Measures of Utility Among Studies of Genomic Medicine for Critically Ill Infants: A Systematic Review

Measuring health-related quality of life in children with suspected genetic conditions: validation of the PedsQL proxy-report versions

PURPOSE

Measuring health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of children with suspected genetic conditions is important for understanding the effect of interventions such as genomic sequencing (GS). The Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) is a widely used generic measure of HRQoL in pediatric patients, but its psychometric properties have not yet been evaluated in children undergoing diagnostic GS.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we surveyed caregivers at the time of their child's enrollment into GS research studies as part of the Clinical Sequencing Evidence Generating Research (CSER) consortium. To evaluate structural validity of the PedsQL 4.0 Generic Core Scales and PedsQL Infant Scales parent proxy-report versions, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis of the hypothesized factor structure. To evaluate convergent validity, we examined correlations between caregivers' reports of their child's health, assessed using the EQ VAS, and PedsQL scores by child age. We conducted linear regression analyses to examine whether age moderated the association between caregiver-reported child health and PedsQL scores. We assessed reliability using Cronbach's alpha.

RESULTS

We analyzed data for 766 patients across all PedsQL age group versions (1-12 months through 13-18 years). Model fit failed to meet criteria for good fit, even after modification. Neither age group (categorical) nor age (continuous) significantly moderated associations between PedsQL scores and caregiver-reported child health. Cronbach's alphas indicated satisfactory internal consistency for most PedsQL scales.

CONCLUSION

The PedsQL Generic Core Scales and Infant Scales may be appropriate to measure HRQoL in pediatric patients with suspected genetic conditions across a wide age range. While we found evidence of acceptable internal consistency and preliminary convergent validity in this sample, there were some potential problems with structural validity and reliability that require further attention.

Determining priority indicators of utility for genomic testing in rare disease: A Delphi study

PURPOSE

Determining the value of genomic tests in rare disease necessitates a broader conceptualization of genomic utility beyond diagnostic yield. Despite widespread discussion, consensus toward which aspects of value to consider is lacking. This study aimed to use expert opinion to identify and refine priority indicators of utility in rare disease genomic testing.

METHODS

We used 2 survey rounds following Delphi methodology to obtain consensus on indicators of utility among experts involved in policy, clinical, research, and consumer advocacy leadership in Australia. We analyzed quantitative and qualitative data to identify, define, and determine priority indicators.

RESULTS

Twenty-five experts completed round 1 and 18 completed both rounds. Twenty indicators reached consensus as a priority in value assessment, including those relating to prognostic information, timeliness of results, practical and health care outcomes, clinical accreditation, and diagnostic yield. Whereas indicators pertaining to discovery research, disutility, and factors secondary to primary reason for testing were considered less of a priority and were removed.

CONCLUSION

This study obtained expert consensus on different utility indicators that are considered a priority in determining the value of genomic testing in rare disease in Australia. Indicators may inform a standardized approach to evidence generation and assessment to guide future research, decision making, and implementation efforts.

Role of next generation sequencing in diagnosis and management of critically ill children with suspected monogenic disorder

Next generation sequencing based diagnosis has emerged as a promising tool for evaluating critically ill neonates and children. However, there is limited data on its utility in developing countries. We assessed its diagnostic rate and clinical impact on management of pediatric patients with a suspected genetic disorder requiring critical care. The study was conducted at a single tertiary hospital in Northern India. We analyzed 70 children with an illness requiring intensive care and obtained a precise molecular diagnosis in 32 of 70 probands (45.3%) using diverse sequencing techniques such as clinical exome, whole exome, and whole genome. A significant change in clinical outcome was observed in 13 of 32 (40.6%) diagnosed probands with a change in medication in 11 subjects and redirection to palliative care in two subjects. Additional benefits included specific dietary management (three cases), avoidance of a major procedure (one case) and better reproductive counseling. Dramatic therapeutic responses were observed in three cases with SCN1A, SCN2A and KCNQ2-related epileptic encephalopathy. A delayed turn-around for sequencing results was perceived as a major limiting factor in the study, as rapid and ultra-rapid sequencing was not available. Achieving a precise molecular diagnosis has great utility in managing critically ill patients with suspected genetic disorders in developing countries.

Ethical and Legal Issues Surrounding Genetic Testing in the NICU

Clinicians practicing in a modern NICU are noticing an increase in the proportion of patients who undergo genetic testing as well as changes in the types of genetic testing patients receive. These trends are not surprising given the increasing recognition of the genetic causes of neonatal illness and recent advances in genetic technology. Yet, the expansion of genetic testing in the NICU also raises a number of ethical questions. In this article, we will review the ethical issues raised by genetic testing, with a focus on the practical implications for neonatologists. First, we outline the complexities of measuring benefit, or utility, for neonatal genetic testing. Next, we discuss potential harms such as inequity, unexpected findings, disability biases, and legal risks. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of ethical issues related to consent for genetic testing. Throughout this article, we highlight solutions to challenges toward the ultimate goal of minimizing harms and maximizing the substantial potential benefits of genetic medicine in the NICU.

National Rapid Genome Sequencing in Neonatal Intensive Care

Importance

National implementation of rapid trio genome sequencing (rtGS) in a clinical acute setting is essential to ensure advanced and equitable care for ill neonates.

Objective

To evaluate the feasibility, diagnostic efficacy, and clinical utility of rtGS in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) throughout Israel.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective, public health care-based, multicenter cohort study was conducted from October 2021 to December 2022 with the Community Genetics Department of the Israeli Ministry of Health and all Israeli medical genetics institutes (n = 18) and NICUs (n = 25). Critically ill neonates suspected of having a genetic etiology were offered rtGS. All sequencing, analysis, and interpretation of data were performed in a central genomics center at Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. Rapid results were expected within 10 days. A secondary analysis report, issued within 60 days, focused mainly on cases with negative rapid results and actionable secondary findings. Pathogenic, likely pathogenic, and highly suspected variants of unknown significance (VUS) were reported.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Diagnostic rate, including highly suspected disease-causing VUS, and turnaround time for rapid results. Clinical utility was assessed via questionnaires circulated to treating neonatologists.

Results

A total of 130 neonates across Israel (70 [54%] male; 60 [46%] female) met inclusion criteria and were recruited. Mean (SD) age at enrollment was 12 (13) days. Mean (SD) turnaround time for rapid report was 7 (3) days. Diagnostic efficacy was 50% (65 of 130) for disease-causing variants, 11% (14 of 130) for VUS suspected to be causative, and 1 novel gene candidate (1%). Disease-causing variants included 12 chromosomal and 52 monogenic disorders as well as 1 neonate with uniparental disomy. Overall, the response rate for clinical utility questionnaires was 82% (107 of 130). Among respondents, genomic testing led to a change in medical management for 24 neonates (22%). Results led to immediate precision medicine for 6 of 65 diagnosed infants (9%), an additional 2 (3%) received palliative care, and 2 (3%) were transferred to nursing homes.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this national cohort study, rtGS in critically ill neonates was feasible and diagnostically beneficial in a public health care setting. This study is a prerequisite for implementation of rtGS for ill neonates into routine care and may aid in design of similar studies in other public health care systems.

Genetic counselling considerations with genetic/genomic testing in Neonatal and Pediatric Intensive Care Units: A scoping review

Genetic and genomic technologies can effectively diagnose numerous genetic disorders. Patients benefit when genetic counselling accompanies genetic testing and international guidelines recommend pre- and post-test genetic counselling with genome-wide sequencing. However, there is a gap in knowledge regarding the unique genetic counselling considerations with different types of genetic testing in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) and the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU). This scoping review was conducted to identify the gaps in care with respect to genetic counselling for infants/pediatric patients undergoing genetic and genomic testing in NICUs and PICUs and understand areas in need of improvement in order to optimize clinical care for patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers. Five databases (MEDLINE [Ovid], Embase [Ovid], PsycINFO [Ebsco], CENTRAL [Ovid], and CINHAL [Ebsco]) and grey literature were searched. A total of 170 studies were included and used for data extraction and analysis. This scoping review includes descriptive analysis, followed by a narrative account of the extracted data. Results were divided into three groups: pre-test, post-test, and comprehensive (both pre- and post-test) genetic counselling considerations based on indication for testing. More studies were conducted in the NICU than the PICU. Comprehensive genetic counselling was discussed in only 31% of all the included studies demonstrating the need for both pre-test and post-test genetic counselling for different clinical indications in addition to the need to account for different cultural aspects based on ethnicity and geographic factors.

Genomic medicine in neonatal care: progress and challenges

During the neonatal period, many genetic disorders present and contribute to neonatal morbidity and mortality. Genomic medicine-the use of genomic information in clinical care- has the potential to significantly reduce morbidity and mortality in the neonatal period and improve outcomes for this population. Diagnostic genomic testing for symptomatic newborns, especially rapid testing, has been shown to be feasible and have diagnostic and clinical utility, particularly in the short-term. Ongoing studies are assessing the feasibility and utility, including personal utility, of implementation in diverse populations. Genomic screening for asymptomatic newborns has also been studied, and the acceptability and feasibility of such an approach remains an active area of investigation. Emerging precision therapies, with examples even at the "n-of-1" level, highlight the promise of precision diagnostics to lead to early intervention and improve outcomes. To sustainably implement genomic medicine in neonatal care in an ethical, effective, and equitable manner, we need to ensure access to genetics and genomics knowledge, access to genomic tests, which is currently limited by payors, feasible processes for ordering these tests, and access to follow up in the clinical and research realms. Future studies will provide further insight into enablers and barriers to optimize implementation strategies.

Parent-Reported Clinical Utility of Pediatric Genomic Sequencing

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Genomic sequencing (GS) is increasingly used for diagnostic evaluation, yet follow-up care is not well understood. We assessed clinicians' recommendations after GS, parent-reported follow-up, and actions parents initiated in response to learning their child's GS results.

METHODS

We surveyed parents of children who received GS through the Clinical Sequencing Evidence Generating Research consortium ∼5 to 7 months after return of results. We compared the proportion of parents who reported discussing their child's result with a clinician, clinicians' recommendations, and parents' follow-up actions by GS result type using χ2 tests.

RESULTS

A total of 1188 respondents completed survey measures on recommended medical actions (n = 1187) and/or parent-initiated actions (n = 913). Most parents who completed recommended medical actions questions (n = 833, 70.3%) reported having discussed their child's GS results with clinicians. Clinicians made recommendations to change current care for patients with positive GS results (n = 79, 39.1%) more frequently than for those with inconclusive (n = 31, 12.4%) or negative results (n = 44, 11.9%; P < .001). Many parents discussed (n = 152 completed, n = 135 planned) implications of GS results for future pregnancies with a clinician. Aside from clinical recommendations, 13.0% (n = 119) of parents initiated changes to their child's health or lifestyle.

CONCLUSIONS

In diverse pediatric clinical contexts, GS results can lead to recommendations for follow-up care, but they likely do not prompt large increases in the quantity of care received.

Role of genomic medicine and implementing equitable access for critically ill infants in neonatal intensive care units

Genetic disorders are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in infants admitted to neonatal intensive care units. This population has immense potential to benefit from genomic medicine, as early precision diagnosis is critical to early personalized management. However, the implementation of genomic medicine in neonatology thus far has arguably worsened health inequities, and strategies are urgently needed to achieve equitable access to genomics in neonatal care. In this perspective, we demonstrate the utility of genomic sequencing in critically ill infants and highlight three key recommendations to advance equitable access: recruitment of underrepresented populations, education of non-genetics providers to empower practice of genomic medicine, and development of innovative infrastructure to implement genomic medicine across diverse settings.

Understanding the Clinical Utility of Genome Sequencing in Critically Ill Newborns

Diagnostic genome sequencing (GS) in newborns may have many benefits. More accurate diagnosis could spur the development of innovative genomic therapies. A precise diagnosis could help doctors and parents anticipate clinical problems and inform a family's future reproductive choices. However, the integration of GS into neonatal care remains associated with a variety of ethical controversies, including concerns about informed consent, about interpreting uncertain results, about resource allocation and whether access to genomic services could exacerbate health disparities, and about the effect of genome diagnostics on people with disabilities. There also remains significant uncertainty about which babies should be tested and when and how the potential benefits of GS ought to be measured. Probably related to these challenges, some payors have been reluctant to cover the cost of GS for critically ill newborns. Much of the reluctance appears to turn on questions about the clinical benefit associated with GS and whether and for whom GS will be cost-effective. These situations point to the urgent need for careful assessments of the clinical utility of GS in critically ill infants. In this paper, we critically examine the ways in which the clinical utility of GS has been evaluated in this patient population. We focus on "change of management" (COM), a widely used measure of clinical utility for diagnostic GS. We suggest that this measure is often ambiguous because not all COMs can be attributed to genomic results and because not all COMs lead to patient benefit. Finally, we suggest ways that measurement of clinical utility could be improved.

The Future of Newborn Genomic Testing

Genome sequencing (GS) provides exciting opportunities to rapidly identify a diagnosis in critically ill newborns and children with rare genetic conditions. Nevertheless, there are reasons to remain cautious about the use of GS. Studies to date have been mostly in highly selected populations of babies with unusual clinical presentations. GS leads to diagnoses in many such infants. More rarely, it leads to beneficial changes in management. Parents and physicians whose babies meet these criteria and for whom GS is performed both find these results useful. The concern is this: we do not know how useful such testing will be in the general population. We can speculate that a number of problems will arise as the use of GS expands. First, the percentage of cases in which a valid molecular diagnosis is made will likely go down. The number of ambiguous results or false positives will rise. Genetic counseling will become more complex and challenging. We do not know the relative cost-effectiveness of whole genome, whole exome, or targeted panels in different populations. We do not know the relative contribution of a molecular diagnosis to the decision to withdraw life support. We will have to carefully evaluate the use of such testing in order to understand whether it truly improves outcome and survival or reduces symptoms in babies who are tested. Each of these concerns will require careful study of both the technology and the ethical issues to allow us to harness the potential of these new technologies while avoiding foreseeable problems. Studies are underway to see how the tests are used in general populations. These studies should generate important information to guide clinicians and policymakers. As part of informed consent, doctors should explain to parents that genetic results are not always straightforward. Sometimes, they confirm a diagnosis that was already suspected. Sometimes, they rule out a possible diagnosis. Sometimes, the results are ambiguous and difficult to interpret. Anticipatory discussions should try to give parents a realistic understanding of the likely impact of a genetic diagnosis. Diagnostic genomic testing for newborns is a science that is still in its infancy. More research is essential in order to establish how to personalize this promising but sometimes problematic tool.

Parents' Perspectives on the Utility of Genomic Sequencing in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

It is critical to understand the wide-ranging clinical and non-clinical effects of genome sequencing (GS) for parents in the NICU context. We assessed parents' experiences with GS as a first-line diagnostic tool for infants with suspected genetic conditions in the NICU.

METHODS

Parents of newborns (N = 62) suspected of having a genetic condition were recruited across five hospitals in the southeast United States as part of the SouthSeq study. Semi-structured interviews (N = 78) were conducted after parents received their child's sequencing result (positive, negative, or variants of unknown significance). Thematic analysis was performed on all interviews.

RESULTS

Key themes included that (1) GS in infancy is important for reproductive decision making, preparing for the child's future care, ending the diagnostic odyssey, and sharing results with care providers; (2) the timing of disclosure was acceptable for most parents, although many reported the NICU environment was overwhelming; and (3) parents deny that receiving GS results during infancy exacerbated parent-infant bonding, and reported variable impact on their feelings of guilt.

CONCLUSION

Parents reported that GS during the neonatal period was useful because it provided a "backbone" for their child's care. Parents did not consistently endorse negative impacts like interference with parent-infant bonding.

Managing Prognosis in Precision Medicine: Utility, Imagination, and Communication

Research on how physicians predict and communicate prognosis focuses primarily on end-of-life care. Unsurprisingly, as genomic technology gains traction as a prognostic tool, the focus has also been on terminality, with research focused on how genetic results may be used to terminate pregnancies or redirect care towards palliation for neonates. However, genomic results also have powerful impacts on how patients who live prepare for their futures. Genomic testing provides broad-reaching and early—albeit complex, uncertain, and shifting—prognostic information. In this essay, we argue that as genomic testing occurs earlier and increasingly in a screening context, researchers and clinicians must strive to understand and manage the prognostic implications of results. While our understanding of the psychosocial and communicational aspects of prognosis in symptomatic populations is incomplete, it has progressed further than our understanding in a screening context and therefore provides useful lessons and feasible opportunities for further research. By providing an interdisciplinary and inter-specialty perspective on the psychosocial and communicational aspects of prognosis in genetics, we discuss prognostication with respect to genetics from the neonatal period through adulthood, highlighting medical specialties and patient populations that are especially informative for considering the longitudinal management of prognostic information in genomic medicine.