Truncating SRCAP variants outside the Floating-Harbor syndrome locus cause a distinct neurodevelopmental disorder with a specific DNA methylation signature.

Truncating variants in exons 33 and 34 of the SNF2-related CREBBP activator protein (SRCAP) gene cause the neurodevelopmental disorder (NDD) Floating-Harbor syndrome (FLHS), characterized by short stature, speech delay, and facial dysmorphism. Here, we present a cohort of 33 individuals with clinical features distinct from FLHS and truncating (mostly de novo) SRCAP variants either proximal (n = 28) or distal (n = 5) to the FLHS locus. Detailed clinical characterization of the proximal SRCAP individuals identified shared characteristics: developmental delay with or without intellectual disability, behavioral and psychiatric problems, non-specific facial features, musculoskeletal issues, and hypotonia. Because FLHS is known to be associated with a unique set of DNA methylation (DNAm) changes in blood, a DNAm signature, we investigated whether there was a distinct signature associated with our affected individuals. A machine-learning model, based on the FLHS DNAm signature, negatively classified all our tested subjects. Comparing proximal variants with typically developing controls, we identified a DNAm signature distinct from the FLHS signature. Based on the DNAm and clinical data, we refer to the condition as "non-FLHS SRCAP-related NDD." All five distal variants classified negatively using the FLHS DNAm model while two classified positively using the proximal model. This suggests divergent pathogenicity of these variants, though clinically the distal group presented with NDD, similar to the proximal SRCAP group. In summary, for SRCAP, there is a clear relationship between variant location, DNAm profile, and clinical phenotype. These results highlight the power of combined epigenetic, molecular, and clinical studies to identify and characterize genotype-epigenotype-phenotype correlations.

Rapid exome sequencing as a first-tier test in neonates with suspected genetic disorder: results of a prospective multicenter clinical utility study in the Netherlands.

The introduction of rapid exome sequencing (rES) for critically ill neonates admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit has made it possible to impact clinical decision-making. Unbiased prospective studies to quantify the impact of rES over routine genetic testing are, however, scarce. We performed a clinical utility study to compare rES to conventional genetic diagnostic workup for critically ill neonates with suspected genetic disorders. In a multicenter prospective parallel cohort study involving five Dutch NICUs, we performed rES in parallel to routine genetic testing for 60 neonates with a suspected genetic disorder and monitored diagnostic yield and the time to diagnosis. To assess the economic impact of rES, healthcare resource use was collected for all neonates. rES detected more conclusive genetic diagnoses than routine genetic testing (20% vs. 10%, respectively), in a significantly shorter time to diagnosis (15 days (95% CI 10-20) vs. 59 days (95% CI 23-98, p < 0.001)). Moreover, rES reduced genetic diagnostic costs by 1.5% (€85 per neonate). CONCLUSION:  Our findings demonstrate the clinical utility of rES for critically ill neonates based on increased diagnostic yield, shorter time to diagnosis, and net healthcare savings. Our observations warrant the widespread implementation of rES as first-tier genetic test in critically ill neonates with disorders of suspected genetic origin. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Rapid exome sequencing (rES) enables diagnosing rare genetic disorders in a fast and reliable manner, but retrospective studies with neonates admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) indicated that genetic disorders are likely underdiagnosed as rES is not routinely used. • Scenario modeling for implementation of rES for neonates with presumed genetic disorders indicated an expected increase in costs associated with genetic testing. WHAT IS NEW: • This unique prospective national clinical utility study of rES in a NICU setting shows that rES obtained more and faster diagnoses than conventional genetic tests. • Implementation of rES as replacement for all other genetic tests does not increase healthcare costs but in fact leads to a reduction in healthcare costs.

Lessons learned from rapid exome sequencing for 575 critically ill patients across the broad spectrum of rare disease.

Introduction: Rapid exome sequencing (rES) has become the first-choice genetic test for critically ill patients, mostly neonates, young infants, or fetuses in prenatal care, in time-sensitive situations and when it is expected that the genetic test result may guide clinical decision making. The implementation of rES has revolutionized medicine by enabling timely identification of genetic causes for various rare diseases. The utilization of rES has increasingly been recognized as an essential diagnostic tool for the identification of complex and undiagnosed genetic disorders. Methods: We conducted a retrospective evaluation of our experiences with rES performed on 575 critically ill patients from various age groups (prenatal to adulthood), over a four-year period (2016-2019). These patients presented with a wide spectrum of rare diseases, including but not limited to neurological disorders, severe combined immune deficiency, and cancer. Results: During the study period, there was a significant increase in rES referrals, with a rise from a total of two referrals in Q1-2016 to 10 referrals per week in Q4-2019. The median turnaround time (TAT) decreased from 17 to 11 days in the period 2016-2019, with an overall median TAT of 11 days (IQR 8-15 days). The overall diagnostic yield for this cohort was 30.4%, and did not significantly differ between the different age groups (e.g. adults 22.2% vs children 31.0%; p-value 0.35). However, variability in yield was observed between clinical entities: craniofacial anomalies yielded 58.3%, while for three clinical entities (severe combined immune deficiency, aneurysm, and hypogonadotropic hypogonadism) no diagnoses were obtained. Discussion: Importantly, whereas clinical significance is often only attributed to a conclusive diagnosis, we also observed impact on clinical decision-making for individuals in whom no genetic diagnosis was established. Hence, our experience shows that rES has an important role for patients of all ages and across the broad spectrum of rare diseases to impact clinical outcomes.

Medical costs of children admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit: The role and possible economic impact of WES in early diagnosis.

It has been estimated that at least 6.0% of neonates admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit remains genetically undiagnosed because genetic testing is not routinely performed. The objective of this study is to provide an overview of average healthcare costs for patients admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit and to assess possible impact of implementing Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) on these total healthcare costs. Hereto, we retrospectively collected postnatal healthcare data of all patients admitted to the level IV Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at the Radboudumc (October 2013-October 2015) and linked unit costs to these healthcare consumptions. Average healthcare costs were calculated and a distinction between patients was made based on performance of genetic tests and the presence of congenital anomalies. Overall, on average €26,627 was spent per patient. Genetic costs accounted for 2.3% of all costs. Healthcare costs were higher for patients with congenital anomalies compared to patients without congenital anomalies. Patients with genetic diagnostics were also more expensive than patients without genetic diagnostics. We next modelled four scenarios based on clinical preselection. First, when performing trio-WES for all patients instead of current diagnostics, overall healthcare costs will increase with 22.2%. Second, performing trio-WES only for patients with multiple congenital anomalies will not result in any cost changes, but this would leave patients with an isolated congenital anomalies untested. We therefore next modelled a scenario performing trio-WES for all patients with congenital anomalies, increasing the average per patient healthcare costs by 5.3%. This will rise to a maximum of 5.5% when also modelling for an extra genetic test for clinically selected patients to establish genetic diagnoses that are undetectable by WES. In conclusion, genetic diagnostic testing accounted for a small fraction of total costs. Implementation of trio-WES as first-tier test for all patients with congenital anomalies will lead to a limited increase in overall healthcare budget, but will facilitate personalized treatments options guided by the diagnoses made.