Search

The introduction of rapid exome sequencing (rES) for critically ill neonates admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit has made it possible to impact clinical decision-making. Unbiased prospective studies to quantify the impact of rES over routine genetic testing are, however, scarce. We performed a clinical utility study to compare rES to conventional genetic diagnostic workup for critically ill neonates with suspected genetic disorders. In a multicenter prospective parallel cohort study involving five Dutch NICUs, we performed rES in parallel to routine genetic testing for 60 neonates with a suspected genetic disorder and monitored diagnostic yield and the time to diagnosis. To assess the economic impact of rES, healthcare resource use was collected for all neonates. rES detected more conclusive genetic diagnoses than routine genetic testing (20% vs. 10%, respectively), in a significantly shorter time to diagnosis (15 days (95% CI 10-20) vs. 59 days (95% CI 23-98, p < 0.001)). Moreover, rES reduced genetic diagnostic costs by 1.5% (€85 per neonate)., Conclusion:  Our findings demonstrate the clinical utility of rES for critically ill neonates based on increased diagnostic yield, shorter time to diagnosis, and net healthcare savings. Our observations warrant the widespread implementation of rES as first-tier genetic test in critically ill neonates with disorders of suspected genetic origin., What Is Known: • Rapid exome sequencing (rES) enables diagnosing rare genetic disorders in a fast and reliable manner, but retrospective studies with neonates admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) indicated that genetic disorders are likely underdiagnosed as rES is not routinely used. • Scenario modeling for implementation of rES for neonates with presumed genetic disorders indicated an expected increase in costs associated with genetic testing., What Is New: • This unique prospective national clinical utility study of rES in a NICU setting shows that rES obtained more and faster diagnoses than conventional genetic tests. • Implementation of rES as replacement for all other genetic tests does not increase healthcare costs but in fact leads to a reduction in healthcare costs., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background and Objectives: A genetic cause can be identified for an increasing number of pediatric and adult-onset kidney diseases. Preimplantation genetic testing (formerly known as preimplantation genetic diagnostics) is a reproductive technology that helps prospective parents to prevent passing on (a) disease-causing mutation(s) to their offspring. Here, we provide a clinical overview of 25 years of preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic kidney disease in The Netherlands., Design, Setting, Participants, & Measurements: This is a retrospective cohort study of couples counseled on preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic kidney disease in the national preimplantation genetic testing expert center (Maastricht University Medical Center+) from January 1995 to June 2019. Statistical analysis was performed through chi-squared tests., Results: In total, 98 couples were counseled regarding preimplantation genetic testing, of whom 53% opted for preimplantation genetic testing. The most frequent indications for referral were autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (38%), Alport syndrome (26%), and autosomal recessive polycystic kidney disease (9%). Of couples with at least one preimplantation genetic testing cycle with oocyte retrieval, 65% experienced one or more live births of an unaffected child. Of couples counseled, 38% declined preimplantation genetic testing for various personal and technical reasons., Conclusions: Referrals, including for adult-onset disease, have increased steadily over the past decade. Though some couples decline preimplantation genetic testing, in the couples who proceed with at least one preimplantation genetic testing cycle, almost two thirds experienced at least one live birth rate., (Copyright © 2020 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

The Netherlands launched a nationwide implementation study on non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as a first-tier test offered to all pregnant women. This started on April 1, 2017 as the TRIDENT-2 study, licensed by the Dutch Ministry of Health. In the first year, NIPT was performed in 73,239 pregnancies (42% of all pregnancies), 7,239 (4%) chose first-trimester combined testing, and 54% did not participate. The number of trisomies 21 (239, 0.33%), 18 (49, 0.07%), and 13 (55, 0.08%) found in this study is comparable to earlier studies, but the Positive Predictive Values (PPV)-96% for trisomy 21, 98% for trisomy 18, and 53% for trisomy 13-were higher than expected. Findings other than trisomy 21, 18, or 13 were reported on request of the pregnant women; 78% of women chose to have these reported. The number of additional findings was 207 (0.36%); these included other trisomies (101, 0.18%, PPV 6%, many of the remaining 94% of cases are likely confined placental mosaics and possibly clinically significant), structural chromosomal aberrations (95, 0.16%, PPV 32%,) and complex abnormal profiles indicative of maternal malignancies (11, 0.02%, PPV 64%). The implementation of genome-wide NIPT is under debate because the benefits of detecting other fetal chromosomal aberrations must be balanced against the risks of discordant positives, parental anxiety, and a potential increase in (invasive) diagnostic procedures. Our first-year data, including clinical data and laboratory follow-up data, will fuel this debate. Furthermore, we describe how NIPT can successfully be embedded into a national screening program with a single chain for prenatal care including counseling, testing, and follow-up., (Copyright © 2019 American Society of Human Genetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)