Effect of Whole-Genome Sequencing on the Clinical Management of Acutely Ill Infants With Suspected Genetic Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) shows promise as a first-line genetic test for acutely ill infants, but widespread adoption and implementation requires evidence of an effect on clinical management. Objective: To determine the effect of WGS on clinical management in a racially and ethnically diverse and geographically distributed population of acutely ill infants in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized, time-delayed clinical trial enrolled participants from September 11, 2017, to April 30, 2019, with an observation period extending to July 2, 2019. The study was conducted at 5 US academic medical centers and affiliated children's hospitals. Participants included infants aged between 0 and 120 days who were admitted to an intensive care unit with a suspected genetic disease. Data were analyzed from January 14 to August 20, 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive clinical WGS results 15 days (early) or 60 days (delayed) after enrollment, with the observation period extending to 90 days. Usual care was continued throughout the study. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the difference in the proportion of infants in the early and delayed groups who received a change of management (COM) 60 days after enrollment. Additional outcome measures included WGS diagnostic efficacy, within-group COM at 90 days, length of hospital stay, and mortality. Results: A total of 354 infants were randomized to the early (n = 176) or delayed (n = 178) arms. The mean participant age was 15 days (IQR, 7-32 days); 201 participants (56.8%) were boys; 19 (5.4%) were Asian; 47 (13.3%) were Black; 250 (70.6%) were White; and 38 (10.7%) were of other race. At 60 days, twice as many infants in the early group vs the delayed group received a COM (34 of 161 [21.1%; 95% CI, 15.1%-28.2%] vs 17 of 165 [10.3%; 95% CI, 6.1%-16.0%]; P = .009; odds ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.22-4.32) and a molecular diagnosis (55 of 176 [31.0%; 95% CI, 24.5%-38.7%] vs 27 of 178 [15.0%; 95% CI, 10.2%-21.3%]; P < .001). At 90 days, the delayed group showed a doubling of COM (to 45 of 161 [28.0%; 95% CI, 21.2%-35.6%]) and diagnostic efficacy (to 56 of 178 [31.0%; 95% CI, 24.7%-38.8%]). The most frequent COMs across the observation window were subspecialty referrals (39 of 354; 11%), surgery or other invasive procedures (17 of 354; 4%), condition-specific medications (9 of 354; 2%), or other supportive alterations in medication (12 of 354; 3%). No differences in length of stay or survival were observed. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, for acutely ill infants in an intensive care unit, introduction of WGS was associated with a significant increase in focused clinical management compared with usual care. Access to first-line WGS may reduce health care disparities by enabling diagnostic equity. These data support WGS adoption and implementation in this population. Trail Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03290469.

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.

A Centralized Approach for Practicing Genomic Medicine.

Next-generation sequencing has revolutionized the diagnostic process, making broadscale testing affordable and applicable to almost all specialties; however, there remain several challenges in its widespread implementation. Barriers such as lack of infrastructure or expertise within local health systems and complex result interpretation or counseling make it harder for frontline clinicians to incorporate genomic testing in their existing workflow. The general population is more informed and interested in pursuing genetic testing, and this has been coupled with the increasing accessibility of direct-to-consumer testing. As a result of these changes, primary care physicians and nongenetics specialty providers find themselves seeing patients for whom genetic testing would be beneficial but managing genetic test results that are out of their scope of practice. In this report, we present a practical and centralized approach to providing genomic services through an independent, enterprise-wide clinical service model. We present 4 years of clinical experience, with >3400 referrals, toward designing and implementing the clinical service, maximizing resources, identifying barriers, and improving patient care. We provide a framework that can be implemented at other institutions to support and integrate genomic services across the enterprise.

Protein-elongating mutations in MYH11 are implicated in a dominantly inherited smooth muscle dysmotility syndrome with severe esophageal, gastric, and intestinal disease.

Gastrointestinal motility disorders include a spectrum of mild to severe clinical phenotypes that are caused by smooth muscle dysfunction. We investigated the genetic etiology of severe esophageal, gastric, and colonic dysmotility in two unrelated families with autosomal dominant disease presentation. Using exome sequencing, we identified a 2 base pair insertion at the end of the myosin heavy chain 11 (MYH11) gene in all affected members of Family 1 [NM_001040113:c.5819_5820insCA(p.Gln1941Asnfs*91)] and a 1 base pair deletion at the same genetic locus in Proband 2 [NM_001040113:c.5819del(p.Pro1940Hisfs*91)]. Both variants are predicted to result in a similarly elongated protein product. Heterozygous dominant negative MYH11 pathogenic variants have been associated with thoracic aortic aneurysm and dissection while biallelic null alleles have been associated with megacystis microcolon intestinal hypoperistalsis syndrome. This report highlights heterozygous protein-elongating MYH11 variants affecting the SM2 isoforms of MYH11 as a cause for severe gastrointestinal dysmotility, and we hypothesize that the mechanistic pathogenesis of this disease, dominant hypercontractile loss-of-function, is distinct from those implicated in other diseases involving MYH11 dysfunction.

The Genomics Research and Innovation Network: creating an interoperable, federated, genomics learning system.

PURPOSE: Clinicians and researchers must contextualize a patient's genetic variants against population-based references with detailed phenotyping. We sought to establish globally scalable technology, policy, and procedures for sharing biosamples and associated genomic and phenotypic data on broadly consented cohorts, across sites of care. METHODS: Three of the nation's leading children's hospitals launched the Genomic Research and Innovation Network (GRIN), with federated information technology infrastructure, harmonized biobanking protocols, and material transfer agreements. Pilot studies in epilepsy and short stature were completed to design and test the collaboration model. RESULTS: Harmonized, broadly consented institutional review board (IRB) protocols were approved and used for biobank enrollment, creating ever-expanding, compatible biobanks. An open source federated query infrastructure was established over genotype-phenotype databases at the three hospitals. Investigators securely access the GRIN platform for prep to research queries, receiving aggregate counts of patients with particular phenotypes or genotypes in each biobank. With proper approvals, de-identified data is exported to a shared analytic workspace. Investigators at all sites enthusiastically collaborated on the pilot studies, resulting in multiple publications. Investigators have also begun to successfully utilize the infrastructure for grant applications. CONCLUSIONS: The GRIN collaboration establishes the technology, policy, and procedures for a scalable genomic research network.

Correction: The Genomics Research and Innovation Network: creating an interoperable, federated, genomics learning system.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Correction: Secondary findings from clinical genomic sequencing: prevalence, patient perspectives, family history assessment, and health-care costs from a multisite study.

The originally published version of this Article contained errors in Fig. 2. The numbers below the black arrowheads were incorrect; please see incorrect Figure in associated Correction. These errors have now been corrected in the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.

Secondary findings from clinical genomic sequencing: prevalence, patient perspectives, family history assessment, and health-care costs from a multisite study.

PURPOSE: Clinical sequencing emerging in health care may result in secondary findings (SFs). METHODS: Seventy-four of 6240 (1.2%) participants who underwent genome or exome sequencing through the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium received one or more SFs from the original American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) recommended 56 gene-condition pair list; we assessed clinical and psychosocial actions. RESULTS: The overall adjusted prevalence of SFs in the ACMG 56 genes across the CSER consortium was 1.7%. Initially 32% of the family histories were positive, and post disclosure, this increased to 48%. The average cost of follow-up medical actions per finding up to a 1-year period was $128 (observed, range: $0-$678) and $421 (recommended, range: $141-$1114). Case reports revealed variability in the frequency of and follow-up on medical recommendations patients received associated with each SF gene-condition pair. Participants did not report adverse psychosocial impact associated with receiving SFs; this was corroborated by 18 participant (or parent) interviews. All interviewed participants shared findings with relatives and reported that relatives did not pursue additional testing or care. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that disclosure of SFs shows little to no adverse impact on participants and adds only modestly to near-term health-care costs; additional studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Approaches to carrier testing and results disclosure in translational genomics research: The clinical sequencing exploratory research consortium experience.

BACKGROUND: Clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) is primarily used to address specific clinical concerns by detecting risk of future disease, clarifying diagnosis, or directing treatment. Additionally, CGES makes possible the disclosure of autosomal recessive and X-linked carrier results as additional secondary findings, and research about the impact of carrier results disclosure in this context is needed. METHODS: Representatives from 11 projects in the clinical sequencing exploratory research (CSER) consortium collected data from their projects using a structured survey. The survey focused on project characteristics, which variants were offered and/or disclosed to participants as carrier results, methods for carrier results disclosure, and project-specific outcomes. We recorded quantitative responses and report descriptive statistics with the aim of describing the variability in approaches to disclosing carrier results in translational genomics research projects. RESULTS: The proportion of participants with carrier results was related to the number of genes included, ranging from 3% (three genes) to 92% (4,600 genes). Between one and seven results were disclosed to those participants who received any positive result. Most projects offered participants choices about whether to receive some or all of the carrier results. There were a range of approaches to communicate results, and many projects used separate approaches for disclosing positive and negative results. CONCLUSION: Future translational genomics research projects will need to make decisions regarding whether and how to disclose carrier results. The CSER consortium experience identifies approaches that balance potential participant interest while limiting impact on project resources.

Utility and limitations of exome sequencing as a genetic diagnostic tool for children with hearing loss.

PURPOSE: Hearing loss (HL) is the most common sensory disorder in children. Prompt molecular diagnosis may guide screening and management, especially in syndromic cases when HL is the single presenting feature. Exome sequencing (ES) is an appealing diagnostic tool for HL as the genetic causes are highly heterogeneous. METHODS: ES was performed on a prospective cohort of 43 probands with HL. Sequence data were analyzed for primary and secondary findings. Capture and coverage analysis was performed for genes and variants associated with HL. RESULTS: The diagnostic rate using ES was 37.2%, compared with 15.8% for the clinical HL panel. Secondary findings were discovered in three patients. For 247 genes associated with HL, 94.7% of the exons were targeted for capture and 81.7% of these exons were covered at 20× or greater. Further analysis of 454 randomly selected HL-associated variants showed that 89% were targeted for capture and 75% were covered at a read depth of at least 20×. CONCLUSION: ES has an improved yield compared with clinical testing and may capture diagnoses not initially considered due to subtle clinical phenotypes. Technical challenges were identified, including inadequate capture and coverage of HL genes. Additional considerations of ES include secondary findings, cost, and turnaround time.

Clinical providers' experiences with returning results from genomic sequencing: an interview study.

BACKGROUND: Current medical practice includes the application of genomic sequencing (GS) in clinical and research settings. Despite expanded use of this technology, the process of disclosure of genomic results to patients and research participants has not been thoroughly examined and there are no established best practices. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 genetic and non-genetic clinicians returning results of GS as part of the NIH funded Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium projects. Interviews focused on the logistics of sessions, participant/patient reactions and factors influencing them, how the sessions changed with experience, and resources and training recommended to return genomic results. RESULTS: The length of preparation and disclosure sessions varied depending on the type and number of results and their implications. Internal and external databases, online resources and result review meetings were used to prepare. Respondents reported that participants' reactions were variable and ranged from enthusiasm and relief to confusion and disappointment. Factors influencing reactions were types of results, expectations and health status. A recurrent challenge was managing inflated expectations about GS. Other challenges included returning multiple, unanticipated and/or uncertain results and navigating a rare diagnosis. Methods to address these challenges included traditional genetic counseling techniques and modifying practice over time in order to provide anticipatory guidance and modulate expectations. Respondents made recommendations to improve access to genomic resources and genetic referrals to prepare future providers as the uptake of GS increases in both genetic and non-genetic settings. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that returning genomic results is similar to return of results in traditional genetic testing but is magnified by the additional complexity and potential uncertainty of the results. Managing patient expectations, initially identified in studies of informed consent, remains an ongoing challenge and highlights the need to address this issue throughout the testing process. The results of this study will help to guide future providers in the disclosure of genomic results and highlight educational needs and resources necessary to prepare providers. Future research on the patient experience, understanding and follow-up of recommendations is needed to more fully understand the disclosure process.

AUDIOME: a tiered exome sequencing-based comprehensive gene panel for the diagnosis of heterogeneous nonsyndromic sensorineural hearing loss.

PURPOSE: Hereditary hearing loss is highly heterogeneous. To keep up with rapidly emerging disease-causing genes, we developed the AUDIOME test for nonsyndromic hearing loss (NSHL) using an exome sequencing (ES) platform and targeted analysis for the curated genes. METHODS: A tiered strategy was implemented for this test. Tier 1 includes combined Sanger and targeted deletion analyses of the two most common NSHL genes and two mitochondrial genes. Nondiagnostic tier 1 cases are subjected to ES and array followed by targeted analysis of the remaining AUDIOME genes. RESULTS: ES resulted in good coverage of the selected genes with 98.24% of targeted bases at >15 ×. A fill-in strategy was developed for the poorly covered regions, which generally fell within GC-rich or highly homologous regions. Prospective testing of 33 patients with NSHL revealed a diagnosis in 11 (33%) and a possible diagnosis in 8 cases (24.2%). Among those, 10 individuals had variants in tier 1 genes. The ES data in the remaining nondiagnostic cases are readily available for further analysis. CONCLUSION: The tiered and ES-based test provides an efficient and cost-effective diagnostic strategy for NSHL, with the potential to reflex to full exome to identify causal changes outside of the AUDIOME test.

Why Patients Decline Genomic Sequencing Studies: Experiences from the CSER Consortium.

Clinical and research settings are increasingly incorporating genomic sequencing (GS) technologies. Previous research has explored reasons for declining genetic testing and participation in genetic studies; however, there is a dearth of literature regarding why potential participants decline participation in GS research, and if any of these reasons are unique to GS. This knowledge is essential to promote informed decision-making and identify potential barriers to research participation and clinical implementation. We aggregated data from seven sites across the National Institutes of Health's Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium on each project's procedures for recruitment, and rates of and reasons for decline. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The decline rate for enrollment at the seven CSER sites ranged from 12 to 64% (median 28%) and varied based on age and disease status. Projects differed in their protocols for approaching potential participants and obtaining informed consent. Reasons for declining GS research were reported for 1088 potential participants. Commonly cited reasons were similar to those reported for clinical single gene testing and non-GS genetic research. The most frequently cited reason for decline was study logistics (35%); thus, addressing logistical barriers to enrollment may positively impact GS study recruitment. Privacy and discrimination concerns were cited by 13% of decliners, highlighting the need for researchers and providers to focus educational efforts in this area. The potential psychological burden of pursuing and receiving results from GS and not wanting to receive secondary findings, a concern specific to GS, have been cited as concerns in the literature. A minority of potential participants cited psychological impact (8%) or not wanting to receive secondary findings (2%) as reasons for decline, suggesting that these concerns were not major barriers to participation in these GS studies. Further research is necessary to explore the impact, if any, of different participant groups or study protocols on rates of decline for GS studies. Future studies exploring GS implementation should consider using standardized collection methods to examine reasons for decline in larger populations and more diverse healthcare settings.

Anticipated responses of early adopter genetic specialists and nongenetic specialists to unsolicited genomic secondary findings.

PURPOSE: Secondary findings from genomic sequencing are becoming more common. We compared how health-care providers with and without specialized genetics training anticipated responding to different types of secondary findings. METHODS: Providers with genomic sequencing experience reviewed five secondary-findings reports and reported attitudes and potential clinical follow-up. Analyses compared genetic specialists and physicians without specialized genetics training, and examined how responses varied by secondary finding. RESULTS: Genetic specialists scored higher than other providers on four-point scales assessing understandings of reports (3.89 vs. 3.42, p = 0.0002), and lower on scales assessing reporting obligations (2.60 vs. 3.51, p < 0.0001) and burdens of responding (1.73 vs. 2.70, p < 0.0001). Nearly all attitudes differed between findings, although genetic specialists were more likely to assert that laboratories had no obligations when findings had less-established actionability (p < 0.0001 in interaction tests). The importance of reviewing personal and family histories, documenting findings, learning more about the variant, and recommending familial discussions also varied according to finding (all p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Genetic specialists felt better prepared to respond to secondary findings than providers without specialized genetics training, but perceived fewer obligations for laboratories to report them, and the two groups anticipated similar clinical responses. Findings may inform development of targeted education and support.

Utility and limitations of exome sequencing in the molecular diagnosis of pediatric inherited platelet disorders.

Inherited platelet disorders (IPD) are a heterogeneous group of rare disorders that affect platelet number and function and often predispose to other significant medical complications. In spite of the identification of over 50 IPD disease-associated genes, a molecular diagnosis is only identified in a minority (10%) of affected patients without a clinically suspected etiology. We studied a cohort of 21 pediatric patients with suspected IPDs by exome sequencing (ES) to: (1) examine the performance of the exome test for IPD genes, (2) determine if this exome-wide diagnostic test provided a higher diagnostic yield than has been previously reported, (3) to evaluate the frequency of variants of uncertain significance identified, and (4) to identify candidate variants for functional evaluation in patients with an uncertain or negative diagnosis. We established a high priority gene list of 53 genes, evaluated exome capture kit performance, and determined the coverage for these genes and disease-related variants. We identified likely disease causing variants in 5 of the 21 probands (23.8%) and variants of uncertain significance in 52% of patients studied. In conclusion, ES has the potential to molecularly diagnose causes of IPD, and to identify candidate genes for functional evaluation. Robust exome sequencing also requires that coverage of genes known to be associated with clinical findings of interest need to be carefully examined and supplemented if necessary. Clinicians who undertake ES should understand the limitations of the test and the full significance of results that may be returned.

How do providers discuss the results of pediatric exome sequencing with families?

AIM: This study provides preliminary data on the process and content of returning results from exome sequencing offered to children through one of the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) projects. MATERIALS & METHODS: We recorded 25 sessions where providers returned diagnostic and secondary sequencing results to families. Data interpretation utilized inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Typically, providers followed a results report and discussed diagnostic findings using technical genomic and sequencing concepts. We identified four provider processes for returning results: teaching genetic concepts; assessing family response; personalizing findings; and strengthening patient-provider relationships. CONCLUSION: Sessions should reflect family interest in medical management and next steps, and minimize detailed genomic concepts. As the scope and complexity of sequencing increase, the traditional information-laden counseling model requires revision.

An Observational Study of Children's Involvement in Informed Consent for Exome Sequencing Research.

The goal of this study was to examine children's involvement in consent sessions for exome sequencing research and associations of involvement with provider and parent communication. Participants included 44 children (8-17 years) from five cohorts who were offered participation in an exome sequencing study. The consent sessions were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded. Providers attempted to facilitate the child's involvement in the majority (73%) of sessions, and most (75%) children also verbally participated. Provider facilitation was strongly associated with likelihood of child participation. These findings underscore that strategies such as asking for children's opinions and soliciting their questions show respect for children and may increase the likelihood that they are engaged and involved in decisions about research participation.

Performance of ACMG-AMP Variant-Interpretation Guidelines among Nine Laboratories in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium.

Evaluating the pathogenicity of a variant is challenging given the plethora of types of genetic evidence that laboratories consider. Deciding how to weigh each type of evidence is difficult, and standards have been needed. In 2015, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) published guidelines for the assessment of variants in genes associated with Mendelian diseases. Nine molecular diagnostic laboratories involved in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium piloted these guidelines on 99 variants spanning all categories (pathogenic, likely pathogenic, uncertain significance, likely benign, and benign). Nine variants were distributed to all laboratories, and the remaining 90 were evaluated by three laboratories. The laboratories classified each variant by using both the laboratory's own method and the ACMG-AMP criteria. The agreement between the two methods used within laboratories was high (K-alpha = 0.91) with 79% concordance. However, there was only 34% concordance for either classification system across laboratories. After consensus discussions and detailed review of the ACMG-AMP criteria, concordance increased to 71%. Causes of initial discordance in ACMG-AMP classifications were identified, and recommendations on clarification and increased specification of the ACMG-AMP criteria were made. In summary, although an initial pilot of the ACMG-AMP guidelines did not lead to increased concordance in variant interpretation, comparing variant interpretations to identify differences and having a common framework to facilitate resolution of those differences were beneficial for improving agreement, allowing iterative movement toward increased reporting consistency for variants in genes associated with monogenic disease.