Unmet needs in countries participating in the undiagnosed diseases network international: an international survey considering national health care and economic indicators.

Background: Patients, families, the healthcare system, and society as a whole are all significantly impacted by rare diseases (RDs). According to various classifications, there are currently up to 9,000 different rare diseases that have been recognized, and new diseases are discovered every month. Although very few people are affected by each uncommon disease individually, millions of people are thought to be impacted globally when all these conditions are considered. Therefore, RDs represent an important public health concern. Although crucial for clinical care, early and correct diagnosis is still difficult to achieve in many nations, especially those with low and middle incomes. Consequently, a sizeable amount of the overall burden of RD is attributable to undiagnosed RD (URD). Existing barriers and policy aspects impacting the care of patients with RD and URD remain to be investigated. Methods: To identify unmet needs and opportunities for patients with URD, the Developing Nations Working Group of the Undiagnosed Diseases Network International (DNWG-UDNI) conducted a survey among its members, who were from 20 different nations. The survey used a mix of multiple choice and dedicated open questions covering a variety of topics. To explore reported needs and analyze them in relation to national healthcare economical aspects, publicly available data on (a) World Bank ranking; (b) Current health expenditure per capita; (c) GDP per capita; (d) Domestic general government health expenditure (% of GDP); and (e) Life expectancy at birth, total (years) were incorporated in our study. Results: This study provides an in-depth evaluation of the unmet needs for 20 countries: low-income (3), middle-income (10), and high-income (7). When analyzing reported unmet needs, almost all countries (N = 19) indicated that major barriers still exist when attempting to improve the care of patients with UR and/or URD; most countries report unmet needs related to the availability of specialized care and dedicated facilities. However, while the countries ranked as low income by the World Bank showed the highest prevalence of referred unmet needs across the different domains, no specific trend appeared when comparing the high, upper, and low-middle income nations. No overt trend was observed when separating countries by current health expenditure per capita, GDP per capita, domestic general government health expenditure (% of GDP) and life expectancy at birth, total (years). Conversely, both the GDP and domestic general government health expenditure for each country impacted the presence of ongoing research. Conclusion: We found that policy characteristics varied greatly with the type of health system and country. No overall pattern in terms of referral for unmet needs when separating countries by main economic or health indicators were observed. Our findings highlight the importance of identifying actionable points (e.g., implemented orphan drug acts or registries where not available) in order to improve the care and diagnosis of RDs and URDs on a global scale.

Addressing underrepresentation in genomics research through community engagement.

The vision of the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) is that people everywhere will realize the benefits of human genetics and genomics. Implicit in that vision is the importance of ensuring that the benefits of human genetics and genomics research are realized in ways that minimize harms and maximize benefits, a goal that can only be achieved through focused efforts to address health inequities and increase the representation of underrepresented communities in genetics and genomics research. This guidance is intended to advance community engagement as an approach that can be used across the research lifecycle. Community engagement uniquely offers researchers in human genetics and genomics an opportunity to pursue that vision successfully, including by addressing underrepresentation in genomics research.

Clinical validity assessment of genes frequently tested on intellectual disability/autism sequencing panels.

PURPOSE: Neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs), such as intellectual disability (ID) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD), exhibit genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity, making them difficult to differentiate without a molecular diagnosis. The Clinical Genome Resource Intellectual Disability/Autism Gene Curation Expert Panel (GCEP) uses systematic curation to distinguish ID/ASD genes that are appropriate for clinical testing (ie, with substantial evidence supporting their relationship to disease) from those that are not. METHODS: Using the Clinical Genome Resource gene-disease validity curation framework, the ID/Autism GCEP classified genes frequently included on clinical ID/ASD testing panels as Definitive, Strong, Moderate, Limited, Disputed, Refuted, or No Known Disease Relationship. RESULTS: As of September 2021, 156 gene-disease pairs have been evaluated. Although most (75%) were determined to have definitive roles in NDDs, 22 (14%) genes evaluated had either Limited or Disputed evidence. Such genes are currently not recommended for use in clinical testing owing to the limited ability to assess the effect of identified variants. CONCLUSION: Our understanding of gene-disease relationships evolves over time; new relationships are discovered and previously-held conclusions may be questioned. Without periodic re-examination, inaccurate gene-disease claims may be perpetuated. The ID/Autism GCEP will continue to evaluate these claims to improve diagnosis and clinical care for NDDs.

Genomic diagnostics within a medically underserved population: efficacy and implications.

PurposeWe integrated whole-exome sequencing (WES) and chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) into a clinical workflow to serve an endogamous, uninsured, agrarian community.MethodsSeventy-nine probands (newborn to 49.8 years) who presented between 1998 and 2015 remained undiagnosed after biochemical and molecular investigations. We generated WES data for probands and family members and vetted variants through rephenotyping, segregation analyses, and population studies.ResultsThe most common presentation was neurological disease (64%). Seven (9%) probands were diagnosed by CMA. Family WES data were informative for 37 (51%) of the 72 remaining individuals, yielding a specific genetic diagnosis (n = 32) or revealing a novel molecular etiology (n = 5). For five (7%) additional subjects, negative WES decreased the likelihood of genetic disease. Compared to trio analysis, "family" WES (average seven exomes per proband) reduced filtered candidate variants from 22 ± 6 to 5 ± 3 per proband. Nineteen (51%) alleles were de novo and 17 (46%) inherited; the latter added to a population-based diagnostic panel. We found actionable secondary variants in 21 (4.2%) of 502 subjects, all of whom opted to be informed.ConclusionCMA and family-based WES streamline and economize diagnosis of rare genetic disorders, accelerate novel gene discovery, and create new opportunities for community-based screening and prevention in underserved populations.