Genetics Visit Uptake Among Individuals Receiving Clinically Actionable Genomic Screening Results.

Importance: Screening unselected populations for clinically actionable genetic disease risk can improve ascertainment and facilitate risk management. Genetics visits may encourage at-risk individuals to perform recommended management, but little has been reported on genetics visit completion or factors associated with completion in genomic screening programs. Objective: To identify factors associated with postdisclosure genetics visits in a genomic screening cohort. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a cohort study of biobank data in a health care system in central Pennsylvania. Participants' exome sequence data were reviewed for pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) results in all genes on the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Secondary Findings list. Clinically confirmed results were disclosed by phone and letter. Participants included adult MyCode biobank participants who received P/LP results between July 2015 and November 2019. Data were analyzed from May 2021 to March 2022. Exposure: Clinically confirmed P/LP result disclosed by phone or letter. Main Outcomes and Measures: Completion of genetics visit in which the result was discussed and variables associated with completion were assessed by electronic health record (EHR) review. Results: Among a total of 1160 participants (703 [60.6%] female; median [IQR] age, 57.0 [42.1-68.5] years), fewer than half of participants (551 of 1160 [47.5%]) completed a genetics visit. Younger age (odds ratio [OR] for age 18-40 years, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.40-6.53; OR for age 41-65 years, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.22-4.74; OR for age 66-80 years, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.41-4.98 vs age ≥81 years); female sex (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.14-1.96); being married (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.23-2.47) or divorced (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.11-2.91); lower Charlson comorbidity index (OR for score of 0-2, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.16-2.68; OR for score of 3-4, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.18-2.54 vs score of ≥5); EHR patient portal use (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.06-1.89); living closer to a genetics clinic (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.14-2.36 for <8.9 miles vs >20.1 miles); successful results disclosure (OR for disclosure by genetic counselor, 16.32; 95% CI, 8.16-37.45; OR for disclosure by research assistant, 20.30; 95% CI, 10.25-46.31 vs unsuccessful phone disclosure); and having a hereditary cancer result (OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.28-3.58 vs other disease risk) were significantly associated with higher rates of genetics visit completion. Preference to follow up with primary care was the most common reported reason for declining a genetics visit (68 of 152 patients [44.7%]). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of a biobank-based population genomic screening program suggests that targeted patient engagement, improving multidisciplinary coordination, and reducing barriers to follow-up care may be necessary for enhancing genetics visit uptake.

Phenylalanine hydroxylase deficiency treatment and management: A systematic evidence review of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG).

PURPOSE: Elevated serum phenylalanine (Phe) levels due to biallelic pathogenic variants in phenylalanine hydroxylase (PAH) may cause neurodevelopmental disorders or birth defects from maternal phenylketonuria. New Phe reduction treatments have been approved in the last decade, but uncertainty on the optimal lifespan goal Phe levels for patients with PAH deficiency remains. METHODS: We searched Medline and Embase for evidence of treatment concerning PAH deficiency up to September 28, 2021. Risk of bias was evaluated based on study design. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to compare IQ, gestational outcomes, and offspring outcomes based on Phe ≤ 360 µmol/L vs > 360 µmol/L and reported as odds ratio and 95% CI. Remaining results were narratively synthesized. RESULTS: A total of 350 studies were included. Risk of bias was moderate. Lower Phe was consistently associated with better outcomes. Achieving Phe ≤ 360 µmol/L before conception substantially lowered the risk of negative effect to offspring in pregnant individuals (odds ratio = 0.07, 95% CI = 0.04-0.14; P < .0001). Adverse events due to pharmacologic treatment were common, but medication reduced Phe levels, enabling dietary liberalization. CONCLUSIONS: Reduction of Phe levels to ≤360 µmol/L through diet or medication represents effective interventions to treat PAH deficiency.

Expanded carrier screening for reproductive risk assessment: An evidence-based practice guideline from the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Expanded carrier screening (ECS) intends to broadly screen healthy individuals to determine their reproductive chance for autosomal recessive (AR) and X-linked (XL) conditions with infantile or early-childhood onset, which may impact reproductive management (Committee Opinion 690, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2017, 129, e35). Compared to ethnicity-based screening, which requires accurate knowledge of ancestry for optimal test selection and appropriate risk assessment, ECS panels consist of tens to hundreds of AR and XL conditions that may be individually rare in various ancestries but offer a comprehensive approach to inherited disease screening. As such, the term "equitable carrier screening" may be preferable. This practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for ECS using the GRADE Evidence to Decision framework (Guyatt et al., BMJ, 2008, 336, 995; Guyatt et al., BMJ, 2008, 336, 924). We used evidence from a recent systematic evidence review (Ramdaney et al., Genetics in Medicine, 2022, 20, 374) and compiled data from peer-reviewed literature, scientific meetings, and clinical experience. We defined and prioritized the outcomes of informed consent, change in reproductive plans, yield in identification of at-risk carrier pairs/pregnancies, perceived barriers to ECS, amount of provider time spent, healthcare costs, frequency of severely/profoundly affected offspring, incidental findings, uncertain findings, patient satisfaction, and provider attitudes. Despite the recognized barriers to implementation and change in management strategies, this analysis supported implementation of ECS for these outcomes. Based upon the current level of evidence, we recommend ECS be made available for all individuals considering reproduction and all pregnant reproductive pairs, as ECS presents an ethnicity-based carrier screening alternative which does not rely on race-based medicine. The final decision to pursue carrier screening should be directed by shared decision-making, which takes into account specific features of patients as well as their preferences and values. As a periconceptional reproductive risk assessment tool, ECS is superior compared to ethnicity-based carrier screening in that it both identifies more carriers of AR and XL conditions as well as eliminates a single race-based medical practice. ECS should be offered to all who are currently pregnant, considering pregnancy, or might otherwise biologically contribute to pregnancy. Barriers to the broad implementation of and access to ECS should be identified and addressed so that test performance for carrier screening will not depend on social constructs such as race.

Opioid-prescribing considerations in patients with cancer and substance misuse or substance use disorder: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to describe factors in the existing literature that may inform opioid-prescribing decisions for patients with a past or present history of cancer and past or present substance misuse or substance use disorder. INTRODUCTION: Opioids and opioid-related decisions are critical components of cancer care. Most individuals with cancer will experience pain during cancer care, and over half of patients will receive an opioid prescription. Opioid-prescribing decisions require weighing the benefits and harms. The presence of substance misuse or substance use disorder may elevate the risk of opioid-related harms, but there is a lack of consensus on managing patients at this intersection. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider studies that include adult patients with a past or present history of cancer who also have pain and current or historical substance misuse or substance use disorder. The pain may be cancer-related or non-cancer-related. Studies of patients with all types of cancer will be eligible for inclusion, with the exception of non-melanoma skin cancers. Eligible studies will explore factors that inform opioid-prescribing decisions in this patient population. METHODS: The review will be conducted according to JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Studies written in English since database inception will be included. The databases to be searched include MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase, APA PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. Eligible studies will undergo data extraction by 2 independent reviewers using a data extraction tool created by the authors. A narrative summary will describe study characteristics, population details, and strategies used to determine appropriate pain management in the patient population.

Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) for fetal chromosome abnormalities in a general-risk population: An evidence-based clinical guideline of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG).

PURPOSE: This workgroup aimed to develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the use of noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) for pregnant individuals at general risk for fetal trisomy 21, trisomy 18, or trisomy 13 and to evaluate the utility of NIPS for other chromosomal disorders. METHODS: The NIPS Evidence-Based Guideline Work Group (n = 7) relied on the results from the recent American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) systematic review to form the evidentiary basis of this guideline. Workgroup members used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Evidence to Decision framework to draft recommendations. The guideline underwent extensive internal and external peer review with a public comment period before approval by the ACMG Board of Directors. RESULTS: Evidence consistently demonstrated improved accuracy of NIPS compared with traditional screening methods for trisomies 21, 18, and 13 in singleton and twin gestations. Identification of rare autosomal trisomies and other microdeletion syndromes with NIPS is an emerging area of interest. CONCLUSION: ACMG strongly recommends NIPS over traditional screening methods for all pregnant patients with singleton and twin gestations for fetal trisomies 21, 18, and 13 and strongly recommends NIPS be offered to patients to screen for fetal sex chromosome aneuploidy.

Genetic testing and counseling for the unexplained epilepsies: An evidence-based practice guideline of the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Epilepsy, defined by the occurrence of two or more unprovoked seizures or one unprovoked seizure with a propensity for others, affects 0.64% of the population and can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. A majority of unexplained epilepsy (seizures not attributed to an acquired etiology, such as trauma or infection) is estimated to have an underlying genetic etiology. Despite rapid progress in understanding of the genetic underpinnings of the epilepsies, there are no recent evidence-based guidelines for genetic testing and counseling for this population. This practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for approaching genetic testing in the epilepsies using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence to Decision framework. We used evidence from a recent systematic evidence review and meta-analysis of diagnostic yield of genetic tests in patients with epilepsy. We also compiled data from other sources, including recently submitted conference abstracts and peer-reviewed journal articles. We identified and prioritized outcomes of genetic testing as critical, important or not important and based our recommendations on outcomes deemed critical and important. We considered the desirable and undesirable effects, value and acceptability to relevant stakeholders, impact on health equity, cost-effectiveness, certainty of evidence, and feasibility of the interventions in individuals with epilepsy. Taken together, we generated two clinical recommendations: (1) Genetic testing is strongly recommended for all individuals with unexplained epilepsy, without limitation of age, with exome/genome sequencing and/or a multi-gene panel (>25 genes) as first-tier testing followed by chromosomal microarray, with exome/genome sequencing conditionally recommended over multi-gene panel. (2) It is strongly recommended that genetic tests be selected, ordered, and interpreted by a qualified healthcare provider in the setting of appropriate pre-test and post-test genetic counseling. Incorporation of genetic counselors into neurology practices and/or referral to genetics specialists are both useful models for supporting providers without genetics expertise to implement these recommendations.

An evidence-based practice guideline of the National Society of Genetic Counselors for telehealth genetic counseling.

There are currently no practice guidelines available for genetic counseling using telehealth modalities. This evidence-based practice guideline was developed in response to increasing use of alternative service delivery models for genetic counseling, specifically telephone and video-based genetic counseling (telehealth genetic counseling or THGC). A recent systematic evidence review (SER) compared outcomes of THGC with in-person genetic counseling and found that for the majority of studied outcomes, THGC was a non-inferior and comparable service delivery model. The SER results were used to develop this guideline. The current and anticipated future use of THGC, including the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic, provides the context for this guideline. Recommendation: The Telehealth Practice Guideline author workgroup conditionally recommends telehealth genetic counseling, either via telephone or video, as a delivery method for genetic counseling. Depending on factors unique to individual healthcare systems and provider and patient populations, THGC may be the only service delivery model available or may be utilized in addition to other service delivery models including in-person genetic counseling. The evidence shows large desirable effects, minor undesirable effects, and increased equity for patients when THGC is available. THGC may reduce or remove existing barriers to patient access to genetic counseling, such as medical conditions and/or disabilities that may affect a patient's ability to travel, inflexible work or school schedules, and lack of reliable transportation, finances, or dependent care. THGC is likely acceptable to key groups impacted by its use and is feasible to implement. Certain patient populations may require additional resources or encounter more barriers in using telemedicine services in general. For these populations, THGC can still be a valuable option if solutions are available.

The uptake and utility of genetic testing and genetic counseling for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Genetic testing and genetic counseling are routinely indicated for patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM); however, the uptake and utility of these services is not entirely understood. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes the uptake and utility of genetic counseling and genetic testing for patients with HCM and their at-risk family members, as well as the impact of genetic counseling/testing on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). A systematic search was performed through March 12, 2021. Meta-analyses were performed whenever possible; other findings were qualitatively summarized. Forty-eight studies met inclusion criteria (47 observational, 1 randomized). Uptake of genetic testing in probands was 57% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 40, 73). Uptake of cascade screening for at-risk relatives were as follows: 61% for cascade genetic testing (95% CI: 45, 75), 58% for cardiac screening (e.g. echocardiography) (95% CI: 40, 73), and 69% for either/both approaches (95% CI: 43, 87). In addition, relatives of probands with a positive genetic test result were significantly more likely to undergo cascade screening compared to relatives of probands with a negative result (odds ratio = 3.17, 95% CI: 2.12, 4.76). Overall, uptake of genetic counseling in both probands and relatives ranged from 37% to 84%. Multiple studies found little difference in PROs between individuals receiving positive versus negative genetic test results; however, other studies found that individuals with positive genetic test results experienced worse psychological outcomes. Genetic testing may also inform life choices, particularly decisions related to reproduction and insurance. Genetic counseling was associated with high satisfaction, increased perceived personal control and empowerment, and decreased anxiety. Approximately half to three-quarters of patients with HCM and their relatives undergo genetic testing or cascade screening. PROs after genetic testing varied and genetic counseling was associated with high satisfaction and improved PROs.

Trends in guideline implementation: an updated scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines aim to support evidence-informed practice but are inconsistently used without implementation strategies. Our prior scoping review revealed that guideline implementation interventions were not selected and tailored based on processes known to enhance guideline uptake and impact. The purpose of this study was to update the prior scoping review. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies published from 2014 to January 2021 that evaluated guideline implementation interventions. We screened studies in triplicate and extracted data in duplicate. We reported study and intervention characteristics and studies that achieved impact with summary statistics. RESULTS: We included 118 studies that implemented guidelines on 16 clinical topics. With regard to implementation planning, 21% of studies referred to theories or frameworks, 50% pre-identified implementation barriers, and 36% engaged stakeholders in selecting or tailoring interventions. Studies that employed frameworks (n=25) most often used the theoretical domains framework (28%) or social cognitive theory (28%). Those that pre-identified barriers (n=59) most often consulted literature (60%). Those that engaged stakeholders (n=42) most often consulted healthcare professionals (79%). Common interventions included educating professionals about guidelines (44%) and information systems/technology (41%). Most studies employed multi-faceted interventions (75%). A total of 97 (82%) studies achieved impact (improvements in one or more reported outcomes) including 10 (40% of 25) studies that employed frameworks, 28 (47.45% of 59) studies that pre-identified barriers, 22 (52.38% of 42) studies that engaged stakeholders, and 21 (70% of 30) studies that employed single interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to our prior review, this review found that more studies used processes to select and tailor interventions, and a wider array of types of interventions across the Mazza taxonomy. Given that most studies achieved impact, this might reinforce the need for implementation planning. However, even studies that did not plan implementation achieved impact. Similarly, even single interventions achieved impact. Thus, a future systematic review based on this data is warranted to establish if the use of frameworks, barrier identification, stakeholder engagement, and multi-faceted interventions are associated with impact. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered with Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/4nxpr ) and published in JBI Evidence Synthesis.

Observational study of population genomic screening for variants associated with endocrine tumor syndromes in a large, healthcare-based cohort.

BACKGROUND: In current care, patients' personal and self-reported family histories are primarily used to determine whether genetic testing for hereditary endocrine tumor syndromes (ETS) is indicated. Population genomic screening for other conditions has increased ascertainment of individuals with pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants, leading to improved management and earlier diagnoses. It is unknown whether such benefits occur when screening broader populations for P/LP ETS variants. This manuscript assesses clinical utility outcomes of a large, unselected, healthcare-based genomic screening program by describing personal and family history of syndrome-related features, risk management behaviors after result disclosure, and rates of relevant post-disclosure diagnoses in patient-participants with P/LP ETS variants. METHODS: Observational study of individuals informed of a P/LP variant in MEN1, RET, SDHAF2, SDHB, SDHC, SDHD, or VHL through Geisinger's MyCode Community Health Initiative between June 2016 and October 2019. Electronic health records (EHRs) of participants were evaluated for a report of pre-disclosure personal and self-reported family histories and post-disclosure risk management and diagnoses. RESULTS: P/LP variants in genes of interest were identified in 199 of 130,490 (1 in 656) adult Geisinger MyCode patient-participants, 80 of which were disclosed during the study period. Eighty-one percent (n = 65) did not have prior evidence of the result in their EHR and, because they were identified via MyCode, were included in further analyses. Five participants identified via MyCode (8%) had a personal history of syndrome-related features; 16 (25%) had a positive self-reported family history. Time from result disclosure to EHR review was a median of 0.7 years. Post-disclosure, 36 (55.4%) completed a recommended risk management behavior; 11 (17%) were diagnosed with a syndrome-related neoplasm after completing a risk management intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Broader screening for pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants associated with endocrine tumor syndromes enables detection of at-risk individuals, leads to the uptake of risk management, and facilitates relevant diagnoses. Further research will be necessary to continue to determine the clinical utility of screening diverse, unselected populations for such variants.

Systematic evidence-based review: The application of noninvasive prenatal screening using cell-free DNA in general-risk pregnancies.

PURPOSE: Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) using cell-free DNA has been assimilated into prenatal care. Prior studies examined clinical validity and technical performance in high-risk populations. This systematic evidence review evaluates NIPS performance in a general-risk population. METHODS: Medline (PubMed) and Embase were used to identify studies examining detection of Down syndrome (T21), trisomy 18 (T18), trisomy 13 (T13), sex chromosome aneuploidies, rare autosomal trisomies, copy number variants, and maternal conditions, as well as studies assessing the psychological impact of NIPS and the rate of subsequent diagnostic testing. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate pooled estimates of NIPS performance (P < .05). Heterogeneity was investigated through subgroup analyses. Risk of bias was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 87 studies met inclusion criteria. Diagnostic odds ratios were significant (P < .0001) for T21, T18, and T13 for singleton and twin pregnancies. NIPS was accurate (≥99.78%) in detecting sex chromosome aneuploidies. Performance for rare autosomal trisomies and copy number variants was variable. Use of NIPS reduced diagnostic tests by 31% to 79%. Conclusions regarding psychosocial outcomes could not be drawn owing to lack of data. Identification of maternal conditions was rare. CONCLUSION: NIPS is a highly accurate screening method for T21, T18, and T13 in both singleton and twin pregnancies.

Diagnostic validity and clinical utility of genetic testing for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study summarises the diagnostic validity and clinical utility of genetic testing for patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and their at-risk relatives. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Library databases from inception through 2 March 2020. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were prespecified for individual sarcomere genes, presence/absence of pathogenic variants, paediatric and adult cohorts, family history, inclusion of probands, and variant classification method. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa tool. RESULTS: A total of 132 articles met inclusion criteria. The detection rate based on pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants was significantly higher in paediatric cohorts compared with adults (56% vs 42%; p=0.01) and in adults with a family history compared with sporadic cases (59% vs 33%; p=0.005). When studies applied current, improved, variant interpretation standards, the adult detection rate significantly decreased from 42% to 33% (p=0.0001) because less variants met criteria to be considered pathogenic. The mean difference in age-of-onset in adults was significantly earlier for genotype-positive versus genotype-negative cohorts (8.3 years; p<0.0001), MYH7 versus MYBPC3 cohorts (8.2 years; p<0.0001) and individuals with multiple versus single variants (7.0 years; p<0.0002). Overall, disease penetrance in adult cohorts was 62%, but differed significantly depending on if probands were included or excluded (73% vs 55%; p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis is the first, to our knowledge, to collectively quantify historical understandings of detection rate, genotype-phenotype associations and disease penetrance for HCM, while providing the answers to important routine clinical questions and highlighting key areas for future study.

Expanded carrier screening in the United States: A systematic evidence review exploring client and provider experiences.

The aim of carrier screening is to identify prospective parents at risk of having a pregnancy affected with an autosomal recessive or X-linked disorder. Though minimal guideline-based screening is available, expanded carrier screening (ECS) is quickly becoming a feasible option for the general population due to its growing availability and affordability. However, the impact of ECS on clients and providers remains relatively unexplored. We performed a systematic evidence review to identify publications describing client-, provider-, and test-related outcomes. We searched several biomedical databases for articles published between January 1, 2003 and May 31, 2021. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they described genetic counseling and/or genetic testing for carrier screening (minimal guideline-based or ECS) in a prenatal or preconception setting in the United States. Title and abstract screening were performed using the Raayan web application or customized Google Forms. Full-text review and data extraction of included articles were performed using custom Google Forms. Two researchers performed a multistep selection process independently for validation purposes. Of 5413 unique articles screened, 36 studies were included with several studies contributing to multiple outcomes. Twenty described outcomes relating to patients/clients, 10 described provider-based outcomes, and 16 described test-based outcomes. Findings suggest that client and provider perceptions of ECS and minimal guideline-based carrier screening are multifaceted. Though clients have expressed desire for ECS, clinical uptake and impact on reproductive decision-making varies. Additionally, though genetic counselors seem to be comfortable with ECS, most other reproductive care providers seem to prefer minimal guideline or ancestry-based screening due to perceived barriers, such as time needed for ECS results disclosure and follow-up, as well as the desire to have panels set by professional societies/recommendations. There are limitations within the gathered literature, leading to potential uncertainty in the generalizability of our review. We outline several recommendations for future studies, including the need to examine variant interpretation and use of next-generation sequencing.

Trends in guideline implementation: an updated scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to assess trends in guideline implementation, including the interventions used, rationale provided, and the impact on patient or health care professional knowledge, behavior or outcomes. INTRODUCTION: Guidelines must be actively implemented to promote use and achieve beneficial outcomes. A review published in 2015 found that studies of guideline implementation did not employ a range of implementation planning approaches to select and tailor interventions, resulting in inconsistent impact. This study will update the 2015 review and elaborate beyond the four diseases originally covered to determine whether more recent efforts to implement guidelines are informed by best implementation practices. INCLUSION CRITERIA: We will include published studies that describe the implementation of guidelines on any clinical topic relevant to primary, secondary, or tertiary care using interventions targeted at patients, families/caregivers, or health care professionals. METHODS: We will search MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library from 2014 (search date in 2015 review) to the present. Two or more reviewers will screen titles and full-text articles, and extract data from included studies. We will use summary statistics, tables, and a narrative summary to describe study characteristics, guideline implementation interventions, the rationale for intervention selection and tailoring (pre-identified barriers, patient or stakeholder preferences, theory), and intervention impact.

Genetic testing for the epilepsies: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Numerous genetic testing options for individuals with epilepsy have emerged over the past decade without clear guidelines regarding optimal testing strategies. We performed a systematic evidence review (SER) and conducted meta-analyses of the diagnostic yield of genetic tests commonly utilized for patients with epilepsy. We also assessed nonyield outcomes (NYOs) such as changes in treatment and/or management, prognostic information, recurrence risk determination, and genetic counseling. METHODS: We performed an SER, in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), using PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central through December of 2020. We included studies that utilized genome sequencing (GS), exome sequencing (ES), multigene panel (MGP), and/or genome-wide comparative genomic hybridization/chromosomal microarray (CGH/CMA) in cohorts (n ≥ 10) ascertained for epilepsy. Quality assessment was undertaken using ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions). We estimated diagnostic yields and 95% confidence intervals with random effects meta-analyses and narratively synthesized NYOs. RESULTS: From 5985 nonduplicated articles published through 2020, 154 met inclusion criteria and were included in meta-analyses of diagnostic yield; 43 of those were included in the NYO synthesis. The overall diagnostic yield across all test modalities was 17%, with the highest yield for GS (48%), followed by ES (24%), MGP (19%), and CGH/CMA (9%). The only phenotypic factors that were significantly associated with increased yield were (1) the presence of developmental and epileptic encephalopathy and/or (2) the presence of neurodevelopmental comorbidities. Studies reporting NYOs addressed clinical and personal utility of testing. SIGNIFICANCE: This comprehensive SER, focused specifically on the literature regarding patients with epilepsy, provides a comparative assessment of the yield of clinically available tests, which will help shape clinician decision-making and policy regarding insurance coverage for genetic testing. We highlight the need for prospective assessment of the clinical and personal utility of genetic testing for patients with epilepsy and for standardization in reporting patient characteristics.

Telehealth for genetic counseling: A systematic evidence review.

Telehealth options, such as telephone counseling or videoconferencing, for service delivery in genetic counseling are becoming more widely accepted. However, until now, there has not been a systematic review of the literature focused specifically on genetic counseling outcomes for telehealth. We performed a systematic evidence review to compare telehealth genetic counseling (THGC), including videoconferencing and telephone counseling, across specialties to in-person genetic counseling (IPGC) for a range of outcomes specific to patient and provider experiences and access to care. Several biomedical databases were queried up to January 11, 2021, to identify original research evaluating THGC. Through this search, 42 articles met the inclusion criteria including 13 randomized controlled trials and 29 non-randomized observational studies encompassing 13,901 patients. Most included studies focused only on cancer genetic counseling; however, adult, pediatric, and prenatal specialties were also represented. The majority of studies evaluated patient and/or access to care outcomes. Though most studies reported high patient satisfaction with THGC, as well as comparable rates of trust and rapport, confidence in privacy, health behavior changes, and psychosocial outcomes, few represented diverse populations. Data of provider experiences were limited and varied with more disadvantages noted compared with patient experiences, particularly in studies involving telephone genetic counseling. Studies consistently reported a decrease in the patients' costs and time required for travel when patients are seen via THGC compared to IPGC with a similar reduction in costs to the health system. Overall, results from our evidence synthesis suggest THGC is non-inferior or comparable to IPGC across many domains, even considering that many of the studies included in this review were conducted with telehealth systems, notably videoconferencing, that were less robust and reliable than what is available today. There are notable limitations within this body of literature, leading to potential uncertainty in the generalizability of our analysis. We outline several recommendations for future studies.

Sysrev: A FAIR Platform for Data Curation and Systematic Evidence Review.

Well-curated datasets are essential to evidence based decision making and to the integration of artificial intelligence with human reasoning across disciplines. However, many sources of data remain siloed, unstructured, and/or unavailable for complementary and secondary research. Sysrev was developed to address these issues. First, Sysrev was built to aid in systematic evidence reviews (SER), where digital documents are evaluated according to a well defined process, and where Sysrev provides an easy to access, publicly available and free platform for collaborating in SER projects. Secondly, Sysrev addresses the issue of unstructured, siloed, and inaccessible data in the context of generalized data extraction, where human and machine learning algorithms are combined to extract insights and evidence for better decision making across disciplines. Sysrev uses FAIR - Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse of digital assets - as primary principles in design. Sysrev was developed primarily because of an observed need to reduce redundancy, reduce inefficient use of human time and increase the impact of evidence based decision making. This publication is an introduction to Sysrev as a novel technology, with an overview of the features, motivations and use cases of the tool. Methods: Sysrev. com is a FAIR motivated web platform for data curation and SER. Sysrev allows users to create data curation projects called "sysrevs" wherein users upload documents, define review tasks, recruit reviewers, perform review tasks, and automate review tasks. Conclusion: Sysrev is a web application designed to facilitate data curation and SERs. Thousands of publicly accessible Sysrev projects have been created, accommodating research in a wide variety of disciplines. Described use cases include data curation, managed reviews, and SERs.

Exome and genome sequencing for pediatric patients with congenital anomalies or intellectual disability: an evidence-based clinical guideline of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG).

PURPOSE: To develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the use of exome and genome sequencing (ES/GS) in the care of pediatric patients with one or more congenital anomalies (CA) with onset prior to age 1 year or developmental delay (DD) or intellectual disability (ID) with onset prior to age 18 years. METHODS: The Pediatric Exome/Genome Sequencing Evidence-Based Guideline Work Group (n = 10) used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence to decision (EtD) framework based on the recent American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) systematic review, and an Ontario Health Technology Assessment to develop and present evidence summaries and health-care recommendations. The document underwent extensive internal and external peer review, and public comment, before approval by the ACMG Board of Directors. RESULTS: The literature supports the clinical utility and desirable effects of ES/GS on active and long-term clinical management of patients with CA/DD/ID, and on family-focused and reproductive outcomes with relatively few harms. Compared with standard genetic testing, ES/GS has a higher diagnostic yield and may be more cost-effective when ordered early in the diagnostic evaluation. CONCLUSION: We strongly recommend that ES/GS be considered as a first- or second-tier test for patients with CA/DD/ID.