Rapid Precision Medicine

NPJ Genom Med. 2024 Feb 27;9(1):17. doi: 10.1038/s41525-024-00404-0.

ABSTRACT

Single locus (Mendelian) diseases are a leading cause of childhood hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mortality, and healthcare cost. Rapid genome sequencing (RGS), ultra-rapid genome sequencing (URGS), and rapid exome sequencing (RES) are diagnostic tests for genetic diseases for ICU patients. In 44 studies of children in ICUs with diseases of unknown etiology, 37% received a genetic diagnosis, 26% had consequent changes in management, and net healthcare costs were reduced by $14,265 per child tested by URGS, RGS, or RES. URGS outperformed RGS and RES with faster time to diagnosis, and higher rate of diagnosis and clinical utility. Diagnostic and clinical outcomes will improve as methods evolve, costs decrease, and testing is implemented within precision medicine delivery systems attuned to ICU needs. URGS, RGS, and RES are currently performed in <5% of the ~200,000 children likely to benefit annually due to lack of payor coverage, inadequate reimbursement, hospital policies, hospitalist unfamiliarity, under-recognition of possible genetic diseases, and current formatting as tests rather than as a rapid precision medicine delivery system. The gap between actual and optimal outcomes in children in ICUs is currently increasing since expanded use of URGS, RGS, and RES lags growth in those likely to benefit through new therapies. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that URGS, RGS, or RES should be considered in all children with diseases of uncertain etiology at ICU admission. Minimally, diagnostic URGS, RGS, or RES should be ordered early during admissions of critically ill infants and children with suspected genetic diseases.

PMID:38413639 | DOI:10.1038/s41525-024-00404-0

NPJ Genom Med. 2024 Feb 26;9(1):15. doi: 10.1038/s41525-024-00396-x.

ABSTRACT

Early use of genome sequencing (GS) in the diagnostic odyssey can reduce suffering and improve care, but questions remain about which patient populations are most amenable to GS as a first-line diagnostic test. To address this, the Medical Genome Initiative conducted a literature review to identify appropriate clinical indications for GS. Studies published from January 2011 to August 2022 that reported on the diagnostic yield (DY) or clinical utility of GS were included. An exploratory meta-analysis using a random effects model evaluated DY based on cohort size and diagnosed cases per cohort. Seventy-one studies met inclusion criteria, comprising over 13,000 patients who received GS in one of the following settings: hospitalized pediatric patients, pediatric outpatients, adult outpatients, or mixed. GS was the first-line test in 38% (27/71). The unweighted mean DY of first-line GS was 45% (12-73%), 33% (6-86%) in cohorts with prior genetic testing, and 33% (9-60%) in exome-negative cohorts. Clinical utility was reported in 81% of first-line GS studies in hospitalized pediatric patients. Changes in management varied by cohort and underlying molecular diagnosis (24-100%). To develop evidence-informed points to consider, the quality of all 71 studies was assessed using modified American College of Radiology (ACR) criteria, with five core points to consider developed, including recommendations for use of GS in the N/PICU, in lieu of sequential testing and when disorders with substantial allelic heterogeneity are suspected. Future large and controlled studies in the pediatric and adult populations may support further refinement of these recommendations.

PMID:38409289 | DOI:10.1038/s41525-024-00396-x

Front Pediatr. 2024 Feb 19;12:1349519. doi: 10.3389/fped.2024.1349519. eCollection 2024.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Multi-center implementation of rapid whole genome sequencing with assessment of the clinical utility of rapid whole genome sequencing (rWGS), including positive, negative and uncertain results, in admitted infants with a suspected genetic disease.

STUDY DESIGN: rWGS tests were ordered at eight hospitals between November 2017 and April 2020. Investigators completed a survey of demographic data, Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO) terms, test results and impacts of results on clinical care.

RESULTS: A total of 188 patients, on general hospital floors and intensive care unit (ICU) settings, underwent rWGS testing. Racial and ethnic characteristics of the tested infants were broadly representative of births in the country at large. 35% of infants received a diagnostic result in a median of 6 days. The most common HPO terms for tested infants indicated an abnormality of the nervous system, followed by the cardiovascular system, the digestive system, the respiratory system and the head and neck. Providers indicated a major change in clinical management because of rWGS for 32% of infants tested overall and 70% of those with a diagnostic result. Also, 7% of infants with a negative rWGS result and 23% with a variant of unknown significance (VUS) had a major change in management due to testing.

CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that the implementation of rWGS is feasible across diverse institutions, and provides additional evidence to support the clinical utility of rWGS in a demographically representative sample of admitted infants and includes assessment of the clinical impact of uncertain rWGS results in addition to both positive and negative results.

PMID:38440187 | PMC:PMC10909823 | DOI:10.3389/fped.2024.1349519

Genet Med. 2023 Oct 20:101006. doi: 10.1016/j.gim.2023.101006. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Copy number variants (CNVs) and other non-SNV/indel variant types contribute an important proportion of diagnoses in individuals with suspected genetic disease. This study describes the range of such variants detected by genome sequencing (GS).

METHODS: For a pediatric cohort of 1032 participants undergoing clinical GS, we characterize the CNVs and other non-SNV/indel variant types that were reported, including aneuploidies, mobile element insertions, and uniparental disomies, and we describe the bioinformatic pipeline used to detect these variants.

RESULTS: Together, these genetic alterations accounted for 15.8% of reported variants. Notably, 67.9% of these were deletions, 32.9% of which overlapped a single gene, and many deletions were reported together with a second variant in the same gene in cases of recessive disease. A retrospective medical record review in a subset of this cohort revealed that up to six additional genetic tests were ordered in 68% (26/38) of cases, some of which failed to report the CNVs/rare variants reported on GS.

CONCLUSION: GS detected a broad range of reported variant types, including CNVs ranging in size from 1 Kb to 46 Mb.

PMID:37869996 DOI:10.1016/j.gim.2023.101006

JAMA. 2023 Jul 11;330(2):161-169. doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.9350.

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: Genomic testing in infancy guides medical decisions and can improve health outcomes. However, it is unclear whether genomic sequencing or a targeted neonatal gene-sequencing test provides comparable molecular diagnostic yields and times to return of results.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of genomic sequencing with those of a targeted neonatal gene-sequencing test.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Genomic Medicine for Ill Neonates and Infants (GEMINI) study was a prospective, comparative, multicenter study of 400 hospitalized infants younger than 1 year of age (proband) and their parents, when available, suspected of having a genetic disorder. The study was conducted at 6 US hospitals from June 2019 to November 2021.

EXPOSURE: Enrolled participants underwent simultaneous testing with genomic sequencing and a targeted neonatal gene-sequencing test. Each laboratory performed an independent interpretation of variants guided by knowledge of the patient’s phenotype and returned results to the clinical care team. Change in clinical management, therapies offered, and redirection of care was provided to families based on genetic findings from either platform.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary end points were molecular diagnostic yield (participants with ≥1 pathogenic variant or variant of unknown significance), time to return of results, and clinical utility (changes in patient care).

RESULTS: A molecular diagnostic variant was identified in 51% of participants (n = 204; 297 variants identified with 134 being novel). Molecular diagnostic yield of genomic sequencing was 49% (95% CI, 44%-54%) vs 27% (95% CI, 23%-32%) with the targeted gene-sequencing test. Genomic sequencing did not report 19 variants found by the targeted neonatal gene-sequencing test; the targeted gene-sequencing test did not report 164 variants identified by genomic sequencing as diagnostic. Variants unidentified by the targeted genomic-sequencing test included structural variants longer than 1 kilobase (25.1%) and genes excluded from the test (24.6%) (McNemar odds ratio, 8.6 [95% CI, 5.4-14.7]). Variant interpretation by laboratories differed by 43%. Median time to return of results was 6.1 days for genomic sequencing and 4.2 days for the targeted genomic-sequencing test; for urgent cases (n = 107) the time was 3.3 days for genomic sequencing and 4.0 days for the targeted gene-sequencing test. Changes in clinical care affected 19% of participants, and 76% of clinicians viewed genomic testing as useful or very useful in clinical decision-making, irrespective of a diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The molecular diagnostic yield for genomic sequencing was higher than a targeted neonatal gene-sequencing test, but the time to return of routine results was slower. Interlaboratory variant interpretation contributes to differences in molecular diagnostic yield and may have important consequences for clinical management.

PMID:37432431 DOI:10.1001/jama.2023.9350

Clin Ther. 2023 Jul 8:S0149-2918(23)00220-5. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2023.06.014. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Diagnostic genomic research has the potential to directly benefit participants. This study sought to identify barriers to equitable enrollment of acutely ill newborns into a diagnostic genomic sequencing research study.

METHODS: We reviewed the 16-month recruitment process of a diagnostic genomic research study enrolling newborns admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit at a regional pediatric hospital that primarily serves English- and Spanish-speaking families. Differences in eligibility, enrollment, and reasons for not enrolling were examined as functions of race/ethnicity and primary spoken language.

FINDINGS: Of the 1248 newborns admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit, 46% (n = 580) were eligible, and 17% (n = 213) were enrolled. Of the 16 languages represented among the newborns’ families, 4 (25%) had translated consent documents. Speaking a language other than English or Spanish increased a newborn’s likelihood of being ineligible by 5.9 times (P < 0.001) after controlling for race/ethnicity. The main reason for ineligibility was documented as the clinical team declined having their patient recruited (41% [51 of 125]). This reason significantly affected families who spoke languages other than English or Spanish and was able to be remediated with training of the research staff. Stress (20% [18 of 90]) and the study intervention(s) (20% [18 of 90]) were the main reasons given for not enrolling.

IMPLICATIONS: This analysis of eligibility, enrollment, and reasons for not enrolling in a diagnostic genomic research study found that recruitment generally did not differ as a function of a newborn’s race/ethnicity. However, differences were observed depending on the parent’s primary spoken language. Regular monitoring and training can improve equitable enrollment into diagnostic genomic research. There are also opportunities at the federal level to improve access to those with limited English proficiency and thus decrease disparities in representation in research participation.

PMID:37429778 DOI:10.1016/j.clinthera.2023.06.014