Global birth defects app: An innovative tool for describing and coding congenital anomalies at birth in low resource settings.

BACKGROUND: Surveillance programs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have difficulty in obtaining accurate information about congenital anomalies. METHODS: As part of the ZikaPLAN project, an International Committee developed an app for the description and coding of congenital anomalies that are externally visible at birth, for use in low resource settings. The "basic" version of the app was designed for a basic clinical setting and to overcome language and terminology barriers by providing diagrams and photos, sourced mainly from international Birth Defects Atlases. The "surveillance" version additionally allows recording of limited pseudonymized data relevant to diagnosis, which can be uploaded to a secure server, and downloaded by the surveillance program data center. RESULTS: The app contains 98 (88 major and 10 minor) externally visible anomalies and 12 syndromes (including congenital Zika syndrome), with definitions and International Classification of Disease v10 -based code. It also contains newborn examination videos and links to further resources. The user taps a region of the body, then selects among a range of images to choose the congenital anomaly that best resembles what they observe, with guidance regarding similar congenital anomalies. The "basic" version of the app has been reviewed by experts and made available on the Apple and Google Play stores. Since its launch in November 2019, it has been downloaded in 39 countries. The "surveillance" version is currently being field-tested. CONCLUSION: The global birth defects app is a mHealth tool that can help in developing congenital anomaly surveillance in low resource settings to support prevention and care.

Successful application of genome sequencing in a diagnostic setting: 1007 index cases from a clinically heterogeneous cohort.

Despite clear technical superiority of genome sequencing (GS) over other diagnostic methods such as exome sequencing (ES), few studies are available regarding the advantages of its clinical application. We analyzed 1007 consecutive index cases for whom GS was performed in a diagnostic setting over a 2-year period. We reported pathogenic and likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants that explain the patients' phenotype in 212 of the 1007 cases (21.1%). In 245 additional cases (24.3%), a variant of unknown significance (VUS) related to the phenotype was reported. We especially investigated patients which had had ES with no genetic diagnosis (n = 358). For this group, GS diagnostic yield was 14.5% (52 patients with P/LP out of 358). GS should be especially indicated for ES-negative cases since up to 29.6% of them  could benefit from GS testing (14.5% with P/LP, n = 52 and 15.1% with VUS, n = 54). Genetic diagnoses in most of the ES-negative/GS-positive cases were determined by technical superiority of GS, i.e., access to noncoding regions and more uniform coverage. Importantly, we reported 79 noncoding variants, of which, 41 variants were classified as P/LP. Interpretation of noncoding variants remains challenging, and in many cases, complementary methods based on direct enzyme assessment, biomarker testing and RNA analysis are needed for variant classification and diagnosis. We present the largest cohort of patients with GS performed in a clinical setting to date. The results of this study should direct the decision for GS as standard second-line, or even first-line stand-alone test.