Search

Purpose: Families living with mitochondrial diseases (MD) often endure prolonged diagnostic journeys and invasive testing, yet many remain without a molecular diagnosis. The Australian Genomics Mitochondrial Flagship, comprising clinicians, diagnostic, and research scientists, conducted a prospective national study to identify the diagnostic utility of singleton genomic sequencing using blood samples., Methods: A total of 140 children and adults living with suspected MD were recruited using modified Nijmegen criteria (MNC) and randomized to either exome + mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequencing or genome sequencing., Results: Diagnostic yield was 55% (n = 77) with variants in nuclear (n = 37) and mtDNA (n = 18) MD genes, as well as phenocopy genes (n = 22). A nuclear gene etiology was identified in 77% of diagnoses, irrespective of disease onset. Diagnostic rates were higher in pediatric-onset (71%) than adult-onset (31%) cases and comparable in children with non-European (78%) vs European (67%) ancestry. For children, higher MNC scores correlated with increased diagnostic yield and fewer diagnoses in phenocopy genes. Additionally, 3 adult patients had a mtDNA deletion discovered in skeletal muscle that was not initially identified in blood., Conclusion: Genomic sequencing from blood can simplify the diagnostic pathway for individuals living with suspected MD, especially those with childhood onset diseases and high MNC scores., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest John Christodoulou is an approved pathology provider for Victorian Clinical Genetics Services., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The KidGen Collaborative's Policy Implementation Workshop 2023 celebrated the 10th anniversary of Australia's first kidney genetics clinic in Brisbane. This event marked the establishment of a national network now comprising 19 kidney genetics clinics across Australia, all dedicated to providing equitable access to genomic testing for families affected by genetic kidney diseases. The workshop reflected on past progress and outlined future objectives for kidney genetics in Australia, recognising the collaborative efforts of clinical teams, researchers, and patients. Key insights from the workshop are documented in the proceedings., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Genetic testing can provide valuable information to mitigate personal disease risk, but the use of genetic results in life insurance underwriting is known to deter many consumers from pursuing genetic testing. In 2019, following Australian Federal Parliamentary Inquiry recommendations, the Financial Services Council (FSC) introduced an industry-led partial moratorium, prohibiting life insurance companies from using genetic test results for policies up to $AUD500,000. We used semi-structured interviews to explore genetic test consumers' experiences and views about the FSC moratorium and the use of genetic results by life insurers. Individuals who participated in an online survey and agreed to be re-contacted to discuss the issue further were invited. Interviews were 20-30-min long, conducted via video conference, transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive content analysis. Twenty-seven participants were interviewed. Despite the moratorium, concerns about genetic discrimination in life insurance were prevalent. Participants reported instances where life insurers did not consider risk mitigation when assessing risk for policies based on genetic results, contrary to legal requirements. Most participants felt that the moratorium provided inadequate protection against discrimination, and that government legislation regulating life insurers' use of genetic results is necessary. Many participants perceived the financial limits to be inadequate, given the cost-of-living in Australia. Our findings indicate that from the perspective of participants, the moratorium has not been effective in allaying fears about genetic discrimination or ensuring adequate access to life insurance products. Concern about genetic discrimination in life insurance remains prevalent in Australia., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Genome sequencing (GS)-specific diagnostic rates in prospective tightly ascertained exome sequencing (ES)-negative intellectual disability (ID) cohorts have not been reported extensively., Methods: ES, GS, epigenetic signatures, and long-read sequencing diagnoses were assessed in 74 trios with at least moderate ID., Results: The ES diagnostic yield was 42 of 74 (57%). GS diagnoses were made in 9 of 32 (28%) ES-unresolved families. Repeated ES with a contemporary pipeline on the GS-diagnosed families identified 8 of 9 single-nucleotide variations/copy-number variations undetected in older ES, confirming a GS-unique diagnostic rate of 1 in 32 (3%). Episignatures contributed diagnostic information in 9% with GS corroboration in 1 of 32 (3%) and diagnostic clues in 2 of 32 (6%). A genetic etiology for ID was detected in 51 of 74 (69%) families. Twelve candidate disease genes were identified. Contemporary ES followed by GS cost US$4976 (95% CI: $3704; $6969) per diagnosis and first-line GS at a cost of $7062 (95% CI: $6210; $8475) per diagnosis., Conclusion: Performing GS only in ID trios would be cost equivalent to ES if GS were available at $2435, about a 60% reduction from current prices. This study demonstrates that first-line GS achieves higher diagnostic rate than contemporary ES but at a higher cost., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Fears of genetic discrimination in life insurance continue to deter some Australians from genetic testing. In July 2019, the life insurance industry introduced a partial, self-regulated moratorium restricting the use of genetic results in underwriting, applicable to policies up to certain limits (eg AUD$500,000 for death cover).We administered an online survey to consumers who had taken, or been offered, clinical genetic testing for adult-onset conditions, to gather views and experiences about the moratorium and the use of genetic results in life insurance, including its regulation.Most respondents (n = 367) had undertaken a genetic test (89%), and had a positive test result (76%; n = 243/321). Almost 30% (n = 94/326) reported testing after 1 July 2019. Relatively few respondents reported knowing about the moratorium (16%; n = 54/340) or that use of genetic results in life insurance underwriting is legal (17%; n = 60/348). Only 4% (n = 14/350) consider this practice should be allowed. Some respondents reported ongoing difficulties accessing life insurance products, even after the moratorium. Further, discrimination concerns continue to affect some consumers' decision-making about having clinical testing and applying for life insurance products, despite the Moratorium being in place. Most respondents (88%; n = 298/340) support the introduction of legislation by the Australian government to regulate this issue.Despite the introduction of a partial moratorium in Australia, fears of genetic discrimination persist, and continue to deter people from genetic testing. Consumers overwhelmingly consider life insurers should not be allowed to use genetic results in underwriting, and that federal legislation is required to regulate this area., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

There has been keen interest in whether dynamic consent should be used in health research but few real-world studies have evaluated its use. Australian Genomics piloted and evaluated CTRL ('control'), a digital consent tool incorporating granular, dynamic decision-making and communication for genomic research. Individuals from a Cardiovascular Genetic Disorders Flagship were invited in person (prospective cohort) or by email (retrospective cohort) to register for CTRL after initial study recruitment. Demographics, consent choices, experience surveys and website analytics were analysed using descriptive statistics. Ninety-one individuals registered to CTRL (15.5% of the prospective cohort and 11.8% of the retrospective cohort). Significantly more males than females registered when invited retrospectively, but there was no difference in age, gender, or education level between those who did and did not use CTRL. Variation in individual consent choices about secondary data use and return of results supports the desirability of providing granular consent options. Robust conclusions were not drawn from satisfaction, trust, decision regret and knowledge outcome measures: differences between CTRL and non-CTRL cohorts did not emerge. Analytics indicate CTRL is acceptable, although underutilised. This is one of the first studies evaluating uptake and decision making using online consent tools and will inform refinement of future designs., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Genetic risk information for medically actionable conditions has relevance for patients' blood relatives. However, cascade testing uptake in at-risk families is <50%, and the burden of contacting relatives is a significant barrier to dissemination of risk information. Health professionals (HPs) could notify at-risk relatives directly, with patients' consent. This practice is supported by international literature, including strong public support. However, there is little exploration of the Australian public's views about this issue. We surveyed Australian adults using a consumer research company. Respondents were provided a hypothetical scenario and asked about views and preferences regarding direct contact by HPs. 1030 members of the public responded, with median age 45 y and 51% female. The majority would want to be told about genetic risk for conditions that can be prevented/treated early (85%) and contacted directly by a HP (68%). Most preferred a letter that included specific information about the genetic condition in the family (67%) and had no privacy concerns about HPs sending a letter using contact details provided by a relative (85%). A minority (< 5%) had significant privacy concerns, mostly about use of personal contact information. Concerns included ensuring information was not shared with third parties. Almost 50% would prefer that a family member contacted them before the letter was sent, while about half did not prefer this or were unsure. The Australian public supports (and prefers) direct notification of relatives at risk of medically actionable genetic conditions. Guidelines would assist with clarifying clinicians' discretion in this area., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Genomics research related to Indigenous people has been at worst exploitative and at best, retrospectively on a journey to improve effective engagement of Indigenous individuals and communities. Genomics can positively impact all stages of clinical management, and to improve genomic effectiveness researchers aggregate genomic data from diverse global sub-populations, such as shared ancestry groupings, as people within these groupings will have a greater proportion of shared DNA traits. While genomics is already being used worldwide to improve lives, its utility and effectiveness has not been maximized for individuals with Indigenous ancestry. Several large datasets of human genetic variation have been made publicly available, of which the most widely used is the Genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD), but none of these databases currently contain any population-specific data for Indigenous populations. There are many reasons why Indigenous people have been largely left out of genomics research and, because of this, miss out on the benefits offered. It is also clear that if research is to be effective, it needs to be done 'with' and not 'on' Indigenous communities. This systematic review of the literature regarding Indigenous peoples (in high income countries) and genomics aims to review the existing literature and identify areas of strength and weakness in study design and conduct, focusing on the effectiveness of Indigenous community engagement., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Genetic risk information has relevance for patients' blood relatives. However, cascade testing uptake in at-risk families is <50%. International research supports direct notification of at-risk relatives by health professionals (HPs), with patient consent. However, HPs express concerns about the privacy implications of this practice. Our privacy analysis, grounded in a clinically relevant hypothetical scenario, considers the types of personal information involved in direct notification of at-risk relatives and the application of Australian privacy regulations. It finds that collecting relatives' contact details, and using those details (with patient consent) to notify relatives of possible genetic risk, does not breach Australian privacy law, providing that HPs adhere to regulatory requirements. It finds the purported "right to know" does not prevent disclosure of genetic information to at-risk relatives. Finally, the analysis confirms that the discretion available to HPs does not equate to a positive duty to warn at-risk relatives. Thus, direct notification of a patient's at-risk relatives regarding medically actionable genetic information, with patient consent, is not a breach of Australian privacy regulations, providing it is conducted in accordance with the applicable principles set out. Clinical services should consider offering this service to patients where appropriate. National guidelines would assist with the clarification of the discretion for HPs.

Australian Genomics is a national collaborative partnership of more than 100 organizations piloting a whole-of-system approach to integrating genomics into healthcare, based on federation principles. In the first five years of operation, Australian Genomics has evaluated the outcomes of genomic testing in more than 5,200 individuals across 19 rare disease and cancer flagship studies. Comprehensive analyses of the health economic, policy, ethical, legal, implementation and workforce implications of incorporating genomics in the Australian context have informed evidence-based change in policy and practice, resulting in national government funding and equity of access for a range of genomic tests. Simultaneously, Australian Genomics has built national skills, infrastructure, policy, and data resources to enable effective data sharing to drive discovery research and support improvements in clinical genomic delivery., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests R.L.W. is the Chair of the Medical Services Advisory Committee; the views in this paper are not representing those of the Commonwealth of Australia. I.E.S. has served on scientific advisory boards for BioMarin, Chiesi, Eisai, Encoded Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Knopp Biosciences, Nutricia, Rogcon, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Xenon Pharmaceuticals; has received speaker honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline, UCB, BioMarin, Biocodex, Chiesi, Liva Nova, Nutricia, Zuellig Pharma, and Eisai; has received funding for travel from UCB, Biocodex, GlaxoSmithKline, Biomarin, and Eisai; has served as an investigator for Anavex Life Sciences, Cerecin Inc, Cerevel Therapeutics, Eisai, Encoded Therapeutics, EpiMinder Inc, Epygenyx, ES-Therapeutics, GW Pharma, Marinus, Neurocrine BioSciences, Ovid Therapeutics, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, UCB, Ultragenyx, Xenon Pharmaceuticals, Zogenix, and Zynerba; and has consulted for Care Beyond Diagnosis, Epilepsy Consortium, Atheneum Partners, Ovid Therapeutics, UCB, Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, BioMarin, Encoded Therapeutics, and Biohaven Pharmaceuticals; and is a Non-Executive Director of Bellberry Ltd and a Director of the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences and the Australian Council of Learned Academies Limited. She may accrue future revenue on pending patent WO61/010,176 (filed: 2008): Therapeutic Compound; has a patent for SCN1A testing held by Bionomics Inc and licensed to various diagnostic companies; and has a patent molecular diagnostic/theranostic target for benign familial infantile epilepsy (BFIE) (PRRT2) 2,011,904,493 & 2,012,900,190 and PCT/AU2012/001,321 (TECH ID:2012-009)., (Copyright © 2023 American Society of Human Genetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Australian life insurance companies can legally use genetic test results in underwriting, which can lead to genetic discrimination. In 2019, the Financial Services Council (Australian life insurance industry governing body) introduced a partial moratorium restricting the use of genetic testing in underwriting policies ≤ $500,000 (active 2019-2024). Health professionals (HPs), especially clinical geneticists and genetic counsellors, often discuss the implications of genetic testing with patients, and provide critical insights into the effectiveness of the moratorium. Using a sequential explanatory mixed methods design, we interviewed 23 Australian HPs, who regularly discuss genetic testing with patients and had previously completed an online survey about genetic testing and life insurance. Interviews explored views and experiences about the moratorium, and regulation, in greater depth. Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Two key themes emerged from views expressed by HPs during interviews (about matters reported to or observed by them): 1) benefits of the moratorium, and 2) concerns about the moratorium. While HPs reported that the moratorium reassures some consumers, concerns include industry self-regulation, uncertainty created by the temporary time period, and the inadequacy of the moratorium's financial limits for patients' financial needs. Although a minority of HPs felt the current industry self-regulated moratorium is an adequate solution to genetic discrimination, the vast majority (19/23) expressed concern with industry self-regulation and most felt government regulation is required to adequately protect consumers. HPs in Australia are concerned about the adequacy of the FSC moratorium with regards to consumer protections, and suggest government regulation is required., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: In 2019, the Australian life insurance industry introduced a partial moratorium (ban) limiting the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting. The moratorium is industry self-regulated and applies only to policies below certain financial limits (eg, $500 000 of death cover)., Methods: We surveyed Australian health professionals (HPs) who discuss genetic testing with patients, to assess knowledge of the moratorium; reported patient experiences since its commencement; and HP views regarding regulation of genetic discrimination (GD) in Australia., Results: Between April and June 2020, 166 eligible HPs responded to the online survey. Of these, 86% were aware of the moratorium, but <50% had attended related training/information sessions. Only 16% answered all knowledge questions correctly, yet 69% believed they had sufficient knowledge to advise patients. Genetics HPs' awareness and knowledge were better than non-genetics HPs' (p<0.05). There was some reported decrease in patients delaying/declining testing after the moratorium's introduction, however, 42% of HPs disagreed that patients were more willing to have testing post-moratorium. Although many (76%) felt the moratorium resolved some GD concerns, most (88%) still have concerns, primarily around self-regulation, financial limits and the moratorium's temporary nature. Almost half (49%) of HPs reported being dissatisfied with the moratorium as a solution to GD. The majority (95%) felt government oversight is required, and 93% felt specific Australian legislation regarding GD is required., Conclusion: While the current Australian moratorium is considered a step forward, most HPs believe it falls short of an adequate long-term regulatory solution to GD in life insurance., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Monogenic rare disorders contribute significantly to paediatric morbidity and mortality, and elucidation of the underlying genetic cause may have benefits for patients, families and clinicians. Advances in genomic technology have enabled diagnostic yields of up to 50% in some paediatric cohorts. This has led to an increase in the uptake of genetic testing across paediatric disciplines. This can place an increased burden on paediatricians, who may now be responsible for interpreting and explaining test results to patients. However, genomic results can be complex, and sometimes inconclusive for the ordering paediatrician. Results may also cause uncertainty and anxiety for patients and their families. The paediatrician's genetic literacy and knowledge of genetic principles are therefore critical to inform discussions with families and guide ongoing patient care. Here, we present four hypothetical case vignettes where genomic testing is undertaken, and discuss possible results and their implications for paediatricians and families. We also provide a list of key terms for paediatricians., (© 2021 The Authors Journal of Paedisatrics and Child Health published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Paediatrics and Child Health Division (The Royal Australasian College of Physicians).)

Human biomedical datasets that are critical for research and clinical studies to benefit human health also often contain sensitive or potentially identifying information of individual participants. Thus, care must be taken when they are processed and made available to comply with ethical and regulatory frameworks and informed consent data conditions. To enable and streamline data access for these biomedical datasets, the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) Data Use and Researcher Identities (DURI) work stream developed and approved the Data Use Ontology (DUO) standard. DUO is a hierarchical vocabulary of human and machine-readable data use terms that consistently and unambiguously represents a dataset's allowable data uses. DUO has been implemented by major international stakeholders such as the Broad and Sanger Institutes and is currently used in annotation of over 200,000 datasets worldwide. Using DUO in data management and access facilitates researchers' discovery and access of relevant datasets. DUO annotations increase the FAIRness of datasets and support data linkages using common data use profiles when integrating the data for secondary analyses. DUO is implemented in the Web Ontology Language (OWL) and, to increase community awareness and engagement, hosted in an open, centralized GitHub repository. DUO, together with the GA4GH Passport standard, offers a new, efficient, and streamlined data authorization and access framework that has enabled increased sharing of biomedical datasets worldwide., Competing Interests: M.N.C. is an employee of Foundation Medicine and equity holder of Roche. A.A.P. is a venture partner at GV and an employee of alphabet corporation. He has received funding from MSFT, Verily, IBM, Intel, Bayer, and Novartis. The views expressed by L.L.R. are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of her organization., (© 2021 The Author(s).)

Healthcare systems are increasingly considering widespread implementation of rapid genomic testing of critically ill children, but evidence on the value of the benefits generated is lacking. This information is key for an optimal implementation into healthcare systems. A discrete choice experiment survey was designed to elicit preferences and values for rapid genomic testing in critically ill children. The survey was administered to members of the Australian public and families with lived experience of rapid genomic testing. A Bayesian D-efficient explicit partial profiles design was used, and data were analysed using a panel error component mixed logit model. Preference heterogeneity was explored using a latent class model and fractional logistic regressions. The public (n = 522) and families with lived experiences (n = 25) demonstrated strong preferences for higher diagnostic yield and clinical utility, faster result turnaround times, and lower cost. Society on average would be willing to pay an additional AU$9510 (US$6657) for rapid (2 weeks results turnaround time) and AU$11,000 (US$7700) for ultra-rapid genomic testing (2 days turnaround time) relative to standard diagnostic care. Corresponding estimates among those with lived experiences were AU$10,225 (US$7158) and AU$11,500 (US$8050), respectively. Our work provides further evidence that rapid genomic testing for critically ill children with rare conditions generates substantial utility. The findings can be used to inform cost-benefit analyses as part of broader healthcare system implementation., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Human Genetics.)

(1) Background: Genomic precision medicine (PM) utilises people's genomic data to inform the delivery of preventive and therapeutic health care. PM has not been well-established for use with people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ancestry due to the paucity of genomic data from these communities. We report the development of a new protocol using co-design methods to enhance the potential use of PM for Aboriginal Australians. (2) Methods: This iterative qualitative study consists of five main phases. Phase-I will ensure appropriate governance of the project and establishment of a Project Advisory Committee. Following an initial consultation with the Aboriginal community, Phase-II will invite community members to participate in co-design workshops. In Phase-III, the Chief Investigators will participate in co-design workshops and document generated ideas. The notes shall be analysed thematically in Phase-IV with Aboriginal community representatives, and the summary will be disseminated to the communities. In Phase-V, we will evaluate the co-design process and adapt our protocol for the use in partnership with other communities. (3) Discussion: This study protocol represents a crucial first step to ensure that PM research is relevant and acceptable to Aboriginal Australians. Without fair access to PM, the gap in health outcome between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians will continue to widen.

Background: The use of genetic test results in risk-rated insurance is a significant concern internationally, with many countries banning or restricting the use of genetic test results in underwriting. In Australia, life insurers' use of genetic test results is legal and self-regulated by the insurance industry (Financial Services Council (FSC)). In 2018, an Australian Parliamentary Inquiry recommended that insurers' use of genetic test results in underwriting should be prohibited. In 2019, the FSC introduced an industry self-regulated moratorium on the use of genetic test results. In the absence of government oversight, it is critical that the impact, effectiveness and appropriateness of the moratorium is monitored. Here we describe the protocol of our government-funded research project, which will serve that critical function between 2020 and 2023., Methods: A realist evaluation framework was developed for the project, using a context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) approach, to systematically assess the impact of the moratorium for a range of stakeholders. Outcomes which need to be achieved for the moratorium to accomplish its intended aims were identified, and specific data collection measures methods were developed to gather the evidence from relevant stakeholder groups (consumers, health professionals, financial industry and genetic research community) to determine if aims are achieved. Results from each arm of the study will be analysed and published in peer-reviewed journals as they become available., Discussion: The A-GLIMMER project will provide essential monitoring of the impact and effectiveness of the self-regulated insurance moratorium. On completion of the study (3 years) a Stakeholder Report will be compiled. The Stakeholder Report will synthesise the evidence gathered in each arm of the study and use the CMO framework to evaluate the extent to which each of the outcomes have been achieved, and make evidence-based recommendations to the Australian federal government, life insurance industry and other stakeholders.

Genomic testing for a genetic diagnosis is becoming standard of care for many children, especially those with a syndromal intellectual disability. While previously this type of specialised testing was performed mainly by clinical genetics teams, it is increasingly being 'mainstreamed' into standard paediatric care. With the introduction of a new Medicare rebate for genomic testing in May 2020, this type of testing is now available for paediatricians to order, in consultation with clinical genetics. Children must be aged less than 10 years with facial dysmorphism and multiple congenital abnormalities or have global developmental delay or moderate to severe intellectual disability. This rebate should increase the likelihood of a genetic diagnosis, with accompanying benefits for patient management, reproductive planning and diagnostic certainty. Similar to the introduction of chromosomal microarray into mainstream paediatrics, this genomic testing will increase the number of genetic diagnoses, however, will also yield more variants of uncertain significance, incidental findings, and negative results. This paper aims to guide paediatricians through the process of genomic testing, and represents the combined expertise of educators, clinical geneticists, paediatricians and genomic pathologists around Australia. Its purpose is to help paediatricians navigate choosing the right genomic test, consenting patients and understanding the possible outcomes of testing., (© 2021 The Authors Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Paediatrics and Child Health Division (The Royal Australasian College of Physicians).)

The complexities of the informed consent process for participating in research in genomic medicine are well-documented. Inspired by the potential for Dynamic Consent to increase participant choice and autonomy in decision-making, as well as the opportunities for ongoing participant engagement it affords, we wanted to trial Dynamic Consent and to do so developed our own web-based application (web app) called CTRL (control). This paper documents the design and development of CTRL, for use in the Australian Genomics study: a health services research project building evidence to inform the integration of genomic medicine into mainstream healthcare. Australian Genomics brought together a multi-disciplinary team to develop CTRL. The design and development process considered user experience; security and privacy; the application of international standards in data sharing; IT, operational and ethical issues. The CTRL tool is now being offered to participants in the study, who can use CTRL to keep personal and contact details up to date; make consent choices (including indicate preferences for return of results and future research use of biological samples, genomic and health data); follow their progress through the study; complete surveys, contact the researchers and access study news and information. While there are remaining challenges to implementing Dynamic Consent in genomic research, this study demonstrates the feasibility of building such a tool, and its ongoing use will provide evidence about the value of Dynamic Consent in large-scale genomic research programs.

Purpose: To estimate the value of genomic sequencing for complex pediatric neurological disorders of suspected genetic origin., Methods: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was undertaken to elicit societal preferences and values. A Bayesian D-efficient and explicit partial profile design was used. The design included 72 choice tasks, split across six blocks, with eight attributes (three overlapping per choice task) and three alternatives. Choice data were analyzed using a panel error component mixed logit model and a latent class model. Preference heterogeneity according to personal socioeconomic, demographic, and attitudinal characteristics was explored using linear and fractional logistic regressions., Results: In total, 820 members of the Australian public were recruited. Statistically significant preferences were identified across all eight DCE attributes. We estimated that society on average would be willing to pay AU$5650 more (95% confidence interval [CI]: AU$5500 to $5800) (US$3955 [95% CI: US$3850 to $4060]) for genomic sequencing relative to standard care. Preference heterogeneity was identified for some personal characteristics., Conclusion: On average, society highly values all diagnostic, process, clinical, and nonclinical components of personal utility. To ensure fair prioritization of genomics, decision makers need to consider the wide range of risks and benefits associated with genomic information.

Purpose: The complexity and severity of rare genetic conditions pose substantial burden to families. While the importance of spillovers on carers' health in resource allocation decisions is increasingly recognised, there is significant lack of empirical evidence in the context of rare diseases. The objective of this study was to estimate the health spillovers of paediatric rare genetic conditions on parents., Methods: Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data from children with rare genetic conditions (genetic kidney diseases, mitochondrial diseases, epileptic encephalopathies, brain malformations) and their parents were collected using the CHU9D and SF-12 measures, respectively. We used two approaches to estimate parental health spillovers. To quantify the 'absolute health spillover', we matched our parent cohort to the Australian general population. To quantify the 'relative health spillover', regression models were applied using the cohort data., Results: Parents of affected children had significantly lower HRQoL compared to matched parents in the general public (- 0.06; 95% CIs - 0.08, - 0.04). Multivariable regression demonstrated a positive association between parental and child health. The mean magnitude of HRQoL loss in parents was estimated to be 33% of the HRQoL loss observed in children (95% CIs 21%, 46%)., Conclusion: Paediatric rare genetic conditions appear to be associated with substantial parental health spillovers. This highlights the importance of including health effects on family members and caregivers into economic evaluation of genomic technologies and personalised medicine. Overlooking spillover effects may undervalue the benefits of diagnosis and management in this context. This study also expands the knowledge of family spillover to the rare disease spectrum.

Purpose: To estimate the personal utility and uptake of genomic sequencing (GS) across pediatric and adult-onset genetic conditions., Methods: Three discrete choice experiment (DCE) surveys were designed and administered to separate representative samples of the Australian public. Bayesian D-efficient explicit partial profile designs were used. Choice data were analyzed using a panel error component random parameter logit model., Results: Overall, 1913 participants completed the pediatric (n = 533), symptomatic adult (n = 700) and at-risk adult (n = 680) surveys. The willingness-to-pay for GS information in pediatric conditions was estimated at $5470-$15,250 (US$3830-$10,675) depending on the benefits of genomic information. Uptake ranged between 60% and 81%. For symptomatic adults, the value of GS was estimated at $1573-$8102 (US$1100-$5671) and uptake at 34-82%. For at-risk adults, GS was valued at $2036-$5004 (US$1425-$3503) and uptake was predicted at 35-61%., Conclusion: There is substantial personal utility in GS, particularly for pediatric conditions. Personal utility increased as the perceived benefits of genomic information increased. The clinical and regulatory context, and individuals' sociodemographic and attitudinal characteristics influenced the value and uptake of GS. Society values highly the diagnostic, clinical, and nonclinical benefits of GS. The personal utility of GS should be considered in health-care decision-making.

Purpose: The ALLOCATE study was designed as a pilot to demonstrate the feasibility and clinical utility of real-time targeted molecular profiling of patients with recurrent or advanced ovarian cancer for identification of potential targeted therapies., Patients and Methods: A total of 113 patients with ovarian cancer of varying histologies were recruited from two tertiary hospitals, with 99 patient cases suitable for prospective analysis. Targeted molecular and methylation profiling of fresh biopsy and archived tumor samples were performed by screening for mutations or copy-number variations in 44 genes and for promoter methylation of BRCA1 and RAD51C ., Results: Somatic genomic or methylation events were identified in 85% of all patient cases, with potentially actionable events with defined targeted therapies (including four resistance events) detected in 60% of all patient cases. On the basis of these findings, six patients received molecularly guided therapy, three patients had unsuspected germline cancer-associated BRCA1 / 2 mutations and were referred for genetic counseling, and two intermediate differentiated (grade 2) serous ovarian carcinomas were reclassified as low grade, leading to changes in clinical management. Additionally, secondary reversion mutations in BRCA1 / 2 were identified in fresh biopsy samples of two patients, consistent with clinical platinum/poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor resistance. Timely reporting of results if molecular testing is done at disease recurrence, as well as early referral for patients with platinum-resistant cancers, were identified as factors that could improve the clinical utility of molecular profiling., Conclusion: ALLOCATE molecular profiling identified known genomic and methylation alterations of the different ovarian cancer subtypes and was deemed feasible and useful in routine clinical practice. Better patient selection and access to a wider range of targeted therapies or clinical trials will further enhance the clinical utility of molecular profiling.

Australian Genomics is a national collaborative research partnership of more than 80 organizations piloting a whole-of-system approach to integrating genomics into healthcare that is based on federation principles. The aim of Australian Genomics is to assess the application of genomic testing in healthcare at the translational interface between research and clinical delivery, with an emphasis on robust evaluation of outcomes. It encompasses two bodies of work: a research program prospectively providing genomic testing through exemplar clinical projects in rare diseases, cancers, and reproductive carrier screening and interdependent programs for advancing the diagnostic, health informatics, regulatory, ethical, policy, and workforce infrastructure necessary for the integration of genomics into the Australian health system., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Adopting clinical genomics represents a major systems-level intervention requiring diverse expertise and collective learning. The Australian Genomic Health Alliance (Australian Genomics) is strategically linking members and partner organisations to lead the integration of genomic medicine into healthcare across Australia. This study aimed to map and analyse interconnections between members-a key feature of complexity-to capture the collaborations among the genomic community, document learning, assess Australian Genomics' influence and identify key players., Methods: An online, whole network study collected relational data from members asking them about two time points: baseline, before Australian Genomics started operation in 2016 and current in 2018. Likert style questions assessed the influence of various sources of knowledge on the respondents' genomic practice. A secure link to the online questionnaire was distributed to all members of Australian Genomics during May 2018. Social network data was analysed and visually constructed using Gephi 0.9.2 software, and Likert questions were analysed using chi-squared computations in SPSS. The project was given ethical approval., Results: Response rate was 57.81% (222/384). The genomic learning community within Australian Genomics was constructed from the responses of participants. There was a growth in ties from pre-2016 (2925 ties) to 2018 (6381 ties) and an increase in density (0.020 to 0.043) suggesting the strong influence of Australian Genomics in creating this community. Respondents nominated 355 collaborative partners from 24 different countries outside of Australia and 328 partners from within Australia but outside the alliance. Key players were the Australian Genomics Manager, two clinical geneticists and four Operational staff members. Most influential sources of learning were hands on learning, shared decision making, journal articles and conference presentations in contrast to formal courses., Conclusions: The successful implementation of clinical genomics requires the engagement of multidisciplinary teams across a range of conditions and expertise. Australian Genomics is shown to be facilitating this collaborative process by strategically building a genomic learning community. We demonstrate the importance of social processes in building complex networks as respondents name "hands on learning" and "making group decisions" the most potent influences of their genomic practice. This has implications for genomic implementation, education and work force strategies.

Genomic sequencing is rapidly transitioning into clinical practice, and implementation into healthcare systems has been supported by substantial government investment, totaling over US$4 billion, in at least 14 countries. These national genomic-medicine initiatives are driving transformative change under real-life conditions while simultaneously addressing barriers to implementation and gathering evidence for wider adoption. We review the diversity of approaches and current progress made by national genomic-medicine initiatives in the UK, France, Australia, and US and provide a roadmap for sharing strategies, standards, and data internationally to accelerate implementation., (Copyright © 2018 American Society of Human Genetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) proposes a data access policy model-"registered access"-to increase and improve access to data requiring an agreement to basic terms and conditions, such as the use of DNA sequence and health data in research. A registered access policy would enable a range of categories of users to gain access, starting with researchers and clinical care professionals. It would also facilitate general use and reuse of data but within the bounds of consent restrictions and other ethical obligations. In piloting registered access with the Scientific Demonstration data sharing projects of GA4GH, we provide additional ethics, policy and technical guidance to facilitate the implementation of this access model in an international setting.