Search

Background Studies indicate that variants of uncertain significance are more common in non-European populations due to lack of a diversity in population databases. This difference has not been explored in epilepsy, which is increasingly found to be genetic in paediatric populations, and has precision medicine applications. This study examines the differences in the frequency of uncertain next-generation sequencing (NGS) results among a paediatric epilepsy cohort between ancestral groups historically under-represented in biomedical research (UBR) and represented in biomedical research (RBR). Methods A retrospective chart review of patients with epilepsy seen at Columbia University Irving Medical Center (CUIMC). One hundred seventy-eight cases met the following criteria: (1) visited any provider within the Pediatric Neurology Clinic at CUIMC, (2) had an ICD code indicating a diagnosis of epilepsy, (3) underwent NGS testing after March 2015 and (4) had self-reported ancestry that fit into a single dichotomous category of either historically represented or under-represented in biomedical research. Results UBR cases had significantly higher rates of uncertain results when compared with RBR cases (79.2% UBR, 20.8% RBR; p value=0.002). This finding remained true after controlling for potential confounding factors, including sex, intellectual disability or developmental delay, epilepsy type, age of onset, number of genes tested and year of testing. Conclusion Our results add to the literature that individuals who are of ancestries historically underrepresented in genetics research are more likely to receive uncertain genetic results than those of represented majority ancestral groups and establishes this finding in an epilepsy cohort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increased utilization of clinical genomic sequencing in the past decade has ushered in the era of genomic medicine, requiring genetics providers to acquire new skills and adapt their practices. The change in workplace responsibilities of clinical/medical geneticists (CMGs) and genetic counselors (GCs) in North America, due to the evolution of genetic testing, has not been studied. We surveyed CMGs (n = 80) and GCs (n = 127) with experience in general/pediatric genetics to describe their current practice of clinical tasks and the change in regularity of performing these tasks over the past 5–10 years. Currently, complementarity of responsibilities between CMGs and GCs clearly exists but providers who have been in the field for longer have noted role changes. Trends indicate that fewer experienced CMGs perform physical exams and select genetic tests than before and fewer experienced GCs complete requisitions and write result letters. The frequency of CMGs and GCs who investigate genetic test results, however, has increased. This study provides insight into the changing landscape of clinical genetics practice. Our findings suggest that the roles and responsibilities of CMGs and GCs have shifted in the past decade. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The precision medicine era has seen increased utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) in the field of genetics. We sought to explore the ways that genetic counselors (GCs) currently use the publicly accessible AI tool Chat Generative Pre‐trained Transformer (ChatGPT) in their work. Methods: GCs in North America were surveyed about how ChatGPT is used in different aspects of their work. Descriptive statistics were reported through frequencies and means. Results: Of 118 GCs who completed the survey, 33.8% (40) reported using ChatGPT in their work; 47.5% (19) use it in clinical practice, 35% (14) use it in education, and 32.5% (13) use it in research. Most GCs (62.7%; 74) felt that it saves time on administrative tasks but the majority (82.2%; 97) felt that a paramount challenge was the risk of obtaining incorrect information. The majority of GCs not using ChatGPT (58.9%; 46) felt it was not necessary for their work. Conclusion: A considerable number of GCs in the field are using ChatGPT in different ways, but it is primarily helpful with tasks that involve writing. It has potential to streamline workflow issues encountered in clinical genetics, but practitioners need to be informed and uniformly trained about its limitations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Graduation from a genetic counseling graduate program accredited by the Accreditation Council of Genetic Counseling and certification obtained by passing the American Board of Genetic Counseling (ABGC) certification examination are increasingly required to practice as a genetic counselor in the USA. Despite the ABGC certification examination serving as a gateway to the genetic counseling career, there have been no research studies to date that have examined what variables are associated with examination performance. Therefore, the Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors established a Task Force to assess whether trainee demographics, Grade point average (GPA) and Graduate Record Exam (GRE®) percentile scores are associated with passing the ABGC certification examination on the first attempt. We surveyed accredited genetic counseling graduate programs in North America and gathered demographic data, admissions variables, and certification examination outcome data for 1,494 trainees from 24 training programs, representing approximately 60.5% of matriculants between 2007 and 2016. Univariable analysis was performed to assess associations between admissions variables and categorical outcome (pass vs. fail) on the certification examination using Wilcoxon rank‐sum or Fisher's exact test. Variables significantly associated with the categorical board outcome were then entered in a stepwise model selection procedure. In stepwise logistic regression, trainees with higher GPA (OR = 3.41; 95% CI = 1.99, 5.83), higher verbal (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 1.01, 1.03) and quantitative (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 1.01, 1.03) GRE® scores, female trainees (OR = 2.95; 95% CI = 1.70, 5.12), and White trainees (OR 3.37; 95% CI = 2.14, 5.30) had higher odds of passing the certification examination on the first attempt. As programs move to a holistic approach to graduate admissions in order to improve access to the genetic counseling profession, our results may influence programs to provide additional preparation for the certification examination for all trainees. In addition, genetic counseling professional organizations should continue to work together to assess and eliminate outcome disparities in admissions, training, and certification processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Numerous genetic testing options for individuals with epilepsy have emerged over the past decade without clear guidelines regarding optimal testing strategies. We performed a systematic evidence review (SER) and conducted meta‐analyses of the diagnostic yield of genetic tests commonly utilized for patients with epilepsy. We also assessed nonyield outcomes (NYOs) such as changes in treatment and/or management, prognostic information, recurrence risk determination, and genetic counseling. Methods: We performed an SER, in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses), using PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central through December of 2020. We included studies that utilized genome sequencing (GS), exome sequencing (ES), multigene panel (MGP), and/or genome‐wide comparative genomic hybridization/chromosomal microarray (CGH/CMA) in cohorts (n ≥ 10) ascertained for epilepsy. Quality assessment was undertaken using ROBINS‐I (Risk of Bias in Non‐Randomized Studies of Interventions). We estimated diagnostic yields and 95% confidence intervals with random effects meta‐analyses and narratively synthesized NYOs. Results: From 5985 nonduplicated articles published through 2020, 154 met inclusion criteria and were included in meta‐analyses of diagnostic yield; 43 of those were included in the NYO synthesis. The overall diagnostic yield across all test modalities was 17%, with the highest yield for GS (48%), followed by ES (24%), MGP (19%), and CGH/CMA (9%). The only phenotypic factors that were significantly associated with increased yield were (1) the presence of developmental and epileptic encephalopathy and/or (2) the presence of neurodevelopmental comorbidities. Studies reporting NYOs addressed clinical and personal utility of testing. Significance: This comprehensive SER, focused specifically on the literature regarding patients with epilepsy, provides a comparative assessment of the yield of clinically available tests, which will help shape clinician decision‐making and policy regarding insurance coverage for genetic testing. We highlight the need for prospective assessment of the clinical and personal utility of genetic testing for patients with epilepsy and for standardization in reporting patient characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]