Early genetic testing in pediatric epilepsy: Diagnostic and cost implications.

The identification of numerous genetically based epilepsies has resulted in the widespread use of genetic testing to inform epilepsy etiology. Our study aims to investigate whether a difference exists in the diagnostic evaluation and healthcare-related cost expenditures of pediatric patients with epilepsy of unknown etiology who receive a genetic diagnosis through multigene epilepsy panel (MEP) testing and comparing those who underwent early (EGT) versus late genetic testing (LGT). Testing was defined as early (less than 1 year), or late (more than 1 year), following clinical epilepsy diagnosis. A retrospective chart review of pediatric individuals (1-17 years) with epilepsy of unknown etiology who underwent multigene epilepsy panel (MEP) testing identified 28 of 226 (12%) individuals with a pathogenic epilepsy variant [EGT n = 8 (29%); LGT n = 20 (71%)]. The average time from clinical epilepsy diagnosis to genetic diagnosis was 0.25 years (EGT), compared with 7.1 years (LGT). The EGT cohort underwent fewer metabolic tests [EGT n = 0 (0%); LGT n = 16 (80%) (P < 0.01)] and invasive procedures [EGT n = 0 (0%); LGT n = 5 (25%) (P = 0.06)]. Clinical management changes implemented due to genetic diagnosis occurred in 10 (36%) patients [EGT n = 2 (25%); LGT n = 8 (40%) (P = 0.76)]. Early genetic testing with a MEP in pediatric patients with epilepsy of unknown etiology who receive a genetic diagnosis is associated with fewer non-diagnostic tests and invasive procedures and reduced estimated overall healthcare-related costs. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This study aims to investigate whether a difference exists in the diagnostic evaluation and cost expenditures of pediatric patients (1-17 years) with epilepsy of unknown cause who are ultimately diagnosed with a genetic cause of epilepsy through multigene epilepsy panel testing and comparing those who underwent early testing (less than 1 year) versus late testing (more than 1 year) after clinical epilepsy diagnosis. Of the 28 of 226 individuals with a confirmed genetic cause of epilepsy on multigene epilepsy panel testing, performing early testing was associated with fewer non-diagnostic tests, fewer invasive procedures and reduced estimated overall healthcare-related costs.

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.

Development, Implementation, and Assessment of a Genetics Curriculum Across Institutions.

Objective Many residency programs offer limited exposure and minimal didactic time genetics, despite its frequent use in obstetrics and gynecology. The objective of this study was to develop, pilot, and assess a three-module women's health genetics curriculum for residents that was easily transferable between institutions. Methods An interactive three-module genetics curriculum covering basic principles, prenatal screening/diagnosis, and cancer genetics was developed. A pre- and posttests were used to assess improvement in knowledge. Subjective feedback was obtained to assess curricular satisfaction. The data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Results The curriculum was administered at two institutions. Forty-eight residents attended ≥ 1 session. Twenty completed the pretest, and 23 completed the posttest. At the first institution, using audience response system, the percentage correct per question increased on 10/14 questions between pre- and posttests. All students felt the curriculum was useful and would strongly recommend to other residents. At the second institution, pre/posttests were distributed on paper. Mean scores significantly improved between pre- and posttests (p = 0.007). On the pretest, no residents scored > 70%. However, 8/13 scored > 70% on the posttest (p = 0.002). Instructors at both institutions described the curriculum as easy to use/implement. Conclusion This three-module workshop on women's health genetics was easily implemented across institutions and led to increased knowledge.