ABSTRACT
Genome-wide sequencing and genetic matchmaker services are propelling a new era of genotype-driven ascertainment of novel genetic conditions. The degree to which reported phenotype data in discovery-focused studies address informational priorities for clinicians and families is unclear. We identified reports published from 2017 to 2021 in 10 genetics journals of novel Mendelian disorders. We adjudicated the quality and detail of the phenotype data via 46 questions pertaining to six priority domains: (I) Development, cognition, and mental health; (II) Feeding and growth; (III) Medication use and treatment history; (IV) Pain, sleep, and quality of life; (V) Adulthood; and (VI) Epilepsy. For a subset of articles, all subsequent published follow-up case descriptions were identified and assessed in a similar manner. A modified Delphi approach was used to develop consensus reporting guidelines, with input from content experts across four countries. In total, 200 of 3243 screened publications met inclusion criteria. Relevant phenotypic details across each of the 6 domains were rated superficial or deficient in >87% of papers. For example, less than 10% of publications provided details regarding neuropsychiatric diagnoses and "behavioural issues", or about the type/nature of feeding problems. Follow-up reports (n = 95) rarely contributed this additional phenotype data. In summary, phenotype information relevant to clinical management, genetic counselling, and the stated priorities of patients and families is lacking for many newly described genetic diseases. The PHELIX (PHEnotype LIsting fiX) reporting guideline checklists were developed to improve phenotype reporting in the genomic era.
ABSTRACT
The use of next-generation sequencing technologies such as genomic sequencing in newborn screening (NBS) could enable the detection of a broader range of conditions. We explored parental preferences and attitudes towards screening for conditions for which varying types of treatment exist with a cross-sectional survey completed by 100 parents of newborns who received NBS in Ontario, Canada. The survey included four vignettes illustrative of hypothetical screening targets, followed by questions assessing parental attitudes. Chi-square tests were used to compare frequency distributions of preferences. Results show that most parents supported NBS for conditions for which only supportive interventions are available, but to a significantly lesser degree than those with disease-specific treatments (99% vs. 82-87%, p ≤ 0.01). For conditions without an effective treatment, the type of supportive care and age of onset of the condition did not significantly alter parent perceptions of risks and benefits. Parents are interested in expanded NBS for conditions with only supportive interventions in childhood, despite lower levels of perceived benefit for the child and greater anticipated anxiety from screen-positive results. These preferences suggest that the expansion of NBS may require ongoing deliberation of perceived benefits and risks and enhanced approaches to education, consent, and support.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Most neonatal and infantile-onset epilepsies have presumed genetic aetiologies, and early genetic diagnoses have the potential to inform clinical management and improve outcomes. We therefore aimed to determine the feasibility, diagnostic yield, and clinical utility of rapid genome sequencing in this population. METHODS: We conducted an international, multicentre, cohort study (Gene-STEPS), which is a pilot study of the International Precision Child Health Partnership (IPCHiP). IPCHiP is a consortium of four paediatric centres with tertiary-level subspecialty services in Australia, Canada, the UK, and the USA. We recruited infants with new-onset epilepsy or complex febrile seizures from IPCHiP centres, who were younger than 12 months at seizure onset. We excluded infants with simple febrile seizures, acute provoked seizures, known acquired cause, or known genetic cause. Blood samples were collected from probands and available biological parents. Clinical data were collected from medical records, treating clinicians, and parents. Trio genome sequencing was done when both parents were available, and duo or singleton genome sequencing was done when one or neither parent was available. Site-specific protocols were used for DNA extraction and library preparation. Rapid genome sequencing and analysis was done at clinically accredited laboratories, and results were returned to families. We analysed summary statistics for cohort demographic and clinical characteristics and the timing, diagnostic yield, and clinical impact of rapid genome sequencing. FINDINGS: Between Sept 1, 2021, and Aug 31, 2022, we enrolled 100 infants with new-onset epilepsy, of whom 41 (41%) were girls and 59 (59%) were boys. Median age of seizure onset was 128 days (IQR 46-192). For 43 (43% [binomial distribution 95% CI 33-53]) of 100 infants, we identified genetic diagnoses, with a median time from seizure onset to rapid genome sequencing result of 37 days (IQR 25-59). Genetic diagnosis was associated with neonatal seizure onset versus infantile seizure onset (14 [74%] of 19 vs 29 [36%] of 81; p=0·0027), referral setting (12 [71%] of 17 for intensive care, 19 [44%] of 43 non-intensive care inpatient, and 12 [28%] of 40 outpatient; p=0·0178), and epilepsy syndrome (13 [87%] of 15 for self-limited epilepsies, 18 [35%] of 51 for developmental and epileptic encephalopathies, 12 [35%] of 34 for other syndromes; p=0·001). Rapid genome sequencing revealed genetic heterogeneity, with 34 unique genes or genomic regions implicated. Genetic diagnoses had immediate clinical utility, informing treatment (24 [56%] of 43), additional evaluation (28 [65%]), prognosis (37 [86%]), and recurrence risk counselling (all cases). INTERPRETATION: Our findings support the feasibility of implementation of rapid genome sequencing in the clinical care of infants with new-onset epilepsy. Longitudinal follow-up is needed to further assess the role of rapid genetic diagnosis in improving clinical, quality-of-life, and economic outcomes. FUNDING: American Academy of Pediatrics, Boston Children's Hospital Children's Rare Disease Cohorts Initiative, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Epilepsy Canada, Feiga Bresver Academic Foundation, Great Ormond Street Hospital Charity, Medical Research Council, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institute for Health and Care Research Great Ormond Street Hospital Biomedical Research Centre, One8 Foundation, Ontario Brain Institute, Robinson Family Initiative for Transformational Research, The Royal Children's Hospital Foundation, University of Toronto McLaughlin Centre.
