ABSTRACT
Diagnostic genome sequencing (GS) in newborns may have many benefits. More accurate diagnosis could spur the development of innovative genomic therapies. A precise diagnosis could help doctors and parents anticipate clinical problems and inform a family's future reproductive choices. However, the integration of GS into neonatal care remains associated with a variety of ethical controversies, including concerns about informed consent, about interpreting uncertain results, about resource allocation and whether access to genomic services could exacerbate health disparities, and about the effect of genome diagnostics on people with disabilities. There also remains significant uncertainty about which babies should be tested and when and how the potential benefits of GS ought to be measured. Probably related to these challenges, some payors have been reluctant to cover the cost of GS for critically ill newborns. Much of the reluctance appears to turn on questions about the clinical benefit associated with GS and whether and for whom GS will be cost-effective. These situations point to the urgent need for careful assessments of the clinical utility of GS in critically ill infants. In this paper, we critically examine the ways in which the clinical utility of GS has been evaluated in this patient population. We focus on "change of management" (COM), a widely used measure of clinical utility for diagnostic GS. We suggest that this measure is often ambiguous because not all COMs can be attributed to genomic results and because not all COMs lead to patient benefit. Finally, we suggest ways that measurement of clinical utility could be improved.
Subject(s)
Critical Illness , Parents , Infant , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Critical Illness/therapy , Whole Genome Sequencing/methods , Chromosome Mapping , GenomicsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To explore the psychosocial implications of diagnostic uncertainty that result from inconclusive results generated by newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) for cystic fibrosis (CF). STUDY DESIGN: Using a mixed methods prospective cohort study of children who received NBS for CF, we compared psychosocial outcomes of parents whose children who received persistently inconclusive results with those whose children received true positive or screen-negative results. RESULTS: Mothers of infants who received inconclusive results (n = 17), diagnoses of CF (n = 15), and screen-negative results (n = 411) were surveyed; 23 parent interviews were completed. Compared with mothers of infants with true positive/screen-negative results, mothers of infants with inconclusive results reported greater perceived uncertainty (P < .006) but no differences in anxiety or vulnerability (P > .05). Qualitatively, parents valued being connected to experts but struggled with the meaning of an uncertain diagnosis, worried about their infant's health-related vulnerability, and had mixed views about surveillance. CONCLUSION: Inconclusive CF NBS results were not associated with anxiety or vulnerability but led to health-related uncertainty and qualitative concerns. Findings should be considered alongside efforts to optimize protocols for CF screening and surveillance. Educational and psychosocial supports are warranted for these families.