan, gynecologic oncologist at UCLA Medical Center did not treat Cassandra or Charlotte but advises genetictesting can have life-saving benefits, especially because ovarian cancer is curable in over 90 percent of cases when diagnosed early.

RELATED: Exciting Developments in Immunotherapy for Ovarian Cancer

Its important when youre deciding whether or not genetic testing would benefit you to find out what cancers run in your family, Dr. Karlan says. Because it can really help to save lives.

Dr. Ursula Matulonis of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute sayspatients diagnosed with ovarian cancer, she should undergo genetic testing for BRCA mutations.

A recent study found that too few women are being tested for mutations of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene. Both place those who carry the mutation at a heightened risk for breast cancer or ovarian cancer.

RELATED VIDEO:How PARP Inhibitors Work For Ovarian Cancer

Ovarian cancer usually develops in women who are post-menopause. But younger women may also get the disease. A woman who inherits the BRCA1 gene has a 44% lifetime risk (by age 80) for developing ovarian or fallopian tube cancer and 70-80% risk of developing breast cancer.

With the BRCA2 gene, the risk for ovarian and fallopian tube cancer is 17% higher, while the breast cancer risk is around 70%. Women should consult with their doctor, rather than relying on home genetic test kits to identify BRCA genes

Learn more about SurvivorNet's rigorous medical review process.

Constance Costas is a writer for SurvivorNet.

Pierce Brosnan, 67, returns to the screen Friday as Will Ferrells father in the upcoming Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga on Netflix. Brosnan shares the photo above with the man himself and actor Bjorn Stefansson.Before playing comedic roles in Mama Mia and now Eurovision Brosnan overcame tragedy when ovarian cancer ended the lives

RELATED: Has Ovarian Cancer Treatment Changed During COVID-19?

I play Erick, the father, possibly the most handsome man in Iceland.' Brosnan told RTE. The song contest, Brosnan told The List,is like Americas Got Talent they battle it out and its the birthplace of ABBA, he says, adding; The films got heart.

Doting family man, Pierce Brosnan, 67, has lived through the tragedy of ovarian cancer. His first wife, Cassandra died after undergoing four years of treatment for the disease. Cassandra Brosnans mother also died of ovarian cancer.

RELATED: Pierce Brosnan, a Role Model for Finding Joy After Cancer, Celebrates His Granddaughter on Instagram

In 2013, their daughter, Charlotte, lost her battle with ovarian cancer as well.The familys tragedy underscores why doctors urge women with a family history of ovarian cancer to pursue genetic testing.I was in a helpless state of confusion and anger, he told PEOPLE, of his grief.

He credits his wife of 26 years, Keely, who joined him in Iceland for the movies filming, with restoring his happiness.

Brosnan was quiet during the early days of quarantine, but hes become a thoughtful presence on social media, sharingcomforting words with his followers: In the face of such uncertainty, it has never been more important for us to think, create and imagine a better future, he wrote. We may be confined to our houses at the moment, but our imaginations are still free to dream, create, and collaborate.

The actor has been celebratinghappy milestones lately. In May, he marked his son, Dylans graduation fromUSC School of Cinematic Arts with the words:Go forth into this new world and make it your own. Be fearless, courageous and generous. Love, Dad.

Joanna Gutermuth, an ovarian cancer survivor, shares how genetic testing saved her life.

He capped his May 14th birthday with loving words for his wife: Thank you for the moon and sun and all the days of our lives together my darling heart Keely. I had a great 67th birthday. Thanks to one and all of you out there who wished me so. God bless, stay strong. The two recently celebrated their 26th wedding anniversary.

The link between the ovarian cancer deaths of Brosnans first wife, Cassandra, her mother, and their daughter is likely in the womens shared genes, and their story could be an important one to note for other women diagnosed with ovarian cancer.

RELATED: Ovarian Cancer And COVID-19: How Has Treatment Changed?

Dr. Beth Karlan, gynecologic oncologist at UCLA Medical Center did not treat Cassandra or Charlotte but advises genetictesting can have life-saving benefits, especially because ovarian cancer is curable in over 90 percent of cases when diagnosed early.

RELATED: Exciting Developments in Immunotherapy for Ovarian Cancer

Its important when youre deciding whether or not genetic testing would benefit you to find out what cancers run in your family, Dr. Karlan says. Because it can really help to save lives.

Dr. Ursula Matulonis of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute sayspatients diagnosed with ovarian cancer, she should undergo genetic testing for BRCA mutations.

A recent study found that too few women are being tested for mutations of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene. Both place those who carry the mutation at a heightened risk for breast cancer or ovarian cancer.

RELATED VIDEO:How PARP Inhibitors Work For Ovarian Cancer

Ovarian cancer usually develops in women who are post-menopause. But younger women may also get the disease. A woman who inherits the BRCA1 gene has a 44% lifetime risk (by age 80) for developing ovarian or fallopian tube cancer and 70-80% risk of developing breast cancer.

With the BRCA2 gene, the risk for ovarian and fallopian tube cancer is 17% higher, while the breast cancer risk is around 70%. Women should consult with their doctor, rather than relying on home genetic test kits to identify BRCA genes

Learn more about SurvivorNet's rigorous medical review process.

Constance Costas is a writer for SurvivorNet.

Here is the original post:
Pierce Brosnan As Will Ferrells Dad? Their Eurovision Song Contest Debuts Friday: The Films Got Heart - SurvivorNet

Personalized cancer test developer ArcherDX is walking away from plans to take itself public and into the arms of genetic testing company Invitae.

Earlier this month, ArcherDX announced it was filing for a $100 million Nasdaq IPObut instead it will reap a deal worth $1.4 billion, counting upfront cash, Invitae shares and future milestone payments. The two companies plan to integrate their genomics, tumor profiling and liquid biopsy technologies through one, overarching service.

"From the beginning, Invitae's goal has been to aggregate the world's genetic tests into a single platform in service of our mission to bring comprehensive genetic information into mainstream medicine. Today, we take another major step forward in that effort, Invitae co-founder and CEO Sean George said in a statement.

White Paper: Keep Your GI Trials Moving During COVID-19

Clinical Inks intimate knowledge of and experience with GI trials enables a better deployment experience and improved trial conduct. Learn how our GI-specific data capture solutions can support virtual and hybrid trials during COVID-19.

The transaction begins with $325 million in cash plus 30 million shares of Invitae common stock; an additional 27 million shares are linked to milestones. The move has been approved by the boards of both companies and is expected to close within several months, the companies said.

To help carry the acquisition, Invitae has set up a strategic financing with over $400 million in commitments from investors, led by Perceptive Advisors. Invitae has agreed to sell $275 million of stock in a private placement at $16.85 a share, supported by Casdin Capital, Deerfield Management, Driehaus Capital Management, Farallon, PBM Capital, Redmile Group, Rock Springs Capital, Soleus Capital and an unnamed institutional investor.

RELATED: ArcherDX expands co-marketing, in vitro diagnostics partnerships with Illumina

Invitae has also secured a credit facility for up to $200 million with Perceptive Credit Opportunities Funds. Following the deals announcement, Invitaes stock rose nearly 50% from about $18 to over $26 a share.

We are thrilled to unite with Invitae to form the leading hub for precision oncology, diagnostics, therapy optimization and monitoring, with an opportunity to accelerate both patient care and shareholder value," said ArcherDXs co-founder and CEO Jason Myers.

ArcherDX currently counts over 325 unique products in its research services catalog and is developing in vitro cancer diagnostics with FDA submissions slated for later this year. The companys Stratafide DX and Personalized Cancer Monitoring efforts have both received breakthrough device designations from the agency.

ArcherDX also recently launched separate collaborations with AstraZeneca and Bristol Myers Squibb to apply its minimal residual disease assays to the drugmakers clinical cancer research.

RELATED: Invitae to buy DNA-counseling chatbot developer Clear Genetics for $50M

Together, the two companies aim to offer research and clinical trial support to biopharma companies as well as biomarker identification and companion diagnostic development while providing test reports, consultations and genetic counseling through Invitaes central laboratory.

"Integrating all aspects of cancer genetics can transform care for patients and the flexibility that comes from both centralized and decentralized capabilities will uniquely position Invitae to meet the needs of customers worldwide," said George. "By joining together, we will unite world-class capabilities in the hands of a talented team with complementary expertise and strong brands in service of a shared goal to improve healthcare for patients."

Read the original here:
ArcherDX drops IPO plans in favor of a $1.4B takeover by Invitae - FierceBiotech

Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing Market 2020: Inclusive Insight

Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing: Market Shares, Strategies, and Forecasts, Worldwide, 2017 to 2026 report is based on comprehensive analysis conducted by experienced and professional experts. The report mentions, factors that are influencing growth such as drivers, restrains of the market. The report offers in-depth analysis of trends and opportunities in the Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing Market. The report offers figurative estimations and predicts future for upcoming years on the basis of the recent developments and historic data. For the gathering information and estimating revenue for all segments, researchers have used top-down and bottom-up approach. On the basis of data collected from primary and secondary research and trusted data sources the report offers future predictions of revenue and market share.

The Leading Market Players Covered in this Report are: 23andMe, MyHeritage, LabCorp, Myriad Genetics, Ancestry.com, Quest Diagnostics, Gene By Gene, DNA Diagnostics Center, Invitae, IntelliGenetics, Ambry Genetics, Living DNA, EasyDNA, Pathway Genomics, Centrillion Technology, Xcode, Color Genomics, Anglia DNA Services, African Ancestry, Canadian DNA Services, DNA Family Check, Alpha Biolaboratories, Test Me DNA, 23 Mofang, Genetic Health, DNA Services of America, Shuwen Health Sciences, Mapmygenome, Full Genomes.

>>> Get Free Sample PDF (including COVID19 Impact Analysis, full TOC, Tables and Figures) of Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing Market:

Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing Market report offers comprehensive assessment of 1) Executive Summary, 2) Market Overview, 3) Key Market Trends, 4) Key Success Factors, 5) Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing Market Demand/Consumption (Value or Size in US$ Mn) Analysis, 6) Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing Market Background, 7) Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing industry Analysis & Forecast 20202026 by Type, Application and Region, 8) Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing Market Structure Analysis, 9) Competition Landscape, 10) Company Share and Company Profiles, 11) Assumptions and Acronyms and, 12) Research Methodology etc.

Impact of Covid-19 in Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing Market: The utility-owned segment is mainly being driven by increasing financial incentives and regulatory supports from the governments globally. The current utility-owned Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing are affected primarily by the COVID-19 pandemic. Most of the projects in China, the US, Germany, and South Korea are delayed, and the companies are facing short-term operational issues due to supply chain constraints and lack of site access due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Asia-Pacific is anticipated to get highly affected by the spread of the COVID-19 due to the effect of the pandemic in China, Japan, and India. China is the epic center of this lethal disease. China is a major country in terms of the chemical industry.

Competitive Intelligence:

Key parameters which define the competitive landscape of the Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing Market:

Company Market Share Top Market Strategies Company Profiles

o Company overviewo Company snapshoto Product portfolioo Key strategic moves and developments

Production and Share by Player Mergers & Acquisitions, Expansion Market Vendor Ranking Analysis

Market Segmentation:

The common characters are also being considered for segmentation such as global market share, common interests, worldwide demand and supply of Access Control devices. Moreover, the report compares the production value and growth rate of Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing Market across different geographies.

Analysis of Global Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing Market: By Type

Diagnostic Screening, Prenatal, Newborn Screening, and Pre-Implantation Diagnosis, Relationship Testing

Analysis of Global Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing Market: By Application

Online, Offline

Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing Market: Regional analysis includes:

North America (United States, Canada and Mexico) Europe (Germany, France, UK, Russia and Italy) Asia-Pacific (China, Japan, Korea, India and Southeast Asia) South America (Brazil, Argentina, etc.) Middle East & Africa (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa)

Our exploration specialists acutely ascertain the significant aspects of the global Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing market report. It also provides an in-depth valuation in regards to the future advancements relying on the past data and present circumstance of Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing market situation. In this Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing report, we have investigated the principals, players in the market, geological regions, product type, and market end-client applications. The global Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing report comprises of primary and secondary data which is exemplified in the form of pie outlines, Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing tables, analytical figures, and reference diagrams. The Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing report is presented in an efficient way that involves basic dialect, basic Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing outline, agreements, and certain facts as per solace and comprehension.

>>> To get Incredible Discounts on this Premium Report, Click Here @ https://www.reporthive.com/2305289/check_discount

Some of the Major Highlights of TOC covers:

The Study Objectives Of This Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing Market Report Are:

To analyze and study the Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing Capacity, Production, Value, Consumption, Status(2012-2020) and forecast (2020-2026);

To analyze the and key regions Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing market potential and Advantage, Opportunity and Challenge, Restraints and Risks.

Focuses on the key Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing manufacturers, to study the Capacity, Production, Value, Market Shareand development plans in future.

To analyze the opportunities in the Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing market for Stakeholders by Identifying the High Growth Segments.

Focuses on the key manufacturers, to define, describe and analyze the Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing market Competition Landscape, SWOT Analysis.

To define, describe and forecast the Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing market by type, application and region.

To analyze competitive developments such as Expansions, Agreements, New Product Launches, And Acquisitions in the Market.

To identify significant trends and factors driving or inhibiting the Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing market growth.

To strategically analyze each submarket with respect to individual Growth Trend and Their Contribution to the Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing Market.

>>> Make an enquiry before buying this report @ https://www.reporthive.com/2305289/enquiry_before_purchase

Why Report Hive Research:

Report Hive Research delivers strategic market research reports, statistical surveys, industry analysis and forecast data on products and services, markets and companies. Our clientele ranges mix of global business leaders, government organizations, SMEs, individuals and Start-ups, top management consulting firms, universities, etc. Our library of 700,000 + reports targets high growth emerging markets in the USA, Europe Middle East, Africa, Asia Pacific covering industries like IT, Telecom, Semiconductor, Chemical, Healthcare, Pharmaceutical, Energy and Power, Manufacturing, Automotive and Transportation, Food and Beverages, etc.

Contact Us:

Report Hive Research500, North Michigan Avenue,Suite 6014,Chicago, IL 60611,United StatesWebsite: https://www.reporthive.comEmail: [emailprotected]Phone: +1 312-604-7084

Read the original here:
(2020-2026) Direct-to-consumer Genetic Testing Market: Business Size| Strategies| Opportunities| Future Trends| Top Key Players| Market Share and...

Everlywell COVID-19 Home Collection Test kit

Startup Disrupts Medical Testing Industry

Sometimes, to disrupt an industry, you need an outsider's perspective. Other than being a dissatisfied consumer, Julia Cheek had no expertise in healthcare. Trying to find out why she was experiencing debilitating fatigue, doctors ordered a battery of tests. Even with good insurance, she still had to pay more than $2,000. Fortunately, it turned out she had easily treatable vitamin and hormone deficiencies. There had to be a better way, she thought. And, that better way could be used during the coronavirus pandemic.

The technology to do biological testing at home has existed for more than a decade think DNA genetic testing like Ancestry and 23andMe but no one had thought to use it for medical tests. Cheek launched Austin-based Everlywell in 2015 to provide at-home lab testing kits and digital results within just days for things such as cholesterol, food sensitivity, fertility, STDs, and thyroid problems.

Even though she had a Harvard MBA, as a woman and solo founder of a healthtech company, she was ignored by venture capitalists. "What I learned is that it only takes one 'yes,'" said Cheek. Helping to get people to say "yes" was the fact that the company had significant market traction generating $250,000 in sales per month.

An angel investor, Craig Barrett, and a micro venture capital firm, SoGal Ventures, invested in the first quarter of 2017. She landed a $1 million loan at 8% plus help with sales and marketing for a 5% stake from Shark Tank investor Lori Greiner in November 2017. Sales doubled overnight, said company spokesperson. Christina Song. In April of 2019, the company received $50 million in venture capital led by Goodwater Capital. The capital round also included Highland Capital Partners and NextGen Venture Partners. In March 2020, Everlywell was recognized as the third fastest-growing company in Texas, by Inc. 5000. Thanks in large part to Greiner's knowledge of brick and mortar retail, in the two years since her involvement, Cheek announced on a recent Shark Tank update segment that Everlywell's sales have grown from $2.5 million in sales annually to $65 million.

Spotting The Potential For A Pandemic Early

Everlywell's Chief Medical and Scientific Officer, Frank Ong, MD, had been in Asia when SARS broke out in 2002-2003. He understood the risks posed by the new coronavirus identified at the end of 2019. On a business trip in January 2020, he and Cheek discussed his fears that COVID-19 could develop into a pandemic. By February, it was clear the virus was spreading and testing was not keeping pace. "That's when we got into gear," said Ong.

With over 250,000 CLIA-certified labs in the U.S., Cheek saw an opportunity to increase the United States' capacity to do COVID-19 testing as well as to limit exposure to the coronavirus and reduce the potential overload of healthcare facilities through home sample collection. For Everlywell, increasing lab testing capacity wasn't a pivot. It was in line with its values of providing easy and convenient testing. Even though the startup wasn't profitable, the board gave Cheek a quick thumbs up for a $1 million initiative to help smaller labs be FDA compliant.

On March 8, 2020, the company announced a $1 million development incentive to any certified laboratories who fulfilled requirements set by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) and Everlywell to prioritize the development of a COVID-19 diagnostic test. "The money would help small labs get proper testing up and running," said Ong. This would help home testing to become an essential part of the national response.

Earlier in March 2020, a couple of other companies started selling at-home COVID-19 tests for consumers. Everlywell announced the launch of an at-home sample-collection kit that it believed was permitted under an FDA policy. The FDA stopped everyone because it said it had not yet authorized any self-administered tests at home. The false start was due to confusion in the interpretation of FDA guidelines. The good news was that the FDA did see the public health value in the tests and wanted to work with companies.

If At First You Don't Succeed Try, Try Again

Everlywell worked with the FDA to secure an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for its kits before sending any to consumers. EUA allows the FDA to help strengthen the nation's public health protections against chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats by facilitating the availability and use of medical countermeasures (MCMs) needed during public health emergencies. Without the EUA, Ong's experience was that it took 1 1/2 to 2 years for FDA approval. Under the EUA and with Ong's knowledge of aggregating clinical trial research, including data from studies from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and UnitedHealth Group, showing self-collected specimens could remain stable through the mail.

Everlywell COVID-19 Home Collection Test Kit

Everlywell's COVID-19 Test Home Collection Kit became the first stand-alone sample collection kit to be granted an EUA by the FDA. Everlywell's offering is unique because its sample kit is independent of any specific testing lab. It can work with a variety of labs to potentially provide a broader testing footprint.

"The authorization of a COVID-19 at-home collection kit that can be used with multiple tests at multiple labs not only provides increased patient access to tests but also protects others from potential exposure," Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement. "Today's [May 15] action is also another great example of public-private partnerships in which data from a privately funded study was used by industry to support an EUA request, saving precious time as we continue our fight against this pandemic."

For now, Everlywell charges for its home test but makes no profit. However, the company is working with insurance companies to get the test covered and with Congress to make the test free.

During the eight weeks Ong was working with the FDA on approval for the company's COVID-19 test, Everlywell implemented work-from-home procedures and cut all discretionary spending. It also provided tests to healthcare and frontline workers.

How can you put together the team and the resources to help you overcome hurdles?

Read more from the original source:
How The FDA Cut Bureaucratic Red Tape To Make Coronavirus Home Testing Available - Forbes

Home / More Lifestyle / Narnia, the two-faced cat, fathers kittens that match his two facesmore-lifestyleUpdated: Jun 24, 2020 17:04 ISTNarnias face is split in the middle perfectly, and the mystery behind what caused this makes him all the more special.(@AmazingNarnia/Instagram)

Narnia, a 3-year-old cat with a rare genetic trait that gives him his characteristic half grey and half white face, lives in Britain with his owner, Stephanie Jiminez, a cat breeder. After proper genetic testing, it was discovered that Narnia is not a chimera, a genetic anomaly that results in an extra X chromosome in the early stages of his development. Narnias face is split in the middle perfectly, and the mystery behind what caused this makes him all the more special. He also has electric blues eyes that are very rare in black cats.

In the early days of March, Narnia fathered a whole litter of adorable kittens, a few of which have been adopted. Many of Narnias children have his devastatingly good looks and similar to his litter born in May 2019, this one has a perfect representation of both his halves too!

Kittens Renesme and Roswell are copies of each half of Narnia and have Narnias hypnotic blue eyes and we cannot stop gushing about them.

Narnia has a verified account on Instagram where he features in various avatars, including Batman. He can also be found online via his Facebook and YouTube pages.

Narnia and his adorable family have certainly taken over the hearts of people all around the world. He is set to receive another bunch of kittens by the end of June. This adorable miracle of a family is sure to make you smile during these trying times.

Follow more stories on Facebook and Twitter

Thank you for subscribing to our daily newsletter.

Continue reading here:
Narnia, the two-faced cat, fathers kittens that match his two faces - Hindustan Times

The first big leader to livestream a message to the virtual World Health Assembly on 18 May was supposed to be Cyril Ramaphosa, president of South Africa and chairman of the African Union, but something went wrong with the feed. Xi Jinping went first instead. We saw the president of China seated behind a highly polished table, in front of a mural showing rosy dawn creeping over the Great Wall. He promised billions of dollars to fight Covid-19 and invoked planet Earth, our common home. When the virus appeared in China, he said, his country had acted with openness, transparency, and then responsibility. Emmanuel Macron was next, bobbing and rubbing his hands as he spoke of humanitys fundamental right to health. Moon Jae-In, the president of South Korea, spoke of solidarity; Angela Merkel popped up to tell us wanly that the World Health Organisation was a good thing.

The assembly is the annual meeting of the member states that fund and supervise the WHO. The opening session of this years assembly, forced online by the worldwide lockdown, was anchored from WHO headquarters in Geneva. We were led on a claustrophobic internet tour of ministerial offices and oppressively large desks in three dozen world capitals, some of the speeches crackling and fuzzy, until, just after Canada and just before Honduras, we cut to Alex Azar, the emissary from the United States, sent to put Xi and the WHO in their place. He sat in front of a blank blue screen in rimless glasses and a light grey suit, his hair slicked down 1950s-style, bearing an uncomfortable resemblance to the late Donald Pleasence.

It took Azar, Donald Trumps health secretary and a one-time pharmaceutical industry lobbyist and executive, less than three snippy minutes to deliver his bosss message. The pith was the astounding charge that Xi and the director-general of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, were to blame for the severity of the pandemic. We must be frank about one of the primary reasons this outbreak spun out of control, Azar said.

There was a failure by this organisation to obtain the information that the world needed, and that failure cost many lives In an apparent attempt to conceal this outbreak, at least one member state made a mockery of their transparency obligations, with tremendous costs for the entire world. We saw that WHO failed at its core mission of information-sharing and transparency, when member states do not act in good faith.

It was clear that the member state was China. Trump had been trolling the WHO for weeks, accusing it of being a tool of China if it hadnt actively helped China cover up the outbreak, it had at least helped China cover up the cover-up. Trump likes to present the World Health Organisation and the World Trade Organisation as two arms of a global system captured by China to take advantage of big-hearted, deep-pocketed American naivety. Again and again in April, he returned bitterly to the WHOs disapproval of border closures as a way to contain epidemics. On 14 April, he froze US funding for the organisation.

At the end of March, the death tolls in China and the US were about the same, a little above three thousand. Two weeks later, when Trump was claiming in the Rose Garden that China and the WHO between them had raised the worldwide caseload by a factor of twenty, the number of dead in China had barely budged: the epidemic there was under control. In the US, more than 23,000 had perished. By the time of Azars address to the assembly barely a month later, the Chinese toll had crept up to 4638, and was flat, while Americas dead numbered nearly ninety thousand, and the figure was still rising.

That night in America it was already first light in Geneva Trump tweeted a letter laying out his accusations against the WHO, threatening to quit the organisation if it didnt perform an unspecified act of repudiation of China by the middle of June. He didnt wait that long. On 29 May, as part of another broad spectrum attack on China, he announced that the US would be pulling out of the WHO. China, he said, has total control over the World Health Organisation, despite only paying $40 million per year compared to what the United States has been paying, which is approximately $450 million a year.

The Trump dmarche, both the letter and the later statement of intent to quit, seemed extraordinary: for its timing (an attack on the worlds public health agency in the midst of a once in a century global pandemic); for the easily disproved fake evidence it cited (the letter opened with a claim that the Lancet had warned of the virus spreading in China in 2019 it hadnt); and, circumstantially, for the transparency of Trumps real motivation (to shift the blame for his weak handling of the crisis less than six months before the presidential election). In a way, the episode was extraordinary, a notable moment in the coarsening of the US governments diplomatic voice under Trump. But it was also in keeping with a pattern in the management of global disease, a pattern that goes back long before Trump, and long before the WHO was founded in 1948. There is a recurrent Euro-American fear that infection will leak in from elsewhere on the planet, and a recurrent desire to build barriers against it. The pattern connects to the American dread of being subjected to anything resembling a world government. And it alternates between two ideals of healthcare: the tech model, in which health is seen as a set of individual problems to be fixed by intensive, preferably one-time scientific interventions (wipe out malaria with genetically modified mosquitoes!), and the communal model, in which health is deemed a rolling project of social reform, endless and universal, low-tech and labour-intensive, inseparable from questions of housing, poverty, sanitation, education, inequality, diet and work.

Disease knows no borders, we were told in speech after speech at the assembly: we must work together. But what does this mean? Can the WHO be the means to marshal a collective global effort, or is it doomed to cloak the reality that, in fact, there is very little solidarity between nations? Trumps intervention in May didnt help the WHO, and American withdrawal from the organisation would be a hard blow, but some version of the letter was expected, and there must have been a measure of relief among national governments that the US president had sucked from the gathering all the media attention that might otherwise have been directed at wider failures of co-operation. Far from increasing pressure on China, whose initial response to the appearance of the new virus was certainly not open, transparent and responsible, Trumps eagerness to turn hysterically on the WHO itself actually eased the pressure on Xi Jinping at a time when, as we later learned, he was busy planning the suppression of democracy in Hong Kong.

Britains health secretary, Matt Hancock, delivered its message to the assembly. He spoke perkily, as if everything in his country was under control. In fact Britain is the country which, given its relative wealth and long warning time, has failed most grievously to protect its people against the first onslaught of the virus. Its failure lay primarily in its neglect of the low-tech, low-cost, labour-intensive public health methods and community mobilisation that successfully prevented disease in low-income countries: universal lockdowns, self-isolation, masking, quarantine and tracing by people, not apps of all those whom sick people have been in contact with. Yet in his short video message Hancock was speaking the old language of Americans and Europeans, coming up with a tech solution in this case, a vaccine that doesnt yet exist to the worlds problems. Im proud that the UK is leading this work, he said, that were the biggest donor to the global effort to find a vaccine, and that UK research efforts are leading the way. Hancocks wasnt the only speech at the assembly to prompt the thought that before there can be solidarity, a little humility would help.

Towards the end of 1826, Alexander Pushkin was playing chess with a friend who, as he put it, knew a lot of the kinds of thing they study in universities while we were learning to dance. The friend checkmated Pushkin with his knight and remarked: Cholera morbus is at our borders, and in five years, itll be here. Like most of his peers Pushkin knew almost nothing about the disease, which was endemic in Asia but unfamiliar to Europeans. Four years later, in 1830, he went to his fathers estate near Nizhny Novgorod for what he thought would be a few weeks business. He ended up caught in a harsh and futile lockdown against the cholera epidemic that spread from Georgia and Astrakhan to European Russia that autumn.* Pushkin enjoyed the most artistically productive three months of his life; Russia was paralysed by a pandemic regime that sanctioned the shooting of quarantine violators and triggered a series of violent uprisings.

The disease spread to Finland and Poland. It was in Vienna by August 1831. From there it reached the German ports and travelled on to England, Ireland and France. This first incidence of cholera in Europe, with its horrible symptoms of constant diarrhoea and vomiting, is the novel pandemic that haunts Middlemarch. All the world is in apprehension about the cholera pestilence, which, indeed, seems advancing towards us with a frightful, slow, unswerving consistency, Thomas Carlyle wrote as the disease entered Britain through Sunderland. Eventually it killed 52,000 in Britain alone. Our other plagues were home-bred, and part of ourselves, an anonymous English doctor wrote:

We had a habit of looking on them with a fatal indifference, indeed, inasmuch as it led us to believe that they could be effectually subdued. But the cholera was something outlandish, unknown, monstrous; its tremendous ravages, so long foreseen and feared, so little to be explained, its insidious march over whole continents, its apparent defiance of all the known and conventional precautions against the spread of epidemic disease, invested it with a mystery and a terror which thoroughly took hold of the public mind, and seemed to recall the memory of the great epidemics of the middle ages.

The pandemic of the 1830s wasnt the first great cholera outbreak of modern times. That had occurred a few years earlier, in British-ruled India, where a million or more people died. The prevailing attitude among the British in India one which subsequently spread, with cholera, to the Euro-American world was that cholera was of India and Indians, transmitted by means of deplorable Indian habits, from which innocent Europeans and Americans had to be protected. Yet what turned cholera from a series of restricted outbreaks among Hindu pilgrims in India into a global pandemic was the international movement of British troops and British merchant ships, which spread the illness across the subcontinent and on to Central Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

One way of protecting Europe from cholera, in other words, would have been for Europeans to avoid establishing rapacious and intrusive global empires. But they had established them. There was much European hand-wringing in the 19th century over the perilous sanitary consequences, to Europe, of the grand imperial transport projects for which Europe was largely responsible. The Suez Canal, according to a recent history of the WHO by Marcos Cueto, Theodore Brown and Elizabeth Fee, made Europeans feel dangerously close to India. In 1900 the fear was the imminent completion of a railway line linking Berlin to Mecca, seen as a cholera hotbed.

Cholera, which returned to Europe repeatedly during the 19th century, was the subject of the first International Sanitary Conference in Paris in 1851. At intermittent meetings over the next three decades, against opposition from shipping interests, a system of marine quarantine was set up. Cholera receded as a threat, but plague and yellow fever were resurgent; a yellow fever outbreak killed as many as twenty thousand in the south-eastern US in 1878. In December 1907, 13 countries mainly European, but including Brazil, Egypt and the US set up the first embryonic global health agency, the Paris-based Office International dHygine Publique (OIHP), to share information about epidemics between member states (a similar organisation, for the Americas only, had been set up a few years earlier). Whatever humanitarian intentions the OIHP had were clouded by the racist implementation of quarantine rules. Prevailing attitudes, Cueto, Brown and Fee write, meant holding individuals, communities or nations (usually non-Caucasian) responsible for epidemics, an attitude that reinforced the cultural dimensions of European imperialism. Arab pilgrims were thus commonly portrayed as vectors of cholera yellow fever was thought to be carried by immigrants from the Caribbean and bubonic plague by immigrants from China. The unspoken goal of the OIHP was not the improvement of the health of the worlds people but the protection of certain favoured nations from the grandes maladies pidmiques originating primarily in less favoured ones.

In 1923 the OIHP gained a rival in the League of Nations Health Organisation (LNHO), based, like the League of Nations itself, in Geneva. The OIHP was abolished in 1946, its reputation destroyed after being folded into the Nazi-Vichy administrative system during the Second World War. In the spring of 1945, a conference was held in San Francisco to set up the United Nations. It hadnt originally been scheduled to discuss a separate body for health, but a Chinese medic and diplomats son called Szeming Sze managed to push it onto the agenda, where it was overwhelmingly endorsed. Three years later, the WHO came into being. Each member state, regardless of size or wealth, would appoint three delegates to the World Health Assembly, which would elect the director-general, who would run the WHOs day to day operations with a staff of international civil servants. A group of experts chosen by the assembly would mediate between the director-general and member countries.

Raymond Gautier, the Swiss medical director of the LNHO who drafted a plan for a successor agency in 1943, had imagined an organisation that would be able to enforce health rules with sanctions against countries that didnt comply, but this never happened. The WHO has never had the power to compel a reluctant member nation. Its funding and staffing were small 254 in 1949 and its competencies both vague and potentially limitless. It had the remit to be the worlds watchman for infectious disease outbreaks, but it also had a stirring constitution written in the language of social justice, a Magna Carta for health that declared health a universal human right, and defined it as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. The WHO was obliged to do some concrete tasks, such as gathering epidemiological data and standardising the technical vocabulary of medicine. At the same time it was open to initiatives not only from countries desperate for help with hospitals or sanitation but from philanthropists keen to give it.

The organisations logo is the snake-twined staff of Asclepius against a map of the world, an arcane signifier that avoids commitment to any particular one of the organisations three priorities. Should the prime symbol instead be a syringe, to proclaim the power to solve ill-health, disease by disease, with technological fixes? Or should it be two hands clasped, to represent ill-health as the problem of a lack of social solidarity? Or a watchtower, to symbolise vigilance and defence against the menace of spreading infection? The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the second biggest contributor, after the US government, to the WHOs $2.4 billion budget. Gates is a believer in the tech fix. I believe we are on the verge of taking historic steps to reduce disease in the developing world, he told the World Health Assembly in 2005. What will make it possible to do something in the 21st century that weve never done before? Science and technology. The same philosophy was expounded a hundred years ago by the Rockefeller Foundations International Health Division, founded in 1913, which by 1933 was paying the salaries of half the staff of the LNHO. Tech fixes have had striking successes the elimination of smallpox, a WHO-choreographed triumph but also failures, notably the abortive effort to eradicate malaria in the 1950s and 1960s.

That failure, and the growing sense of the iniquity of importing Euro-American medical models into former colonies that couldnt afford to run them or to scale them up, were the primary concerns of a joint WHO-Unicef conference on primary healthcare held at Alma-Ata in Soviet Kazakhstan in 1978. The conference ended with a declaration calling for community-level public health and better public services for everyone in developing countries. The declaration is a foundation text for those, like Tedros, the current director-general, who reckon theres little point in saving a child from dying of malaria if theyre going to be killed by bad sanitation or lack of education. People should not die because they are poor, Tedros observed after his election a remark that might be taken as trite were it not for the great number of political movements in the world who live by the implicit premise that, actually, its their fault if they do.

Over the decades the US government has veered between the syringe and the watchtower. For much of the WHOs existence it has put immense expertise and resources into global healthcare, from a mixture of motives humanitarian, scientific, influence-seeking, image-boosting, or to support its medical industries. The US has provided some of the WHOs most dynamic figures, notably Jonathan Mann, who led the organisations response to the spread of Aids in the 1980s. In narrative fiction and non-fiction, a stock figure has emerged: the brave, principled, maverick American researcher who leaves the safety of the homeland to plunge into the world of foreign disease. The real-life archetype, who appears in two bestselling books from 1994, Richard Prestons The Hot Zone and Laurie Garretts The Coming Plague, is the medical researcher Joe McCormick. Here he is, in Garretts version, being asked by the WHO in 1979 to fly from the Atlanta headquarters of the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to Sudan to investigate an Ebola outbreak:

McCormick hastily gathered supplies and the first assistant he could get his hands on Dr Roy Baron. Within a matter of hours, the pair were on board a flight to Khartoum, and McCormick was giving Baron a rapid-fire lesson on Ebola, Sudan, field operations and self-protection.

Joe tugged at his dark brown goatee with anticipatory excitement, relishing a second chance to crack the mysteries of Ebola.

If the US does pull out of the WHO and there is considerable scepticism that it will, even if Trump wins a second term it wouldnt be the first country to quit a UN organisation. The Soviet Union left the WHO in 1949, taking its Eastern European satellites with it, returning only in 1956 after the death of Stalin. Britain twice followed the US out of Unesco at the end of the last century. The suspicion that international organisations are stalking horses for world government is near the surface of American politics. The US declined to join the League of Nations; the US (along with China, India and Russia) is not party to the International Criminal Court; alone among member states, the US demanded at the WHOs founding that it should be allowed to withdraw unilaterally with a years notice. Even if the US does leave, it wont cut off aid to global health programmes. Theyre too valuable for leveraging power and supporting the domestic pharmaceutical industry. When Azar addressed the assembly in May he took care to say that the US doesnt begrudge setting aside $9 billion to fight Covid-19 around the world. The question is whether the US can really afford to undermine the WHOs watchtower role as the early warning system, data clearing house and resource co-ordinator for pandemics; and what it will mean for the health security of the rest of the world if one part of the globe goes silent. After decades when it seemed that high-income countries no longer had much to fear from epidemics, a succession of novel viruses has appeared: HIV, Ebola, Sars and now Covid-19. Trumps preoccupation with borders, immigration and, lately, cordons sanitaires is a throwback to the early days of the OIHP and the fear of cholera, when the emphasis was on the need to establish a disease barrier between civilisation and barbarity. Under Trump the US is no longer moving between the syringe and the watchtower; it is a riled-up bald eagle with a bottle of pills in one set of talons and a roll of razor wire in the other. His position is that the US can and must do without WHO watchkeeping because, in respect of Wuhan, thats exactly the role in which the agency has already failed. The truth is rather different.

Wuhan is one of the great cities of China, bigger than any European city apart from Moscow, but I knew nothing about it before the outbreak. I know a little more now, but my own city, the pre-Covid London of midwinter 2019, has become a remote, fantastical place. I look back at the first week of December. S. and I had just moved into a new house. Her sister came to stay. A friend came over to cook us coq au vin; he was in our kitchen for hours. I went to the pub with my family, and stood close to strangers at the bar. Nobody was masked. I watched the highlights of the Liverpool-Everton game. Tens of thousands of people roared from the terraces. We checked out a primary school for our son. Dozens of unmasked parents trooped into classrooms filled with children and unmasked teachers. Nobody washed their hands. It was my birthday; we got a babysitter; we met friends at a restaurant in Soho. Black cabs and Ubers seeded Frith Street with revellers. The boozing-rooms roared. Unmasked waiters leaned in. The skies were full of planes, underground and overground trains full of people. And at this time, somewhere in a great city in China whose name held no meaning for me, was an individual with a bad cough who was going to stop it all.

A WHO bulletin on 12 January said, citing the Chinese authorities, that the first patient reported symptoms on 8 December. An article in the Lancet in January by 29 Chinese medical professionals, including doctors from Wuhan, said the first symptoms in a patient appeared a week before that, on 1 December. In its first public statements the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission was adamant all the cases were linked to the local seafood market, and that there was no evidence of human to human transmission. But the Lancet article reported that only two-thirds of the patients could be linked to the market, and that the 1 December case could not. Nor were any links found between that case and any other cases; none of patient ones family ever showed symptoms.

Patient one, in other words, probably wasnt patient zero. To be honest, we still do not know where the virus came from, one of the lead authors of the Lancet article, Bin Cao, wrote in an email to Science magazine. In March the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post, citing leaked Chinese government data, suggested that the first identifiable case was actually in mid-November. In May Gao Fu, head of the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CCDCP), said no trace of the virus had been found in any animal samples from the market. Adding to the origin mystery are reports of early cases, or possible cases, in other countries. A retrospective test of a sample from a recovered pneumonia patient in France, who was swabbed on 27 December, came back positive for Covid-19. The patient hadnt travelled abroad. The late Andy Gill, a member of the band Gang of Four, fell ill with what seemed to be pneumonia after coming back from a tour of China in November. The band didnt gig in Wuhan, but did visit Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou. Gill died at St Thomass Hospital in London in February. His widow, Catherine Mayer, wrote on her blog that one of the specialists treating him told her there was a real possibility that Andy had been infected by Sars-CoV-2.

The first known cases in Wuhan were scattered between a number of hospitals. According to an account on the website of the Chinese National Health Commission, on 27 December, an unspecified private genetic testing company alerted staff at Wuhans Tongji Hospital that a sample from one of its pneumonia patients had tested positive for coronavirus RNA. Staff at Tongji called another hospital, Jinyintan, which had a specialist infectious disease unit, asking if the patient could be transferred there. Instead of alerting the national CCDCP, local officials kept the information within Wuhan and Hubei province. On 29 December, a senior specialist at Jinyintan, Huang Chaolin, was asked by local officials to investigate seven patients with inexplicable lung conditions at a third hospital, Hubei Provincial. What Chaolin found was worrying enough to prompt the transfer of the patients to Jinyintan in ambulances designed to prevent the leakage of potentially contaminated air.

A fourth hospital, Wuhan Central, had admitted a worker from the seafood market with an unusually intractable fever on 16 December. A sample of fluid from his lungs was sent to the Guangzhou-based firm Vision Medicals for genetic analysis on 22 December. According to an investigation by the Chinese business news site Caixin Global, Vision Medicals found, as early as 27 December, an alarming similarity to the deadly Sars coronavirus that killed nearly eight hundred people between 2002 and 2003. Instead of sending a written report to Wuhan Central, Vision Medicals conveyed the news by phone. In an interview with the Chinese magazine People, subsequently removed from its website, the head of the A&E department at Wuhan Central, Ai Fen, said the consultant looking after the patient had told her: That persons diagnosis is coronavirus.

The same day, a new patient was brought in to Central Hospital with the same unusual symptoms. Samples from his lungs were sent off for testing to another lab, CapitalBio of Beijing. At noon on 30 December, Ai was watching a CT scan of yet another pneumonia patient linked to the seafood market when a former classmate, now at Tongji, sent her a screenshot of a WeChat exchange warning against visiting the market because there are lots of people with high fever. He asked whether this was true. Ai sent him a clip of the video of the lungs of her latest patient. Four hours later, Ai got a copy of the 27 December lab report. This time the coronavirus finding was printed on the page. After alerting her superiors, she drew a red circle round the part of the report identifying Sars coronavirus in the patient, photographed it, and sent the image to a group of medical friends and colleagues. It quickly spread online. Among the doctors who pushed the report on Chinese social media in those first hours on 30 December, eight were later punished by local security services for putting out false information, including the ophthalmologist Li Wenliang, who would later die of Covid-19. Ai was bawled out by her bosses for spreading rumours and bringing the hospital into disrepute.

Whether because of the unofficial warning Ai put out on the Chinese language internet, or because theyd been planning to do it anyway, local health officials issued a red alert that night, warning all local hospitals to be on the lookout for unusual pneumonia cases. That alert quickly joined Ais picture of the lab report on social media. A journalist from China Business News saw the posts and got confirmation of the story from Wuhans health committee. The next day, New Years Eve, a team from the National Health Commission arrived from Beijing to investigate. News organisations around the world, from the South China Morning Post to the Daily Mail, reported on a mysterious pneumonia-like illness in Wuhan that had infected 27 people. Although no one had died, and Wuhan health officials assured everyone that all the cases seemed to be linked to the now closed seafood market and there was no sign of human to human transmission, Hong Kong began to put its well-laid epidemic contingency plans into action.

On 2 January, the WHO activated its incident management system, and on 5 January, issued its first bulletin. By this time there were 44 cases. Reliant on the Wuhan authorities for information, the WHO bulletin repeated its insistence that there was no evidence of significant human to human transmission of the disease, although it didnt dismiss the danger: The occurrence of 44 cases of pneumonia requiring hospitalisation clustered in space and time, it stated, should be handled prudently.

For all the impression China can give of being a monolithic state with a clear top to bottom chain of command, it seems to have taken the national authorities the best part of the first three weeks of January to get to grips with what the local authorities in Wuhan had been in denial about. The WHO, dependent on the information China chose to share, took a reputational hit. As it turns out, it was already known in Wuhan in late December that it was extremely likely inter-human transmission of the virus was taking place, and that the connection with the seafood market was shaky. In an interview in April with CGTN, Chinas international state TV service, Zhang Jixian, the head of respiratory medicine at Hubei Provincial Hospital, explained that her first three Covid-19 cases, admitted on 26 and 27 December, were members of the same family, parents and son, living together. None had any connection to the market. At the time Zhang had made clear her opinion on whether human to human transmission was taking place by immediately ordering masks and other protective gear for herself and her team.

Yet well into the third week of January the official information coming out of China remained that there was no sign of human to human transmission, and the WHO, with no evidence to the contrary, sent out the same message. On 12 January the WHO relayed the Chinese line that, fantastically, no new cases had been detected for nine days. (We now know that, just among medical personnel, seven caught the disease in that period.) According to an article in the New York Times, citing a leaked diagnostic guide that has since been taken down from the internet, officials in Wuhan ruled on 3 January that local doctors couldnt designate a patient as suffering from the new coronavirus unless there was some connection to the seafood market. On 14 January Science quoted Xu Jianguo of the CCDCP: It is a limited outbreak. If no new patients appear in the next week, it might be over.

China was praised by some, including Tedros, for the speed with which its scientists sequenced the genome of Covid-19 and shared it with the world. The first sequence was posted on 11 January by researchers from Fudan University in Shanghai: Japan and Germany came up with tests in less than a week. But had China built on the work done by its private genetics labs in December it could have sequenced and made public the genome even earlier. Instead, according to Caixin, on 1 January private testing companies were ordered by local authorities in Wuhan to stop all testing and destroy any samples they had. Two days later the National Health Commission issued a similar blanket order, muzzling private labs. Shi Zhengli, of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, who in 2005 proved the link between the Sars virus and bats, claims that she sequenced Sars-CoV-2 in less than four days. The information could have been sent around the world on 2 January, making it possible for other countries to start work on tests more than a week earlier, but China sat on it.

At a press conference in April, Michael Ryan, the WHOs emergencies chief, revealed that the WHO had first learned of the outbreak not from the Chinese authorities but from ProMED, a non-profit network of observers who scan the internet for disease reports. One of ProMEDs spotters drew the attention of a ProMED editor in Brooklyn to the first social media posts from Wuhan on the morning of 31 December, China time. Ryan hinted strongly that the Chinese government didnt give the WHO the formal response required by the International Health Regulations until the last possible minute, that is, 48 hours after it was requested.

Recordings of WHO meetings obtained by the Associated Press show how frustrated its leadership was in private. Recalling the Sars outbreak of 2003, Ryan told colleagues: This is exactly the same scenario, endlessly trying to get updates from China about what was going on. WHO barely got out of that one with its neck intact. By 8 January, when the Wall Street Journal reported that China had sequenced the viral genome, Ryan was seething: Were two to three weeks into an event, we dont have a laboratory diagnosis, we dont have an age, sex or geographic distribution, we dont have an [epidemic] curve.

On 14 January Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the WHOs emerging diseases section, said that limited human to human transmission was possible, but it is very clear right now that we have no sustained human to human transmission. Not until 20 January, three and a half weeks after Zhang Jixian masked up at Hubei Provincial Hospital, did China concede that human to human transmission of the virus was taking place. By this time Wuhans hospitals were swamped with hundreds of coronavirus patients, protective equipment was in short supply, and medical staff were dying; the disease had spread to Guangdong, Beijing and Shanghai; and cases had turned up in Thailand, Japan, Korea and the United States.

Before the outbreak, the most popular destinations for travellers from Wuhan were the first three of those countries, along with Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia and Australia. All of them mindful of previous viruses that originated in China, particularly the original Sars reacted quickly to the first news of Covid-19. Working on the assumption that human to human transmission was possible, if not likely, they began screening passengers at airports, set up systems to trace the contacts of anyone who was infected and, as soon as the viral genome sequence was made available, started to test. In many of these places, mask culture was already a thing. So far, all these countries have weathered the first wave of the virus well. Even relatively wealthy countries the ones that later suffered the worst death tolls, notably Britain and the US seemed in the beginning to be doing the right thing: treating the epidemic as if it might be a highly infectious disease that could spread from person to person, whatever China was saying. In this they were following WHO advice: it never said that human to human transmission was ruled out, only that there was no evidence. Rather belatedly, on 17 January, the CDC began screening flights from Wuhan; Britain followed suit five days later, and so did Italy at about the same time.

One of the paradoxes of the Covid-19 story is that the US, Britain and other European countries began to lose control of the situation soon afterwards, at the very moment China stopped being the bad citizen of global health and instead became an examplar. On 23 January, just before the great annual travel rush of the Spring Festival, China locked down Wuhan, a city of 11 million people. Soon afterwards it began its epic campaign to speed-build new isolation hospitals to quarantine thousands of coronavirus patients. On 30 January, shortly after Tedros flew to Beijing to meet Xi Jinping, the WHO declared Covid-19 a public health emergency of international concern, but by that time the scale of Chinas response spoke more eloquently than any WHO official declaration could of the disaster that was unfolding.

Much of the subsequent US criticism of the WHO, and of Tedros in particular, stems from this period, when the director-general was effusive in his praise for China and ignored the countrys early blunders and secretiveness. The speed with which China detected the outbreak, isolated the virus, sequenced the genome, and shared it with WHO and the world are very impressive, and beyond words, he said. So is Chinas commitment to transparency and to supporting other countries. In many ways, China is actually setting a new standard for outbreak response. Occasionally Tedross eagerness to give credit to China led him unwittingly to repeat things that turned out to be untrue, such as when he said, on 23 January, that the outbreak had been detected because the Chinese government, post-Sars, put in place a system specifically to pick up severe lower respiratory infections. It was that system that caught this event. Such a system, elaborate and seemingly foolproof, did exist but the authorities in Wuhan still managed to bypass it. The actual system that picked up the event was concerned citizens on social media.

In part, Tedros was perceived to be over-praising China because the rest of the worlds media were still picking over the chaos and deception of the early weeks; the first signs of Chinas fightback seemed from the outside, as one Italian put it later, like science fiction. But much of the resentment at Tedross warm words for China was based on a misunderstanding of WHOs role and powers. Lacking any means to force countries to give it information, but desperately needing to get it, it is obliged to fall back on consensus, persuasion and flattery in other words, diplomacy. The half-hearted cover-up by Wuhans local health officials showed what happens, on a national scale, when leaders fear humiliation. Theirs were not the actions of people who expected to be rewarded for the speedy delivery of bad news. You have to keep positive incentives for countries to report, Devi Sridhar, a professor of global public health at Edinburgh University, said. If there are negative incentives WHO comes out and grabs a headline saying They did it badly what other countries are ever going to come forward and report when they have an outbreak going on?

By February, when a WHO fact-finding mission toured China along with a group of Chinese specialists, Chinas campaign to suppress the virus was in full swing. The official report produced afterwards makes disconcerting reading. On the one hand, it ignores the clumsy deceits of Chinas first few weeks. On the other, it spells out what China had gone on to do, the things we now know countries like Britain, Italy, Spain and the US could have and should have copied in time to stop the outbreak gaining a foothold. Across the country China mobilised tens of thousands of contact tracers nine thousand in Wuhan alone. It pioneered the use of lockdowns to break the transmission chain. And it created a system of mass monitoring and diagnosis to identify and isolate as many cases as possible.

Well within the time-frame to make a meaningful difference in Britain, the US, Brazil or Italy, the WHO began energetically promoting the Chinese approach of suppressing the virus, rather than mitigating it. Bruce Aylward, the Canadian who led the non-Chinese group on the WHO mission, said when he returned at the end of February that governments preparing to let the epidemic simply wash over them had lost before they started and needed to change their mindset. He said he doubted whether the Chinese could suppress a previously unknown virus without drugs or a vaccine, but added that they have taken very standard and what some people think of as old-fashioned public health tools and applied these, with a rigour and innovation of approach, on a scale that weve never seen in history. They have taken case finding, contact tracing, social distancing, movement restriction, and used that approach to try and stop a new emergent respiratory-borne pathogen. There was, of course, a lot of technology in the Chinese effort. While British conspiracists were torching mobile phone masts in the belief they were the source of the virus, China was using its 5G network to give ultra-fast wireless data links to contact tracing teams in remote rural areas.

Even as the UK and US ended up, late in the day, chasing something like the Chinese approach, with its emphasis on public health and communal effort, Donald Trump and Boris Johnson were stressing a different route to pushing back Covid-19: the tech fix. With Johnson, its been ventilators, prospective vaccines, phone apps and antibody tests. Trump speaks of undiscovered vaccines too, but also returns to conspiracy medicine: the idea of an already existing pill that makes you well, or an ordinary household substance that those in the know can use, like one of those clickbait remedies on a website sidebar Doctors Dont Want You to Know about This One Simple Trick to Beat Covid.

The divide between communal health advocates and tech fixers represents a deeper choice: between actions that aim to help an individual, so may indirectly help everyone, and actions that aim to help everyone, so may indirectly help the individual. Lockdown requires each individual to accept personal constraints for the sake of the community, even when they are not themselves ill. In theory, the tech fix can be for everyone, too, but because it is a thing to be obtained, rather than a constraint to abide by, it comes trailing issues of priority, price, privilege, exclusivity: what device, what pill, what treatment, what test can I get for myself, my family, my friends, to protect them?

The WHO has sometimes leaned towards the tech interventionists, but in Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the organisation has found a leader from the community health tradition. He doesnt share the transactional, individualistic, Trumpian view of medicine and his election was bound to create tension at a time when the American nationalist right was already disposed to see the WHO as a project aligned with its ideological enemies. Even before the pandemic they saw Tedros as Chinas man. The US has never really been at peace with the WHO. I mean its not a new thing, Seye Abimbola, editor of the journal BMJ Global Health, told me in a call from Sydney. Theres always been a history of some kind of suspicion that its socialism.

As head of the WHO, Tedros represents many firsts: the first black director-general, the first African, the first not to be a medical doctor, the first to come from one of the five large countries India, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh and Ethiopia where half the worlds extremely poor people live. He was born and grew up in Asmara, in what is now Eritrea, at that time the Red Sea coast of Ethiopia. His parents came from further south, in Ethiopias Tigray region. While he was a small child, Emperor Haile Selassie still sat on the throne; his schooldays were during the Marxist-Leninist regime of Mengistu and the Derg; while he was at university in Asmara, studying biology, many Tigrayans and Eritreans were fighting an insurgency against Mengistu. After graduating Tedros worked for a while at the Ethiopian health ministry, before being awarded a WHO scholarship to study for a masters in immunology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. His time in London in the early 1990s coincided with a change of power in Ethiopia when a coalition of rebels, with Tigrayan insurgents in the forefront, overthrew Mengistu. When he went back, still in his early thirties, he drew attention in the Euro-American world for his research into malaria in Tigray. He earned a PhD in public health from Nottingham University and in 2005, just as the Ethiopian economy under the late Meles Zenawi, a former Tigrayan insurgent leader, was beginning its extraordinary decade of East Asia-inspired economic growth, he became the countrys health minister.

Tedros took control of a radical programme of public health reform that Zenawi and his allies had brought into national government from their experience running rebel provinces with zero resources. It was community-centred and woman-centred, and as much about education as doling out pills. The first phase was one years health training for thirty thousand high-school graduates, most of them women, who were then deployed in pairs to villages across the country. Tedros led the creation of a network called the Health Transformation Army, which aimed to designate one member of every family as a good health advocate. When the Lancet interviewed Tedros in Addis Ababa in 2011, he cited as an inspiration the Alma-Ata declaration of 1978 and its revolt against the tech-fix world of the shiny hospital. Our focus is primary healthcare, he said. We really want to be helping communities help themselves by expanding public health services in villages What we are saying to the world even to the developed countries primary healthcare is the answer. The programme showed remarkable results. From the time of Mengistus overthrow to 2015, child mortality was cut by two thirds, maternal mortality by 71 per cent, HIV infections by 90 per cent and malaria deaths fell by 73 per cent.

Tedros became director-general of the WHO in 2017, after a difficult period as Ethiopias foreign minister. He was the beneficiary of the WHOs first open leadership election; previously the choice had been made in backroom stitch-ups orchestrated by countries with deep pockets. In 2017 the system was changed to one country, one vote. Theresa Mays administration put a lot of effort and resources into backing a British candidate, the WHO insider David Nabarro; its thought he was also the Trump teams choice. The campaign became quite ugly Tedros was accused by critics of downplaying a cholera outbreak in Ethiopia and of complicity in repression there but the mud failed to stick. He got the African support, Abimbola said. Having got Africa, the only thing you needed to get was China, and if you can get China and Africa youve won the election. So he got China and also got Chinas people, to put it indelicately, and then he won it.

The Alma-Ata declaration was made not only in reaction to the failure of the WHOs attempt to eradicate malaria but was part of a turn towards the idealised glow of Mao-era Chinas barefoot doctor programme. The spirit of the barefoot doctors haunted Tedross work in Ethiopia and haunts, perhaps, the villages of Hubei in the era of Covid-19; it isnt surprising he found Chinas coronavirus campaign congenial. The Health Transformation Army, I was told by Sarah Vaughan, who came to know Tedros in the course of thirty years research in Ethiopia, was basically a kind of health extension programme using women through a classic party cell mobilisation system, a one to five system, where one woman would have five followers and each of them would have another five followers. And the idea was a sort of triangle with the party in the vanguard, the state providing the resources and the technical people, and the population mobilised, so it was a sort of inclusive consensus, everybody behind the Great Leap Forward. Tedros was put in as the internationally acceptable face of a system which was delivering outcomes in a way that pleased the donor community, but it was using the party political structure to do that. It was a totalitarian system in the technical sense of the word a benign dictatorship to engineer better community health.

Vaughan described Tedros as a technocrat without an ideological bone in his body. I wondered whether his apparent surprise at the horror in the Euro-American world that greeted his appointment of Robert Mugabe as a goodwill ambassador quickly rescinded was simply the reaction of a man whose lifelong habit has been to isolate health work from all other forms of politics. This attitude might sound cynical, or naive, but it could just as well be seen as a rebuke to the neoliberal idea that democracy, in the shallow sense of elections, and minimal barriers to trade are sufficient in themselves to allow low-income countries to prosper. Before Alma-Ata, before Maos barefoot doctors, there was Britains National Health Service which Tedros has also eulogised, along with other European manifestations of communally-funded medicine. He was elected on a platform that included getting a billion more people enrolled in universal health coverage.

The true significance of Tedross election, and of Trumps attack on the WHO and China, may be as markers of how radically the world has changed since the WHO was founded, and of the refusal of the nationalist Euro-American right to accept that change. In 1950, Europeans and Americans constituted more than a quarter of the worlds population; now they make up less than 14 per cent. The combined population of just two African countries, Ethiopia and Nigeria, is almost as large as the population of the US. In 1950, two-thirds of the world economy was Euro-American; now it is less than two-fifths. Abimbola told me of the groundswell of noise from educated Africans that had propelled Tedros to the director-generals post. There are hundreds of thousands of us, he said. Mostly middle-class, low or middle-income-country people who have the time, the attention, the resources, the exposure and the scepticism to see what is wrong, and to be willing to spell it out.

At the beginning of the coronavirus epidemic it was gravely expected that the Euro-American countries would hold firm, with their sophisticated healthcare systems based around high-tech hospitals, while the disease would cut a terrible swathe through Africa. The question of solidarity, or the lack of it, would come down to how much or how little the rich countries were willing to give the less well-off. So far it hasnt happened that way. The formerly colonised countries, with their thinly resourced health systems, have been spared the worst; it is the old colonisers, with their ventilators and ECMO machines, that have suffered. Senegal has had far fewer deaths than France, the Democratic Republic of Congo far fewer than Belgium, Kenya far fewer than Britain.

That may yet change. More remarkable is the way the epidemic has exposed a lack of solidarity within Western countries themselves. The debate about the path of global health improvements the balance between individualistic tech fixes and community health turns out to be meaningful within countries as well. Nowhere has this been clearer than in Britain, where the expectation each winter is that hospitals will struggle to treat the surge of frail old people; the elderly are pushed back into under-scrutinised private care homes, or into a community care and public health system whose budget to help them has been cut to the bone. When the virus came, this dynamic intensified. Tens of thousands of old people were sent home or into residential care without being tested for coronavirus. They infected others. Many died. The Alma-Ata declaration, with its advocacy of community healthcare and wariness of high-tech hospitals that poorer countries cant maintain, has found a grotesque echo in Britain, where despite efforts at reform, politicians and public remain complicit in the fantasy that healthcare equates to hospitals, doctors, drugs and machines, and community, meanwhile, has become a euphemism for Youre on your own.

See the rest here:
James Meek The Health Transformation Army: What can the WHO do? LRB 2 July 2020 - London Review of Books

Over the past few weeks, 23andMe and other genetic testing companies have made headlines for releasing candid statements acknowledging that their field and their products are too white. Its a problem with which geneticist Tshaka Cunningham is all too familiar.

As executive director of the nonprofit Faith Based Genetic Research Institute, Cunningham has traveled widely to speak at Black churches about the value of genetic research. And as co-founder and chief scientific officer of a genetics startup called TruGenomix, hes working to recruit more diverse cohorts to build a genetic test for gauging risk of developing PTSD.

Cunningham recently called in to STATs podcast, The Readout LOUD, to discuss genetics and racial inequity and what needs to be done to make the field actually reflect the worlds diversity.

advertisement

The transcript of the conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.

So, Tshaka, what do you make of the reckoning that weve seen in the past couple weeks from 23andMe and other genetics companies on these issues?

advertisement

You know, I think its actually a really good thing. I was glad to see it from the highest levels from these companies acknowledging an issue that many of us in the research community have known about for quite a long time, which is this lack of representation of diverse genomes in all of our studies and products. Im glad its starting to get deeper attention because I think it is a key issue thats going to impact the effectiveness of all of these tools over time.

Im looking forward to seeing some positive things that they will do to address it. So, you know, the first step is admitting you have a problem and then you go through the steps to rehabilitate. Im hoping that some positive things will come out of this.

What kinds of questions about genetics do you hear from the communities you speak with?

All kinds of questions. And first of all, I say, you know, the work that were doing with the Faith Based Genetic Research Institute is very unique in that we are bringing together individuals from the faith communities with scientists who are also people of color, and one of our guiding principles in the work that we do in the community is called the honest broker philosophy. That is, those of us who are imparting the information to the community are also from the community. And what we found is that it really helps us establish a better bond of trust for folks to be able to receive the information.

Some of the questions that we get when we talk about the value and the benefits of genetic research is the first questions are, you know, are they going to use it to hurt me? Thats the first question we get a lot from African American participants. And, you know, what will they do with the information? Theres a fair bit of distrust out there. And some of it is quite warranted from past transgressions of the medical establishment on the African American community. But once you sort of talk through those issues with folks and really kind of allow them to see some of the potential benefits, then you start getting a high level of interest.

So lets say 23andMe, for example, or one of the large companies, were to call you and ask for advice on what to do to make their products less Eurocentric and more inclusive. What would you tell them?

Start by making sure that your team, your executive team specifically, is representative of the community. A lot of companies sort of say, well, we cant find them. Any company needing to find a talented minority geneticist give me a call. Ive got a long list.

The second step would be to really use some of your resources to sponsor more research in this area. I mean, part of the challenge is also a financial and economic challenge. When you think about the economic disparities that have existed in America based on racial lines you know, the average African American has seven times less wealth than the average Caucasian. So they might not have even a hundred bucks to spend on something like genetic testing that could benefit them.

And then theres also the messaging. I think to the extent that these companies could help organizations like ours, the Faith Based Genetic Research Institute, other academic institutions, with messaging about the importance or the potential benefits of this, that would be great.

Now, I know thats a fine line that they have to walk because, you know, you dont want to seem coercive. But at the same time, I think trying to really do authentic outreach to the community would start with having more of your employees be from the community and then having a dedicated effort of that kind of outreach within your operation.

One of the more controversial questions in this conversation is around compensation. So what do you think? Do you think that 23andMe should pay people in the Black community and other underrepresented populations for their data?

I believe anybody that contributes their data should have the opportunity to get paid for it if its used. I do not believe in coercing someone to contribute their data with payment. But if Im an individual who has contributed and then you go and use my my data lets say a pharma company buys access to my data and I dont see any benefit from it, then that feels a bit un-American and I just dont feel like its fair. But thats my personal opinion.

So lets talk a little bit about polygenic risk score tests, which really encapsulate the diversity problems in genetics. So, for readers who are unfamiliar with them, these are tests that gather multiple genetic variants together and use them to predict someones chances of developing a disease. So far, many commercial polygenic risk score tests have come off warnings that theyre not very accurate or are even useless in people who are not of European ancestry. But your startup, TruGenomix, is working on a polygenic risk score test to try to gauge risk for developing PTSD. And youre trying to build the test using more diverse data. Tell us about your approach.

Ive recognized the importance of diversity in your datasets. From my earliest days, when I was at the Department of Veterans Affairs, we had a large genomics project called the Million Veteran Program. And part of my contribution to that project was to make sure that minority veterans participated. And so we actually went to great effort to ensure that. And that project has done very well to the credit of the VA, to recruit minority veterans. So that data set is going to provide some rich understanding, or has that potential to provide rich understanding, in polygenic risk for minority communities.

I took some of what I learned there from having to really take the time to do the outreach to the communities, to make sure that the end products are representative. I think that is just core to our actual DNA as a company. I think part of that has to do with the fact that were one of the very few minority-owned genomics companies in the country right now. This was top of mind for us. We wanted to make sure that whatever products we were putting out, the polygenic risk related to all communities, specifically the African American community, which my founders and I come from. It was just a very important thing for us to do not only for societal and ethical reasons, but also for scientific integrity reasons, because as a scientist, I dont believe in putting out products that arent probably applicable to all communities.

So why havent other makers of polygenic risk score tests taken this more holistic approach?

You know, I cant speak for them. I mean, I dont know. Thats a question that I have. I would hope that they take a deeper look at it. Maybe their market calculations were, OK, the people using genetic tests now tend not to be people of color. And therefore, we dont need to care about them. I dont know. Youll have to ask them that question.

All I could say is that I hope that all of the companies that are making these kinds of tests really take diversity seriously. Ive given lectures around diversity and genetics in the past. The majority of the DNA in the world is not of Caucasian origin. Its actually of Asian origin. And then African and Latino. And then Caucasians are only maybe about 14% of all the DNA out there just based on population. So when you think about it in that respect, if you really want to have a genome that is globally applicable, then youd really need to focus on its diversity.

Tshaka, thank you for coming on the podcast today.

Great. Its great being with you all today.

Theresa Gaffney contributed to this report.

This is a lightly edited transcript from arecent episodeof STATs biotech podcast, The Readout LOUD. Like it?Consider subscribing to hear every episode.

Read more here:
A geneticist advocates for diversity and fixing his industry in the process - STAT

Patients 18 to 39 years of age with early-onset cancer had a significantly high risk of harboring germline mutations, suggesting that this population should undergo germline genetic testing, irrespective of tumor type, according to results of a study that were presented during a press program ahead of the AACR Virtual Annual Meeting II.1,2

The results showed that 21% of patients with early-onset cancer (n = 877) had a germline mutation versus 13% of patients with young-adult cancer (n = 324; P = .002). The enrichment of high-and moderate-penetrance pathologic variants was 15% versus 10%, respectively (P = .01).

Among early-onset cancers, the most common mutations were BRCA1/2 (4.9%), Lynch syndromeassociated genes (2.2%), ATM (1.6%), and CHEK2 (1.7%), with pancreatic, breast, and kidney cancer harboring the highest rates of germline pathologic variants. Among young-adult cancers, the most common mutations were SDHA/B (1.9%) and TP53 (2.2%), the latter of which is consistent with Li-Fraumeni syndrome, which is known to be associated with childhood cancers, such as sarcoma.

This study highlights that genetic susceptibility among young cancer patients is heterogeneous, lead study author, Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Center, stated in a press release. The distinct set of germline variants appear to suggest that patients with early-onset cancers harbor mutations similar to those also found in older individuals with cancer, but at a higher prevalence. Among patients with young-adult cancers, the mutations were more similar to those we encounter in our pediatric cancer patients.

Young adults with cancer, defined as those diagnosed between the ages of 18 to 39, represent only 4% of all cancers. However, with germline testing, providers can glean the risk of second primary cancers, the need for long-term surveillance aimed at early detection, risk-reducing surgery to prevent new cancers, and understand potential reproductive implications.

Identifying whether a young patients cancer occurred in the setting of an inherited cancer predisposition syndrome is important as it can result in a substantial change in clinical management, Stadler said during the presentation.

Moreover, germline testing results can help identify at-risk family members, including young siblings or children who should pursue genetic testing, and if positive, appropriate cancer screening or prevention measures.

To that end, investigators sought to quantify the prevalence of germline mutations in young patients with solid tumors. In the study, a total of 1201 blood samples were collected from patients who had been diagnosed with cancer at MSK between 2015 and 2019 and analyzed with the next-generation sequencing panel, MSK-IMPACT, which has the ability to sequence up to 88 genes that are known to be associated with cancer susceptibility.

Using The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, investigators further divided patients into those with early-onset cancer, defined as cancer wherein age 39 was more than 1 standard deviation below the mean age of diagnosis for that cancer type and those with young-adult cancer, defined as cancer wherein age 39 was less than 1 standard deviation below the mean age at cancer diagnosis.

Additional results showed that the most common early-onset cancers (n = 877) included

colorectal (n = 179; 20%), breast (n = 342; 39%), kidney (n = 53; 6%), pancreatic (n = 50; 6%), and ovarian cancer (n = 50; 6%), whereas the most common young-adult cancers (n = 324) included sarcoma (n = 116; 36%), brain (n = 75; 23%), testicular (n = 57; 17%), and thyroid cancer (n = 30; 9%).

The mutation prevalence of sarcoma in young-adult patients with cancer was 18.1%, which was similar to the prevalence in patients with early-onset cancer.

Despite the increased prevalence of CHEK2 mutations in early-onset cancers, Stadler stated that these data do not support breast cancer screening earlier than is recommended for the general population in women with known CHEK2 mutations. Though, investigations are ongoing to determine whether these patients have a family history of breast cancer, in which case, screening before the age of 40 would be warranted.

In terms of insurance coverage for genetic testing in early-onset and young-adult cancers, Stadler explained that all patients with pancreatic cancer are now covered for germline genetic testing and expects that as the field broadens clinical guidelines for genetic testing, so too will coverage for the early-onset and young-adult patient populations.

1. Young adults with cancer may harbor germline mutations [news release]: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. AACR. Published June 22, 2020. Accessed June 22, 2020.

2. Stadler Z, Maio A, Padunan A, et al. Germline mutations prevalence in young adults with cancer. Presented at: the 2020 AACR Virtual Annual Meeting II; June 22-24, 2020. Abstract 1122/4. bit.ly/2BlsMHS.

Read this article:
Early-Onset Cancers Confer a High Risk of Harboring Germline Mutations - OncLive

Genetic and diagnostic testing start-ups are at the forefront of providing health information as a service for consumers. As is frequently the case in emerging markets, no two testing start-ups have the same value proposition or strategic vision for growth.

Popular direct-to-consumer testing companies like 23andMe, Ancestry, and Everlywell have yet to go public, but investors who are keeping an eye on the future have much to consider. While these start-ups are private companies, any one of them could be headed toward an IPO in the coming years.

Image source: Getty Images.

23andMe is perhaps the most well-known genetic testing start-up, in part due to Google's (NASDAQ:GOOG) early investment of $3.9 million in 2007.

23andMe has two consumer-facing genetic test products: one that provides customers with information about their health risks and ancestry for $199, and another slightly less expensive product that only provides ancestry information. Both products require the customer to spit into one of 23andMe's collection tubes and then mail it back to the company's processing laboratory.

As of 2015, 23andMe also performs early stage therapeutics research. There are several signs that the company wants to expand its therapeutics division further. In 2018, 23andMe teamed up with GlaxoSmithKline (NYSE:GSK) to use its genetic datasets to discover new drug targets. Likewise, in January of this year, 23andMe announced that it had signed an agreement to license a therapeutic antibody candidate to Almirall (OTC:LBTS.F). If 23andMe can leverage its massive collection of consumer genetic data to develop new revenue streams from discovery partnerships for drug development, it will grow rapidly.

Ancestry is primarily a consumer-facing genealogy research company. Consumers who visit Ancestry's website use the company's software platform to perform public records searches and assemble family trees. The company's revenues come from a paid subscription service that has a larger feature set for genealogy research.

In service of its genealogy products, Ancestry developed its line of AncestryDNA genetic tests so that its customers could use their genetic information to find close relatives. Similarly to 23andMe, Ancestry's DNA service has a health-oriented testing package with optional add-ons and an ancestry-oriented testing package. But Ancestry's packages are less expensive, and customers must buy both products if they want both sets of genetic data. Ancestry outsources its sample processing to Quest Diagnostics (NYSE:DGX), limiting its costs.

So far, more than 15 million people are included in Ancestry's genetic database, but it's important to remember that the company's health-oriented testing package is less than a year old. Millions more people could flock to the platform if its genetic testing for health is less expensive or more understandable than the competition.

Everlywell is a diagnostic testing start-up that has a collection of more than 35 different tests that consumers can use to investigate everything from their food sensitivities to whether they have a sexually transmitted disease. Most of Everlywell's tests require a drop of blood via a finger prick apparatus rather than saliva, so some customers may perceive the tests to be more invasive. Critically, Everlywell's tests don't provide information about health risks on the basis of family history, nor do they offer other ancestry data.

Everlywell has a network of board-certified state-licensed physicians who review a customer's order to ensure the test they ordered is appropriate for them. If the physician approves the test to be sent out, the patient will take their own sample and mail it to a certified lab. The lab processes the test and sends a report to the physician who approves the results and sends them to Everlywell to be uploaded to the patient's online account. If the test is positive, the assigned physician will help the patient determine their treatment plan.

Nonetheless, as a testing-by-mail provider, Everlywell has shown remarkable product development agility. Everlywell has moved quickly to benefit from the pandemic by developing an at-home COVID-19 test product, which was the first from a digital health company to receive an emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration. Either as a result of high demand or low manufacturing capacity, Everlywell currently restricts customers to purchasing one test per household. Given that COVID-19 testing has been in short supply in the U.S., it's possible that the company will be able to expand its customer base by getting people in the door with its COVID-19 tests and then cross-selling other tests afterward.

Last year, Everlywell raised around $50 million from investors, and it may need to raise more if it wants to continue to grow. Everlywell isn't profitable yet, but its leadership expects to be profitable within two years. For now, the company is working hard to produce and ship as many of its COVID-19 tests as possible.

Link:
Everything You Need to Know About At-Home Testing Start-Ups 23andMe, Ancestry, and Everlywell - The Motley Fool

The latest research report on the Newborn and Prenatal Genetic Testing market is an in-depth examination of this business sphere and is inclusive of information pertaining to vital parameters of the industry. The report provides details about the prevailing market trends, market share, industry size, current renumeration, periodic deliverables, and profits projections over the forecast timeframe.

Request a sample Report of Newborn and Prenatal Genetic Testing Market at:https://www.marketstudyreport.com/request-a-sample/2640189?utm_source=coleofduty.com&utm_medium=SP

An elaborate documentation of the Newborn and Prenatal Genetic Testing market performance during the analysis period is entailed in the report. Insights regarding the driving factors which will influence the market dynamics, alongside the growth pattern followed by the industry over the forecast period are presented. The report further focusses on analyzing the challenges existing in the market and growth prospects which define the business vertical over the forthcoming years.

Key highlights of the Newborn and Prenatal Genetic Testing market report:

Revealing the geographical landscape of the Newborn and Prenatal Genetic Testing market:

Summary of regional analysis presented in the Newborn and Prenatal Genetic Testing market report:

An exhaustive survey of Newborn and Prenatal Genetic Testing market with respect to product type and application scope:

Product scope:

Product types: PCR, FISH, aCGH, NIPT and MSS

Major pointers mentioned in the report:

Ask for Discount on Newborn and Prenatal Genetic Testing Market Report at:https://www.marketstudyreport.com/check-for-discount/2640189?utm_source=coleofduty.com&utm_medium=SP

Application scope:

Application segmentation: Hospital, Clinic and Others

Insights entailed in the report:

Other takeaways from the Newborn and Prenatal Genetic Testing market report:

Elucidating details about the competitive topography of the Newborn and Prenatal Genetic Testing market:

Prominent players of the industry: Perkin Elmer, CapitalBio MedLab, Verinata Health, Agilent Technologies, Inc., Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., Sequenom, Inc., Ariosa Diagnostics, Natera, Inc., BGI, Illumina and Inc

Key parameters included in the report which define the competitive landscape:

The Newborn and Prenatal Genetic Testing market report also emphasizes on major industry aspects like market concentration ratio.

For More Details On this Report:https://www.marketstudyreport.com/reports/global-newborn-and-prenatal-genetic-testing-market-growth-status-and-outlook-2020-2025

Some of the Major Highlights of TOC covers:

Newborn and Prenatal Genetic Testing Regional Market Analysis

Newborn and Prenatal Genetic Testing Segment Market Analysis (by Type)

Newborn and Prenatal Genetic Testing Segment Market Analysis (by Application)

Newborn and Prenatal Genetic Testing Major Manufacturers Analysis

Related Reports:

1. Global Gotu Kola Extract Health Products Market Growth 2020-2025This report categorizes the Gotu Kola Extract Health Products market data by manufacturers, region, type and application, also analyzes the market status, market share, growth rate, future trends, market drivers, opportunities and challenges, risks and entry barriers, sales channels, distributors Analysis.Read More: https://www.marketstudyreport.com/reports/global-gotu-kola-extract-health-products-market-growth-2020-2025

2. Global Learning Disabilities Treatment Market Growth (Status and Outlook) 2020-2025Learning Disabilities Treatment Market report covers the market landscape and its growth prospects over the coming years, the Report also brief deals with the product life cycle, comparing it to the relevant products from across industries that had already been commercialized details the potential for various applications, discussing about recent product innovations and gives an overview on potential regional market.Read More: https://www.marketstudyreport.com/reports/global-learning-disabilities-treatment-market-growth-status-and-outlook-2020-2025

Read More Reports On: https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/endoscopic-vessel-harvesting-market-size-industry-analysis-share-growth-trends-top-key-players-and-regional-forecast-2020-2025-2020-06-17

Contact Us:Corporate Sales,Market Study Report LLCPhone: 1-302-273-0910Toll Free: 1-866-764-2150 Email: [emailprotected]

More:
Newborn and Prenatal Genetic Testing Market Size, Growth Opportunities, Trends by Manufacturers, Regions, Application & Forecast to 2025 - Cole of...

Another day, and another new study shining more light on the complexities of the coronavirus.

A group of European researchers, led by the University of Kiel's professor of molecular medicine Andre Franke, publishedtheir findings regarding a link between our genes and severe respiratory failure among Covid-19 patients inThe New England Journal of Medicine.

The massive genome-wide study was conducted on 1 980 patients from hospitals in Italy and Spain the European epicentres of the disease early in the year controlled against participants without coronavirus, or those who had no or mild Covid-19 symptoms.

It also included some participants from Norway and Germany, where the coronavirus had a much less devastating effect on the population.

READ:Leave your sunglasses at home if you're venturing out during the pandemic

Two genetic factors were found to influence the severity of Covid-19-induced respiratory failure and the need to be placed on ventilators namely clusters found in the 3p21.31 and 9q34.2 chromosomes.

One of the risk alleles is also associated with the ABO-blood groups. Those with blood type A were 45% more likely to develop the disease, while O has some protective effect that makes O types only 65% as likely to the get it compared to other blood groups.

A similar finding was shared by US private genetic testing company 23andMe. Their initial findings in an ongoing study showed that type O blood tends to be 9 to 18% less likely to test positive for Covid-19. However, they did not find one blood type to be more susceptible than any other. Another study from China also found that blood type A seemed more susceptible to the coronavirus.

But when it comes to the HLA genes that monitor our immune system, the researchers found no discernible link with Covid-19.

ALSO READ:One blood type seems to be more resistant against Covid-19

This European study also confirmed that their findings are backed up by the Covid-19 Host Genetics Initiative a consortium of the world's leading genetics scientists who share information that could help better understand the coronavirus threat.

However, former president of the American Society of Haematology Dr Roy Silverstein, told CNNthese results don't mean much to the general public, where this kind of genetic variance in a population isn't that significant.

For researchers though, this could be valuable information for developing treatment and vaccines against the coronavirus.

Recently, researchers found a breakthrough Covid-19 treatment using the steroid dexamethasone that reduces mortality. And regarding the rush for a vaccine, there are currently 100 vaccines in development, with eight having reached human trials.

ALSO READ:Are people with blood type A more vulnerable to contracting the new coronavirus

Image credit: Pixabay

Read the original here:
Study finds genetic factors that make some more susceptible to Covid-19 - Health24

Direct to Consumer (DTC) Genetic Testing Market Size was valued around USD 800 million in 2018 and is expected to witness lucrative growth from 2019 to 2025.

Rising adoption of genetic tests in various applications including cancer and various genetic disorders will augment the growth of direct to consumer genetic testing market over the forecast period. Currently developed DTC genetic tests allows customer to recognize chance of acquiring a genetic disease. Thus, growing adoption of DTC genetic testing for premature disease detection and identification of genetic diseases will boost the market growth over forecast timeline. However, the genetic tests are costly which may restrict the genetic testing market over forecast period.

Download the sample report to understand the market growth in Direct to Consume Genetic Testing :

https://www.insidemarketreports.com/sample-request/9/152718/direct-to-consumer-genetic-testing-markets

On the basis of test type the market is segregated into predictive testing, carrier testing, Ancestry & relationship testing, nutrigenomic testing and others. Predictive testing has potential to identify complicated disease which might be associated with the patient in future. Thus predictive testing can help in identifying the diseases ahead of time and suggest personalized medicine which aids to segmental growth of predictive testing market over the future.

Genetic testing market by technology is further divided into Targeted Analysis, Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) Chips, Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS). Targeted analysis is used to determine the defect in genes that are responsible for a particular disease. Targeted genotyping can precisely determine a persons genetic pool that encodes vital information regarding various disorders. Targeted analysis is less costly compared to rest of the test which will drive the adoption rate of this segment.

North America is anticipated to account for the largest share of the Global Genetic Testing Market. Increasing innovative technologies in genetic tests coupled with rising adoption of these tests will augment the growth of the market. Asia-Pacific is expected to show rapid growth in coming years. Increasing prevalence of chronic diseases will boost the APAC genetic testing market in forecast period.

By Test type

By Application

By Region

Company Coverage

Questions addressed in the report

Conclusion:

In this report, we had discussed the market situation of Direct to Consume Genetic Testing. As we know the world is going to be tech savvy, the demand of trending products and technologies is also increasing. This report can help to understand the business growth in the Direct to Consume Genetic Testing and new opportunities at new places.

Dont push the river; let the river flow!!

Hurry up! and grab the discount for this report

https://www.insidemarketreports.com/discount/9/152718/direct-to-consumer-genetic-testing-markets

For any type of research report, Contact us at:

Company Name: Inside Market Reports

Address: 1 Apache Way, Westford, Massachusetts 01886, USA

Email: [emailprotected]

Contact no: +1-617-230-0741

See the article here:
Direct to Consumer (DTC) Genetic Testing Market Analysis, Evolving Opportunities, Industry Trends, Business Growth, Revenue And Forecast upto 2025 -...