Rapid whole-genome sequencing in critically Ill children: shifting from unease to evidence, education, and equitable implementation

Perspectives of Rare Disease Experts on Newborn Genome Sequencing

Importance

Newborn genome sequencing (NBSeq) can detect infants at risk for treatable disorders currently undetected by conventional newborn screening. Despite broad stakeholder support for NBSeq, the perspectives of rare disease experts regarding which diseases should be screened have not been ascertained.

Objective

To query rare disease experts about their perspectives on NBSeq and which gene-disease pairs they consider appropriate to evaluate in apparently healthy newborns.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This survey study, designed between November 2, 2021, and February 11, 2022, assessed experts' perspectives on 6 statements related to NBSeq. Experts were also asked to indicate whether they would recommend including each of 649 gene-disease pairs associated with potentially treatable conditions in NBSeq. The survey was administered between February 11 and September 23, 2022, to 386 experts, including all 144 directors of accredited medical and laboratory genetics training programs in the US.

Exposures

Expert perspectives on newborn screening using genome sequencing.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The proportion of experts indicating agreement or disagreement with each survey statement and those who selected inclusion of each gene-disease pair were tabulated. Exploratory analyses of responses by gender and age were conducted using t and χ2 tests.

Results

Of 386 experts invited, 238 (61.7%) responded (mean [SD] age, 52.6 [12.8] years [range 27-93 years]; 126 [52.9%] women and 112 [47.1%] men). Among the experts who responded, 161 (87.9%) agreed that NBSeq for monogenic treatable disorders should be made available to all newborns; 107 (58.5%) agreed that NBSeq should include genes associated with treatable disorders, even if those conditions were low penetrance; 68 (37.2%) agreed that actionable adult-onset conditions should be sequenced in newborns to facilitate cascade testing in parents, and 51 (27.9%) agreed that NBSeq should include screening for conditions with no established therapies or management guidelines. The following 25 genes were recommended by 85% or more of the experts: OTC, G6PC, SLC37A4, CYP11B1, ARSB, F8, F9, SLC2A1, CYP17A1, RB1, IDS, GUSB, DMD, GLUD1, CYP11A1, GALNS, CPS1, PLPBP, ALDH7A1, SLC26A3, SLC25A15, SMPD1, GATM, SLC7A7, and NAGS. Including these, 42 gene-disease pairs were endorsed by at least 80% of experts, and 432 genes were endorsed by at least 50% of experts.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this survey study, rare disease experts broadly supported NBSeq for treatable conditions and demonstrated substantial concordance regarding the inclusion of a specific subset of genes in NBSeq.

Rapid Genetic Testing in Pediatric and Neonatal Critical Care: A Scoping Review of Emerging Ethical Issues

BACKGROUND

Rapid genome-wide sequencing (rGWS) is being increasingly used to aid in prognostication and decision-making for critically ill newborns and children. Although its feasibility in this fast-paced setting has been described, this new paradigm of inpatient genetic care raises new ethical challenges.

OBJECTIVE

A scoping review was performed to (1) identify salient ethical issues in this area of practice; and (2) bring attention to gaps and ethical tensions that warrant more deliberate exploration.

METHODS

Data sources, Ovid Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, were searched up to November 2021. Articles included were those in English relating to rGWS deployed rapidly in a critical care setting. Publications were examined for ethical themes and were further characterized as including a superficial or in-depth discussion of that theme. New themes were inductively identified as they emerged.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine studies, published in 2012 or thereafter, met inclusion criteria. Themes identified elaborated upon established ethical principles related to beneficence and nonmaleficence (ie, clinical utility, medical uncertainty, impact on family, and data security) autonomy (ie, informed consent), and justice (ie, resource allocation and disability rights). Many themes were only narrowly discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of rGWS in neonatal and pediatric acute care is inherently tied to ethically charged issues, some of which are reported here. Attention to the ethical costs and benefits of rGWS is not always discussed, with important gaps and unanswered questions that call for ongoing focus on these ethical considerations in this next application of acute care genomics.

Is faster better? An economic evaluation of rapid and ultra-rapid genomic testing in critically ill infants and children

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether the additional cost of providing increasingly faster genomic results in pediatric critical care is outweighed by reductions in health care costs and increases in personal utility.

METHODS

Hospital costs and medical files from a cohort of 40 children were analyzed. The health economic impact of rapid and ultra-rapid genomic testing, with and without early initiation, relative to standard genomic testing was evaluated.

RESULTS

Shortening the time to results led to substantial economic and personal benefits. Early initiation of ultra-rapid genomic testing was the most cost-beneficial strategy, leading to a cost saving of AU$26,600 per child tested relative to standard genomic testing and a welfare gain of AU$12,000 per child tested. Implementation of early ultra-rapid testing of critically ill children is expected to lead to an annual cost saving of AU$7.3 million for the Australian health system and an aggregate welfare gain of AU$3.3 million, corresponding to a total net benefit of AU$10.6 million.

CONCLUSION

Early initiation of ultra-rapid genomic testing can offer substantial economic and personal benefits. Future implementation of rapid genomic testing programs should focus not only on optimizing the laboratory workflow to achieve a fast turnaround time but also on changing clinical practice to expedite test initiation.