Search

Background and objectivesGenomic sequencing (GS) is increasingly used for diagnostic evaluation, yet follow-up care is not well understood. We assessed clinicians' recommendations after GS, parent-reported follow-up, and actions parents initiated in response to learning their child's GS results.MethodsWe surveyed parents of children who received GS through the Clinical Sequencing Evidence Generating Research consortium ∼5 to 7 months after return of results. We compared the proportion of parents who reported discussing their child's result with a clinician, clinicians' recommendations, and parents' follow-up actions by GS result type using χ2 tests.ResultsA total of 1188 respondents completed survey measures on recommended medical actions (n = 1187) and/or parent-initiated actions (n = 913). Most parents who completed recommended medical actions questions (n = 833, 70.3%) reported having discussed their child's GS results with clinicians. Clinicians made recommendations to change current care for patients with positive GS results (n = 79, 39.1%) more frequently than for those with inconclusive (n = 31, 12.4%) or negative results (n = 44, 11.9%; P < .001). Many parents discussed (n = 152 completed, n = 135 planned) implications of GS results for future pregnancies with a clinician. Aside from clinical recommendations, 13.0% (n = 119) of parents initiated changes to their child's health or lifestyle.ConclusionsIn diverse pediatric clinical contexts, GS results can lead to recommendations for follow-up care, but they likely do not prompt large increases in the quantity of care received.

Background and objectivesSuccessful clinical integration of genomic sequencing (GS) requires evidence of its utility. While GS potentially has benefits (utilities) or harms (disutilities) across multiple domains of life for both patients and their families, there is as yet no empirically informed conceptual model of these effects. Our objective was to develop an empirically informed conceptual model of perceived utility of GS that captures utilities and disutilities for patients and their families across diverse backgrounds.MethodsWe took a patient-centered approach, in which we began with a review of existing literature followed by collection of primary interview data. We conducted semi-structured interviews to explore types of utility in a clinically and sociopolitically diverse sample of 60 adults from seven Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium projects. Interviewees had either personally received, or were parents of a child who had received, GS results. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Findings from interviews were integrated with existing literature on clinical and personal utility to form the basis of an initial conceptual model that was refined based on expert review and feedback.ResultsFive key utility types that have been previously identified in qualitative literature held up as primary domains of utility and disutility in our diverse sample. Interview data were used to specify and organize subdomains of an initial conceptual model. After expert refinement, the five primary domains included in the final model are clinical, emotional, behavioral, cognitive, and social, and several subdomains are specified within each.ConclusionWe present an empirically informed conceptual model of perceived utility of GS. This model can be used to guide development of instruments for patient-centered outcome measurement that capture the range of relevant utilities and disutilities and inform clinical implementation of GS.

PurposeThere is limited payer coverage for genome sequencing (GS) relative to exome sequencing (ES) in the U.S. Our objective was to assess payers' considerations for coverage of GS versus coverage of ES and requirements payers have for coverage of GS. The study was conducted by the NIH-funded Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium (CSER).MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with representatives of private payer organizations (payers, N = 12) on considerations and evidentiary and other needs for coverage of GS and ES. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.ResultsWe described four categories of findings and solutions: demonstrated merits of GS versus ES, enhanced methods for evidence generation, consistent laboratory processes/sequencing methods, and enhanced implementation/care delivery. Payers see advantages to GS vs. ES and are open to broader GS coverage but need more proof of these advantages to consider them in coverage decision-making. Next steps include establishing evidence of benefits in specific clinical scenarios, developing quality standards, ensuring transparency of laboratory methods, developing clinical centers of excellence, and incorporating the role of genetic professionals.ConclusionBy comparing coverage considerations for GS and ES, we identified a path forward for coverage of GS. Future research should explicitly address payers' conditions for coverage.

Prior to integration into clinical care, a novel medical innovation is typically assessed in terms of its balance of benefits and risks, often referred to as utility. Members of multidisciplinary research teams may conceptualize and assess utility in different ways, which has implications within the translational genomics community and for the evidence base upon which clinical guidelines groups and healthcare payers make decisions. Ambiguity in the conceptualization of utility in translational genomics research can lead to communication challenges within research teams and to study designs that do not meet stakeholder needs. We seek to address the ambiguity challenge by describing the conceptual understanding of utility and use of the term by scholars in the fields of philosophy, medicine, and the social sciences of decision psychology and health economics. We illustrate applications of each field's orientation to translational genomics research by using examples from the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, and we provide recommendations for increasing clarity and cohesion in future research. Given that different understandings of utility will align to a greater or lesser degree with important stakeholders' views, more precise use of the term can help researchers to better integrate multidisciplinary investigations and communicate with stakeholders.

IntroductionImplementation of genome-scale sequencing in clinical care has significant challenges: the technology is highly dimensional with many kinds of potential results, results interpretation and delivery require expertise and coordination across multiple medical specialties, clinical utility may be uncertain, and there may be broader familial or societal implications beyond the individual participant. Transdisciplinary consortia and collaborative team science are well poised to address these challenges. However, understanding the complex web of organizational, institutional, physical, environmental, technologic, and other political and societal factors that influence the effectiveness of consortia is understudied. We describe our experience working in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, a multi-institutional translational genomics consortium.MethodsA key aspect of the CSER consortium was the juxtaposition of site-specific measures with the need to identify consensus measures related to clinical utility and to create a core set of harmonized measures. During this harmonization process, we sought to minimize participant burden, accommodate project-specific choices, and use validated measures that allow data sharing.ResultsIdentifying platforms to ensure swift communication between teams and management of materials and data were essential to our harmonization efforts. Funding agencies can help consortia by clarifying key study design elements across projects during the proposal preparation phase and by providing a framework for data sharing data across participating projects.ConclusionsIn summary, time and resources must be devoted to developing and implementing collaborative practices as preparatory work at the beginning of project timelines to improve the effectiveness of research consortia.

Genetic testing of patients with neurodevelopmental disabilities (NDDs) is critical for diagnosis, medical management, and access to precision therapies. Because genetic testing approaches evolve rapidly, professional society practice guidelines serve an essential role in guiding clinical care; however, several challenges exist regarding the creation and equitable implementation of these guidelines. In this scoping review, we assessed the current state of United States professional societies' guidelines pertaining to genetic testing for unexplained global developmental delay, intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorder, and cerebral palsy. We describe several identified shortcomings and argue the need for a unified, frequently updated, and easily‐accessible cross‐specialty society guideline. ANN NEUROL 2024;96:900–913 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the importance of advocacy and justice in rare diseases and provides recommendations for stakeholders to promote equity and justice. Topics include the role of self-advocacy and social capital in accessing research and specialized care, the impact of industry partnerships on equity and justice in rare disease research and healthcare, and the challenges and conflicts of interest in patient-industry collaborations.

Leading medical and public health societies endorse comprehensive sex education, but only 20 states and Washington, D.C., currently require information about contraception when sex education is taught, and even fewer require the inclusion of topics such as gender diversity or consent. At the same time, social media use, especially the video-sharing app TikTok, is increasing among teens. TikTok, therefore, offers a novel opportunity to make up for shortcomings in sex education and convey sexual health information to adolescents. To describe the availability and content of sexual education on TikTok, we conducted a content analysis of themes for 100 sex education–focused videos. We found that female anatomy was the most frequently addressed topic. Sexual pleasure was the second most common theme, within which discussions of the female orgasm and arousal constituted the most common subtheme. Other common themes include contraception and sexual health. These sought-after topics may be incongruent with those presented in standard school- or home-based sex education or interactions with health care providers, and this disconnect suggests opportunities for health care providers and educators to initiate conversations or offer resources on these themes as part of routine interaction. We conclude with recommendations for future research to consider the factual accuracy of sex education on TikTok and determine how exposure to this content affects adolescents' understanding of the risks and benefits of intercourse, sexual practices, age- and gender-based sexual norms, and other health behaviors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Physicians' primary responsibility is to promote patients' well-being, which includes not causing financial harm. Physicians also have duties to prudently steward health care resources. Balancing these responsibilities requires recommending interventions likely to achieve patients' health goals while avoiding unnecessary expenditures. Costeffectiveness data should be used to inform population-based conceptions of an intervention's value and are not intended to be used by individual clinicians offering recommendations to individual patients. But cost-effectiveness data should be incorporated into patient-clinician conversations about an intervention's affordability and its influence on adherence to a care plan, as these are key promoters of evidence-based practice, value-based care, and optimal outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Though genomic science has rapidly advanced, efforts to demonstrate the population-level utility of genomics have been slow to follow. It has long been argued that the family is an important unit of significance in genomics, yet it has been challenging to address this in clinical care. This is apparent in how hospital administrators and clinicians in the United States typically approach cascade screening, the process of notifying and offering genetic testing to at-risk relatives of a patient with a hereditary condition. The most common notification approach is proband-led contact, in which the index patient is responsible for communicating a health risk to their relatives. This model has been associated with sub-optimal outcomes. In contrast, recent research has shown that system-led contact, in which healthcare or public health institutions initiate communication to relatives with the proband's consent, has been associated with increased clinical utility and acceptability., Summary: With the needs of hospital administrators and clinicians in mind, we revisit normative questions about the appropriate way to notify relatives about their potentially elevated risk of developing an actionable disease. We review evidence demonstrating that system-led direct contact of relatives is feasible and acceptable. We further argue that system-led contact of relatives eligible for cascade screening is ethically justified if these programs are designed with public input, have an opt-out provision, and are implemented for conditions that meet specific criteria which we propose in this article., Key Messages: In this article, we emphasize the usefulness of public health ethics frameworks to inform the design of system-led contact programs. Beyond this, we make the case that such programs are necessary to realize the population utility of genomic medicine equitably., (The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background and Objectives: Many genetic conditions present in the NICU, where a diagnostic evaluation is pursued. However, understanding of the impact of a genetic diagnosis on clinical outcomes and health-related quality of life for these infants remains incomplete. We therefore evaluated parent-reported outcomes complemented by clinical outcomes measures over one year for a cohort of infants in the NICU undergoing genetic evaluation., Methods: Prospective cohort study evaluating outcomes after genetics consultation in a level IV NICU via parent report and electronic medical record review. Eligible infants were genetically undiagnosed at enrollment. Parent surveys were administered at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months following enrollment and assessed genetic testing utility as well as parent-reported infant health-related quality of life using the Infant Toddler Quality of Life Questionnaire., Results: A total of 110 infant-parent pairs were enrolled. Infants had a median age at enrollment of 15 days (interquartile range 8-37.75). At baseline, 74% (81/110) of parents endorsed high importance of finding a genetic diagnosis, but perceived importance significantly decreased over time. Over the study period, 38 infants received a molecular diagnosis per parent report, although this was discordant with electronic medical record review. Identification of a diagnosis did not significantly impact health-related quality of life across most domains, which was lower overall than population norms., Conclusions: A genetic diagnosis is highly desired by parents in the NICU, though waning interest over time for undiagnosed families may reflect parental emotional adaptation and acceptance. Additional supports are needed to improve perceived quality of life., Competing Interests: CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES: Dr Wojcik has consulted for Illumina and Sanofi and received speaking honoraria from Illumina and GeneDx and Dr Smith has received consulting income from Illumina, all unrelated to this work. The other authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)