Newborn screening for neurodevelopmental diseases: Are we there yet?

In the US, newborn screening (NBS) is a unique health program that supports health equity and screens virtually every baby after birth, and has brought timely treatments to babies since the 1960's. With the decreasing cost of sequencing and the improving methods to interpret genetic data, there is an opportunity to add DNA sequencing as a screening method to facilitate the identification of babies with treatable conditions that cannot be identified in any other scalable way, including highly penetrant genetic neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD). However, the lack of effective dietary or drug-based treatments has made it nearly impossible to consider NDDs in the current NBS framework, yet it is anticipated that any treatment will be maximally effective if started early. Hence there is a critical need for large scale pilot studies to assess if and how NDDs can be effectively screened at birth, if parents desire that information, and what impact early diagnosis may have. Here we attempt to provide an overview of the recent advances in NDD treatments, explore the possible framework of setting up a pilot study to genetically screen for NDDs, highlight key technical, practical, and ethical considerations and challenges, and examine the policy and health system implications.

The 2019 US medical genetics workforce: a focus on clinical genetics.

PURPOSE: This study characterizes the US clinical genetics workforce to inform workforce planning and public policy development. METHODS: A 32-question survey was electronically distributed to American Board of Medical Genetics and Genomics board-certified/eligible diplomates in 2019. We conducted a descriptive analysis of responses from practicing clinical geneticists. RESULTS: Of the 491 clinical geneticists responding to the survey, a majority were female (59%) and White (79%), worked in academic medical centers (73%), and many engaged in telemedicine (33%). Clinical geneticists reported an average of 13 new and 10 follow-up patient visits per week. The average work week was 50 hours and the majority (58%) worked over half-time in clinical duties. Providers indicated that 39% of new emergency patients wait 3 days or more, and 39% of nonemergency patients wait over 3 months to be seen. Respondents were geographically concentrated in metropolitan areas and many reported unfilled clinical geneticist job vacancies at their institution of more than 3 years. CONCLUSION: With the rapid expansion of genomic medicine in the past decade, there is still a gap between genetics services needed and workforce capacity. A concerted effort is required to increase the number of clinical geneticists and enhance interdisciplinary teamwork to meet increasing patient needs.

Foundation of the Newborn Screening Translational Research Network and its tools for research.

In the past 20 years, several policy activities were undertaken that shaped today's newborn screening (NBS) programs and their associated NBS research activities: the Newborn Screening Task Force Report; the Child Health Act of 2000, Screening for Heritable Disorders; the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics' (ACMG's) Newborn Screening Uniform Panel; and the ACMG expert panel to examine the development of a national collaborative study system for rare genetic diseases. These activities helped conceptualize the Newborn Screening Translational Research Network (NBSTRN) infrastructure and lay the foundation for its current activities. After 10 years, NBSTRN has grown into an organization that provides tools and resources for researchers to conduct research relevant to NBS programs for rare diseases for which data has been siloed locally. Infrastructure includes tools for the analytical and clinical validation of screening tests; the collection, analysis, sharing, and reporting of longitudinal laboratory and clinical data on newborn-screened individuals; and a web-based tool that allows researchers to acquire dried blood spots available for use in research from state NBS programs. NBSTRN also provides tools for researchers such as informed consent templates, disease registries, state NBS profiles, and consultation on planning pilot studies. In time, the growing data will become a resource itself.

Diagnosis and management of glycogen storage diseases type VI and IX: a clinical practice resource of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG).

PURPOSE: Glycogen storage disease (GSD) types VI and IX are rare diseases of variable clinical severity affecting primarily the liver. GSD VI is caused by deficient activity of hepatic glycogen phosphorylase, an enzyme encoded by the PYGL gene. GSD IX is caused by deficient activity of phosphorylase kinase (PhK), the enzyme subunits of which are encoded by various genes: ɑ (PHKA1, PHKA2), ß (PHKB), É£ (PHKG1, PHKG2), and δ (CALM1, CALM2, CALM3). Glycogen storage disease types VI and IX have a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations and often cannot be distinguished from each other, or from other liver GSDs, on clinical presentation alone. Individuals with GSDs VI and IX can present with hepatomegaly with elevated serum transaminases, ketotic hypoglycemia, hyperlipidemia, and poor growth. This guideline for the management of GSDs VI and IX was developed as an educational resource for health-care providers to facilitate prompt and accurate diagnosis and appropriate management of patients. METHODS: A national group of experts in various aspects of GSDs VI and IX met to review the limited evidence base from the scientific literature and provided their expert opinions. Consensus was developed in each area of diagnosis, treatment, and management. Evidence bases for these rare disorders are largely based on expert opinion, particularly when targeted therapeutics that have to clear the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) remain unavailable. RESULTS: This management guideline specifically addresses evaluation and diagnosis across multiple organ systems involved in GSDs VI and IX. Conditions to consider in a differential diagnosis stemming from presenting features and diagnostic algorithms are discussed. Aspects of diagnostic evaluation and nutritional and medical management, including care coordination, genetic counseling, and prenatal diagnosis are addressed. CONCLUSION: A guideline that will facilitate the accurate diagnosis and optimal management of patients with GSDs VI and IX was developed. This guideline will help health-care providers recognize patients with GSDs VI and IX, expedite diagnosis, and minimize adverse sequelae from delayed diagnosis and inappropriate management. It will also help identify gaps in scientific knowledge that exist today and suggest future studies.

Development of Clinical Domain Working Groups for the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen): lessons learned and plans for the future.

The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) is supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop expertly curated and freely accessible resources defining the clinical relevance of genes and variants for use in precision medicine and research. To facilitate expert input, ClinGen has formed Clinical Domain Working Groups (CDWGs) to leverage the collective knowledge of clinicians, laboratory diagnosticians, and researchers. In the initial phase of ClinGen, CDWGs were launched in the cardiovascular, hereditary cancer, and inborn errors of metabolism clinical fields. These early CDWGs established the infrastructure necessary to implement standardized processes developed or adopted by ClinGen working groups for the interpretation of gene-disease associations and variant pathogenicity, and provided a sustainable model for the formation of future disease-focused curation groups. The establishment of CDWGs requires recruitment of international experts to broadly represent the interests of their field and ensure that assertions made are reliable and widely accepted. Building on the successes, challenges, and trade-offs made in establishing the original CDWGs, ClinGen has developed standard operating procedures for the development of CDWGs in new clinical domains, while maximizing efforts to scale up curation and facilitate involvement of external groups who wish to utilize ClinGen methods and infrastructure for expert curation.

ClinGen--the Clinical Genome Resource.

On autopsy, a patient is found to have hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. The patient's family pursues genetic testing that shows a "likely pathogenic" variant for the condition on the basis of a study in an original research publication. Given the dominant inheritance of the condition and the risk of sudden cardiac death, other family members are tested for the genetic variant to determine their risk. Several family members test negative and are told that they are not at risk for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and sudden cardiac death, and those who test positive are told that they need to be regularly monitored for cardiomyopathy on echocardiography. Five years later, during a routine clinic visit of one of the genotype-positive family members, the cardiologist queries a database for current knowledge on the genetic variant and discovers that the variant is now interpreted as "likely benign" by another laboratory that uses more recently derived population-frequency data. A newly available testing panel for additional genes that are implicated in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is initiated on an affected family member, and a different variant is found that is determined to be pathogenic. Family members are retested, and one member who previously tested negative is now found to be positive for this new variant. An immediate clinical workup detects evidence of cardiomyopathy, and an intracardiac defibrillator is implanted to reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death.

Noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy, 2016 update: a position statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.

DISCLAIMER: This statement is designed primarily as an educational resource for clinicians to help them provide quality medical services. Adherence to this statement is completely voluntary and does not necessarily assure a successful medical outcome. This statement should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of other procedures and tests that are reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, the clinician should apply his or her own professional judgment to the specific clinical circumstances presented by the individual patient or specimen. Clinicians are encouraged to document the reasons for the use of a particular procedure or test, whether or not it is in conformance with this statement. Clinicians also are advised to take notice of the date this statement was adopted and to consider other medical and scientific information that becomes available after that date. It also would be prudent to consider whether intellectual property interests may restrict the performance of certain tests and other procedures.Noninvasive prenatal screening using cell-free DNA (NIPS) has been rapidly integrated into prenatal care since the initial American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) statement in 2013. New evidence strongly suggests that NIPS can replace conventional screening for Patau, Edwards, and Down syndromes across the maternal age spectrum, for a continuum of gestational age beginning at 9-10 weeks, and for patients who are not significantly obese. This statement sets forth a new framework for NIPS that is supported by information from validation and clinical utility studies. Pretest counseling for NIPS remains crucial; however, it needs to go beyond discussions of Patau, Edwards, and Down syndromes. The use of NIPS to include sex chromosome aneuploidy screening and screening for selected copy-number variants (CNVs) is becoming commonplace because there are no other screening options to identify these conditions. Providers should have a more thorough understanding of patient preferences and be able to educate about the current drawbacks of NIPS across the prenatal screening spectrum. Laboratories are encouraged to meet the needs of providers and their patients by delivering meaningful screening reports and to engage in education. With health-care-provider guidance, the patient should be able to make an educated decision about the current use of NIPS and the ramifications of a positive, negative, or no-call result.Genet Med 18 10, 1056-1065.

Diagnosis and management of glycogen storage disease type I: a practice guideline of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.

PURPOSE: Glycogen storage disease type I (GSD I) is a rare disease of variable clinical severity that primarily affects the liver and kidney. It is caused by deficient activity of the glucose 6-phosphatase enzyme (GSD Ia) or a deficiency in the microsomal transport proteins for glucose 6-phosphate (GSD Ib), resulting in excessive accumulation of glycogen and fat in the liver, kidney, and intestinal mucosa. Patients with GSD I have a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations, including hepatomegaly, hypoglycemia, lactic acidemia, hyperlipidemia, hyperuricemia, and growth retardation. Individuals with GSD type Ia typically have symptoms related to hypoglycemia in infancy when the interval between feedings is extended to 3­4 hours. Other manifestations of the disease vary in age of onset, rate of disease progression, and severity. In addition, patients with type Ib have neutropenia, impaired neutrophil function, and inflammatory bowel disease. This guideline for the management of GSD I was developed as an educational resource for health-care providers to facilitate prompt, accurate diagnosis and appropriate management of patients. METHODS: A national group of experts in various aspects of GSD I met to review the evidence base from the scientific literature and provided their expert opinions. Consensus was developed in each area of diagnosis, treatment, and management. RESULTS: This management guideline specifically addresses evaluation and diagnosis across multiple organ systems (hepatic, kidney, gastrointestinal/nutrition, hematologic, cardiovascular, reproductive) involved in GSD I. Conditions to consider in the differential diagnosis stemming from presenting features and diagnostic algorithms are discussed. Aspects of diagnostic evaluation and nutritional and medical management, including care coordination, genetic counseling, hepatic and renal transplantation, and prenatal diagnosis, are also addressed. CONCLUSION: A guideline that facilitates accurate diagnosis and optimal management of patients with GSD I was developed. This guideline helps health-care providers recognize patients with all forms of GSD I, expedite diagnosis, and minimize adverse sequelae from delayed diagnosis and inappropriate management. It also helps to identify gaps in scientific knowledge that exist today and suggests future studies.

Consensus statement: chromosomal microarray is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies.

Chromosomal microarray (CMA) is increasingly utilized for genetic testing of individuals with unexplained developmental delay/intellectual disability (DD/ID), autism spectrum disorders (ASD), or multiple congenital anomalies (MCA). Performing CMA and G-banded karyotyping on every patient substantially increases the total cost of genetic testing. The International Standard Cytogenomic Array (ISCA) Consortium held two international workshops and conducted a literature review of 33 studies, including 21,698 patients tested by CMA. We provide an evidence-based summary of clinical cytogenetic testing comparing CMA to G-banded karyotyping with respect to technical advantages and limitations, diagnostic yield for various types of chromosomal aberrations, and issues that affect test interpretation. CMA offers a much higher diagnostic yield (15%-20%) for genetic testing of individuals with unexplained DD/ID, ASD, or MCA than a G-banded karyotype ( approximately 3%, excluding Down syndrome and other recognizable chromosomal syndromes), primarily because of its higher sensitivity for submicroscopic deletions and duplications. Truly balanced rearrangements and low-level mosaicism are generally not detectable by arrays, but these are relatively infrequent causes of abnormal phenotypes in this population (<1%). Available evidence strongly supports the use of CMA in place of G-banded karyotyping as the first-tier cytogenetic diagnostic test for patients with DD/ID, ASD, or MCA. G-banded karyotype analysis should be reserved for patients with obvious chromosomal syndromes (e.g., Down syndrome), a family history of chromosomal rearrangement, or a history of multiple miscarriages.

ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing.

In clinical exome and genome sequencing, there is a potential for the recognition and reporting of incidental or secondary findings unrelated to the indication for ordering the sequencing but of medical value for patient care. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) recently published a policy statement on clinical sequencing that emphasized the importance of alerting the patient to the possibility of such results in pretest patient discussions, clinical testing, and reporting of results. The ACMG appointed a Working Group on Incidental Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing to make recommendations about responsible management of incidental findings when patients undergo exome or genome sequencing. This Working Group conducted a year-long consensus process, including an open forum at the 2012 Annual Meeting and review by outside experts, and produced recommendations that have been approved by the ACMG Board. Specific and detailed recommendations, and the background and rationale for these recommendations, are described herein. The ACMG recommends that laboratories performing clinical sequencing seek and report mutations of the specified classes or types in the genes listed here. This evaluation and reporting should be performed for all clinical germline (constitutional) exome and genome sequencing, including the "normal" of tumor-normal subtractive analyses in all subjects, irrespective of age but excluding fetal samples. We recognize that there are insufficient data on penetrance and clinical utility to fully support these recommendations, and we encourage the creation of an ongoing process for updating these recommendations at least annually as further data are collected.

The Progress and Future of US Newborn Screening.

Progress in newborn screening (NBS) has been driven for 60 years by developments in science and technology, growing consumer advocacy, the actions of providers involved in the care of rare disease patients, and by federal and State government funding and policies. With the current explosion of clinical trials of treatments for rare diseases, the pressure for expansion has grown, and concerns about the capacity for improvement and growth are being expressed. Genome and exome sequencing (GS/ES) have now opened more opportunities for early identification and disease prevention at all points in the lifespan. The greatest challenge facing NBS stems from the conditions most amenable to screening, and new treatment development is that we are screening for rare genetic diseases. In addition, understanding the spectrum of severity requires vast amounts of population and genomic data. We propose recommendations on improving the NBS system and addressing specific demands to grow its capacity by: better defining the criteria by which screening targets are established; financing the NBS system's responsiveness to opportunities for expansion, including engagement and funding from stakeholders; creating a national quality assurance, data, IT, and communications infrastructure; and improving intra-governmental communications. While our recommendations may be specific to the United States, the underlying issues should be considered when working to improve NBS programs globally.

Lysosomal storage diseases: diagnostic confirmation and management of presymptomatic individuals.

PURPOSE: To develop educational guidelines for the diagnostic confirmation and management of individuals identified by newborn screening, family-based testing after proband identification, or carrier testing in at-risk populations, and subsequent prenatal or postnatal testing of those who are presymptomatic for a lysosomal storage disease. METHODS: Review of English language literature and discussions in a consensus development panel comprised an international group of experts in the clinical and laboratory diagnosis, treatment and management, newborn screening, and genetic aspects of lysosomal storage diseases. RESULTS: Although clinical trial and longitudinal data were used when available, the evidence in the literature is limited and consequently the recommendations must be considered as expert opinion. Guidelines were developed for Fabry, Gaucher, and Niemann-Pick A/B diseases, glycogen storage type II (Pompe disease), globoid cell leukodystrophy (Krabbe disease), metachromatic leukodystrophy, and mucopolysaccharidoses types I, II, and VI. CONCLUSION: These guidelines serve as an educational resource for confirmatory testing and subsequent clinical management of presymptomatic individuals suspected to have a lysosomal storage disease; they also help to define a research agenda for longitudinal studies such as the American College of Medical Genetics/National Institutes of Health Newborn Screening Translational Research Network.