Search

Purpose: Gene selection for genomic newborn screening (gNBS) underpins the validity, acceptability, and ethical application of this technology. Existing gNBS gene lists are highly variable despite being based on shared principles of gene-disease validity, treatability, and age of onset. This study aimed to curate a gNBS gene list that builds upon existing efforts and provide a core consensus list of gene-disease pairs assessed by multiple expert groups worldwide., Methods: Our multidisciplinary expert team curated a gene list using an open platform and multiple existing curated resources. We included severe treatable disorders with age of disease onset <5 years with established gene-disease associations and reliable variant detection. We compared the final list with published lists from 5 other gNBS projects to determine consensus genes and to identify areas of discrepancy., Results: We reviewed 1279 genes and 604 met our inclusion criteria. Metabolic conditions comprised the largest group (25%), followed by immunodeficiencies (21%) and endocrine disorders (15%). We identified 55 consensus genes included by all 6 gNBS research projects. Common reasons for discrepancy included variable definitions of treatability and strength of gene-disease association., Conclusion: We have identified a consensus gene list for gNBS that can be used as a basis for systematic harmonization efforts internationally., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Ethics Declaration The project has received ethics approval from the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne Research Ethics Committee: HREC/91500/RCHM-2023., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) is a highly successful public health programme that uses biochemical and other assays to screen for severe but treatable childhood-onset conditions. Introducing genomic sequencing into NBS programmes increases the range of detectable conditions but raises practical and ethical issues. Evidence from prospectively ascertained cohorts is required to guide policy and future implementation. This study aims to develop, implement and evaluate a genomic NBS (gNBS) pilot programme., Methods and Analysis: The BabyScreen+ study will pilot gNBS in three phases. In the preimplementation phase, study materials, including education resources, decision support and data collection tools, will be designed. Focus groups and key informant interviews will also be undertaken to inform delivery of the study and future gNBS programmes. During the implementation phase, we will prospectively recruit birth parents in Victoria, Australia, to screen 1000 newborns for over 600 severe, treatable, childhood-onset conditions. Clinically accredited whole genome sequencing will be performed following standard NBS using the same sample. High chance results will be returned by genetic healthcare professionals, with follow-on genetic and other confirmatory testing and referral to specialist services as required. The postimplementation phase will evaluate the feasibility of gNBS as the primary aim, and assess ethical, implementation, psychosocial and health economic factors to inform future service delivery., Ethics and Dissemination: This project received ethics approval from the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne Research Ethics Committee: HREC/91500/RCHM-2023, HREC/90929/RCHM-2022 and HREC/91392/RCHM-2022. Findings will be disseminated to policy-makers, and through peer-reviewed journals and conferences., Competing Interests: Competing interests: YB and MC are cofounders of the Genetics Adviser. The other authors declare no relevant disclosures., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: As routine genomic testing expands, so too does the opportunity to look for additional health information unrelated to the original reason for testing, termed additional findings (AF). Analysis for many different types of AF may be available, particularly to families undergoing trio genomic testing. The optimal model for service delivery remains to be determined, especially when the original test occurs in the acute care setting., Methods and Analysis: Families enrolled in a national study providing ultrarapid genomic testing to critically ill children will be offered analysis for three types of AF on their stored genomic data: paediatric-onset conditions in the child, adult-onset conditions in each parent and reproductive carrier screening for the parents as a couple. The offer will be made 3-6 months after diagnostic testing. Parents will have access to a modified version of the Genetics Adviser web-based decision support tool before attending a genetic counselling appointment to discuss consent for AF. Parental experiences will be evaluated using qualitative and quantitative methods on data collected through surveys, appointment recordings and interviews at multiple time points. Evaluation will focus on parental preferences, uptake, decision support use and understanding of AF. Genetic health professionals' perspectives on acceptability and feasibility of AF will also be captured through surveys and interviews., Ethics and Dissemination: This project received ethics approval from the Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee as part of the Australian Genomics Health Alliance protocol: HREC/16/MH/251. Findings will be disseminated through peer-review journal articles and at conferences nationally and internationally., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests. YB and MC are co-Founders of Genetics Adviser, Inc., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Decisions about genetic testing have traditionally been based on clinical utility and cost, but personal utility is increasingly recognized when assessing the value of testing. Whole exome sequencing (WES) was offered to a population cohort of 106 infants diagnosed with congenital hearing loss. Parents could choose to receive results relating to hearing loss only or also learn additional information about childhood-onset conditions (medically nonactionable and/or actionable). This study aimed to quantify the personal utility of WES for parents after a diagnosis of hearing loss in their child. Parents completed surveys pretest (63/106), after hearing loss results (52/106) and after receiving additional information (47/72). Open-ended responses from all three surveys (N = 67) were analyzed using inductive content analysis. Answers to questions regarding the value of sequencing to parents were analyzed and collated. Parents placed high value on diagnostic WES for hearing loss but had different perspectives on the personal utility of additional information. Diagnostic results provided certainty while the choice to learn additional information about childhood-onset disorders was associated with empowerment. WES also represented an opportunity to promote their child's best interests. Results provide insights into the utility of WES for the indication of congenital deafness and for genomic newborn screening broadly., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Clinical validity assessments of gene-disease associations underpin analysis and reporting in diagnostic genomics, and yet wide variability exists in practice, particularly in use of these assessments for virtual gene panel design and maintenance. Harmonization efforts are hampered by the lack of agreed terminology, agreed gene curation standards, and platforms that can be used to identify and resolve discrepancies at scale. We undertook a systematic comparison of the content of 80 virtual gene panels used in two healthcare systems by multiple diagnostic providers in the United Kingdom and Australia. The process was enabled by a shared curation platform, PanelApp, and resulted in the identification and review of 2,144 discordant gene ratings, demonstrating the utility of sharing structured gene-disease validity assessments and collaborative discordance resolution in establishing national and international consensus., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests Kathryn North is a member of the Editorial Board of The American Journal of Human Genetics. The other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 American Society of Human Genetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Cost-effectiveness evaluations of first-line genomic sequencing (GS) in the diagnosis of children with genetic conditions are limited by the lack of well-defined comparative cohorts. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of early GS in pediatric patients with complex monogenic conditions compared with a matched historical cohort., Methods: Data, including investigation costs, were collected in a prospective cohort of 92 pediatric patients undergoing singleton GS over an 18-month period (2016-2017) with two of the following: a condition with high mortality, multisystem disease involving three or more organs, or severe limitation of daily function. Comparative data were collected in a matched historical cohort who underwent traditional investigations in the years 2012-2013., Results: GS yielded a diagnosis in 42% while traditional investigations yielded a diagnosis in 23% (p = 0.003). A change in management was experienced by 74% of patients diagnosed following GS, compared with 32% diagnosed following traditional investigations. Singleton GS at a cost of AU$3100 resulted in a mean saving per person of AU$3602 (95% confidence interval [CI] AU$2520-4685). Cost savings occurred across all investigation subtypes and were only minimally offset by clinical management costs., Conclusion: GS in complex pediatric patients saves significant costs and doubles the diagnostic yield of traditional approaches.

Internationally, the practice of offering additional findings (AFs) when undertaking a clinically indicated genomic test differs. In the USA, the recommendation is to include analysis for AFs alongside diagnostic analysis, unless a patient opts-out, whereas European and Canadian guidelines recommend opt-in models. These guidelines all consider the offer of AFs as an activity concurrent with the offer of diagnostic testing. This paper describes a novel two-step model for managing AFs within the healthcare system in Victoria, Australia and presents the study protocol for its evaluation. Adults who have received results of diagnostic whole exome sequencing undertaken within the healthcare system are invited to attend a genetic counseling appointment to consider reanalysis of their stored genomic data for AFs. The evaluation protocol addresses uptake, decision-making, understanding, counseling challenges, and explores preferences for future models of care. Recruitment commenced in November 2017 and will cease when 200 participants have been approached. When the study is concluded, the evaluation results will contribute to the evidence base guiding approaches to counseling and models of care for AFs., (© 2019 National Society of Genetic Counselors.)