Perspectives and preferences regarding genomic secondary findings in underrepresented prenatal and pediatric populations: A mixed-methods approach.

PURPOSE: Patients undergoing clinical exome sequencing (ES) are routinely offered the option to receive secondary findings (SF). However, little is known about the views of individuals from underrepresented minority pediatric or prenatal populations regarding SF. METHODS: We explored the preferences for receiving hypothetical categories of SF (H-SF) and reasons for accepting or declining actual SF through surveying (n = 149) and/or interviewing (n = 47) 190 families undergoing pediatric or prenatal ES. RESULTS: Underrepresented minorities made up 75% of the probands. In total, 150 families (79%) accepted SF as part of their child/fetus's ES. Most families (63%) wanted all categories of H-SF. Those who declined SF as part of ES were less likely to want H-SF across all categories. Interview findings indicate that some families did not recall their SF decision. Preparing for the future was a major motivator for accepting SF, and concerns about privacy, discrimination, and psychological effect drove decliners. CONCLUSION: A notable subset of families (37%) did not want at least 1 category of H-SF, suggesting more hesitancy about receiving all available results than previously reported. The lack of recollection of SF decisions suggests a need for alternative communication approaches. Results highlight the importance of the inclusion of diverse populations in genomic research.

Cost-effectiveness frameworks for comparing genome and exome sequencing versus conventional diagnostic pathways: A scoping review and recommended methods.

PURPOSE: Methodological challenges have limited economic evaluations of genome sequencing (GS) and exome sequencing (ES). Our objective was to develop conceptual frameworks for model-based cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of diagnostic GS/ES. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of economic analyses to develop and iterate with experts a set of conceptual CEA frameworks for GS/ES for prenatal testing, early diagnosis in pediatrics, diagnosis of delayed-onset disorders in pediatrics, genetic testing in cancer, screening of newborns, and general population screening. RESULTS: Reflecting on 57 studies meeting inclusion criteria, we recommend the following considerations for each clinical scenario. For prenatal testing, performing comparative analyses of costs of ES strategies and postpartum care, as well as genetic diagnoses and pregnancy outcomes. For early diagnosis in pediatrics, modeling quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs over ≥20 years for rapid turnaround GS/ES. For hereditary cancer syndrome testing, modeling cumulative costs and QALYs for the individual tested and first/second/third-degree relatives. For tumor profiling, not restricting to treatment uptake or response and including QALYs and costs of downstream outcomes. For screening, modeling lifetime costs and QALYs and considering consequences of low penetrance and GS/ES reanalysis. CONCLUSION: Our frameworks can guide the design of model-based CEAs and ultimately foster robust evidence for the economic value of GS/ES.

Preference for secondary findings in prenatal and pediatric exome sequencing.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the frequency of accepting secondary findings in families undergoing exome sequencing in prenatal and pediatric settings. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of prospectively enrolled patients undergoing trio exome sequencing for congenital anomalies or developmental disorders in prenatal and pediatric settings, in which families were offered receiving secondary findings (initially assessed in the proband and, if identified, then in the parents). The primary outcome was frequency of accepting secondary findings. Secondary outcomes included frequency of acceptance in prenatal versus pediatric settings, and sociodemographic differences between those who accepted versus declined secondary findings. RESULTS: There were 682 families included in the cohort (289 prenatal and 393 pediatric). Overall, 84% (576/682) of families accepted secondary findings: 86.2% (249/289) of families undergoing prenatal versus 83.2% (327/393) pediatric (p = 0.30) testing. Secondary findings were identified in 2.6% (15/576) of cases, with no difference between prenatal and pediatric settings. There were no differences in sociodemographics between families that accepted versus declined secondary findings. CONCLUSION: The majority of families undergoing exome sequencing accepted secondary findings; this did not differ in prenatal versus pediatric settings. This highlights the need for guidance surrounding the offer of secondary findings in the prenatal setting.

Whole exome and whole genome sequencing with dried blood spot DNA without whole genome amplification.

Newborn screening (NBS) for rare conditions is performed in all 50 states in the USA. We have partnered with the California Department of Public Health Genetic Disease Laboratory to determine whether sufficient DNA can be extracted from archived dried blood spots (DBS) for next-generation sequencing in the hopes that next-generation sequencing can play a role in NBS. We optimized the DNA extraction and sequencing library preparation protocols for residual infant DBS archived over 20 years ago and successfully obtained acceptable whole exome and whole genome sequencing data. This sequencing study using DBS DNA without whole genome amplification prior to sequencing library preparation provides evidence that properly stored residual newborn DBS are a satisfactory source of DNA for genetic studies.

Community-Based Outbreak Investigation And Response: Enhancing Preparedness, Public Health Capacity, And Equity.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the US has struggled with many aspects of the public health response, from determining where transmission is occurring to building trust with communities and implementing interventions. Three factors have contributed to these challenges: insufficient local public health capacity, siloed interventions, and underuse of a cluster-based approach to outbreak response. In this article we introduce Community-based Outbreak Investigation and Response (COIR), a local public health strategy developed during the COVID-19 pandemic that addresses these shortcomings. COIR can help local public health entities conduct disease surveillance more effectively, take a more proactive and efficient approach to mitigating transmission, coordinate response efforts, build community trust, and advance equity. We offer a practitioner's lens, informed through on-the-ground experience and engagement with policy makers, to highlight the financing, workforce, data system, and information-sharing policy changes needed to scale up COIR throughout the country. COIR can enable the US public health system to develop effective solutions to many of today's public health challenges and improve the nation's preparedness for public health crises in the years to come.

Diagnostic yield of pediatric and prenatal exome sequencing in a diverse population.

The diagnostic yield of exome sequencing (ES) has primarily been evaluated in individuals of European ancestry, with less focus on underrepresented minority (URM) and underserved (US) patients. We evaluated the diagnostic yield of ES in a cohort of predominantly US and URM pediatric and prenatal patients suspected to have a genetic disorder. Eligible pediatric patients had multiple congenital anomalies and/or neurocognitive disabilities and prenatal patients had one or more structural anomalies, disorders of fetal growth, or fetal effusions. URM and US patients were prioritized for enrollment and underwent ES at a single academic center. We identified definitive positive or probable positive results in 201/845 (23.8%) patients, with a significantly higher diagnostic rate in pediatric (26.7%) compared to prenatal patients (19.0%) (P = 0.01). For both pediatric and prenatal patients, the diagnostic yield and frequency of inconclusive findings did not differ significantly between URM and non-URM patients or between patients with US status and those without US status. Our results demonstrate a similar diagnostic yield of ES between prenatal and pediatric URM/US patients and non-URM/US patients for positive and inconclusive results. These data support the use of ES to identify clinically relevant variants in patients from diverse populations.

Lessons learned and recommendations for data coordination in collaborative research: The CSER consortium experience.

Integrating data across heterogeneous research environments is a key challenge in multi-site, collaborative research projects. While it is important to allow for natural variation in data collection protocols across research sites, it is also important to achieve interoperability between datasets in order to reap the full benefits of collaborative work. However, there are few standards to guide the data coordination process from project conception to completion. In this paper, we describe the experiences of the Clinical Sequence Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium Data Coordinating Center (DCC), which coordinated harmonized survey and genomic sequencing data from seven clinical research sites from 2020 to 2022. Using input from multiple consortium working groups and from CSER leadership, we first identify 14 lessons learned from CSER in the categories of communication, harmonization, informatics, compliance, and analytics. We then distill these lessons learned into 11 recommendations for future research consortia in the areas of planning, communication, informatics, and analytics. We recommend that planning and budgeting for data coordination activities occur as early as possible during consortium conceptualization and development to minimize downstream complications. We also find that clear, reciprocal, and continuous communication between consortium stakeholders and the DCC is equally important to maintaining a secure and centralized informatics ecosystem for pooling data. Finally, we discuss the importance of actively interrogating current approaches to data governance, particularly for research studies that straddle the research-clinical divide.

Examining access to care in clinical genomic research and medicine: Experiences from the CSER Consortium.

INTRODUCTION: Ensuring equitable access to health care is a widely agreed-upon goal in medicine, yet access to care is a multidimensional concept that is difficult to measure. Although frameworks exist to evaluate access to care generally, the concept of "access to genomic medicine" is largely unexplored and a clear framework for studying and addressing major dimensions is lacking. METHODS: Comprised of seven clinical genomic research projects, the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research consortium (CSER) presented opportunities to examine access to genomic medicine across diverse contexts. CSER emphasized engaging historically underrepresented and/or underserved populations. We used descriptive analysis of CSER participant survey data and qualitative case studies to explore anticipated and encountered access barriers and interventions to address them. RESULTS: CSER's enrolled population was largely lower income and racially and ethnically diverse, with many Spanish-preferring individuals. In surveys, less than a fifth (18.7%) of participants reported experiencing barriers to care. However, CSER project case studies revealed a more nuanced picture that highlighted the blurred boundary between access to genomic research and clinical care. Drawing on insights from CSER, we build on an existing framework to characterize the concept and dimensions of access to genomic medicine along with associated measures and improvement strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support adopting a broad conceptualization of access to care encompassing multiple dimensions, using mixed methods to study access issues, and investing in innovative improvement strategies. This conceptualization may inform clinical translation of other cutting-edge technologies and contribute to the promotion of equitable, effective, and efficient access to genomic medicine.

The role of exome sequencing in newborn screening for inborn errors of metabolism.

Public health newborn screening (NBS) programs provide population-scale ascertainment of rare, treatable conditions that require urgent intervention. Tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) is currently used to screen newborns for a panel of rare inborn errors of metabolism (IEMs)1-4. The NBSeq project evaluated whole-exome sequencing (WES) as an innovative methodology for NBS. We obtained archived residual dried blood spots and data for nearly all IEM cases from the 4.5 million infants born in California between mid-2005 and 2013 and from some infants who screened positive by MS/MS, but were unaffected upon follow-up testing. WES had an overall sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 98.4%, compared to 99.0% and 99.8%, respectively for MS/MS, although effectiveness varied among individual IEMs. Thus, WES alone was insufficiently sensitive or specific to be a primary screen for most NBS IEMs. However, as a secondary test for infants with abnormal MS/MS screens, WES could reduce false-positive results, facilitate timely case resolution and in some instances even suggest more appropriate or specific diagnosis than that initially obtained. This study represents the largest, to date, sequencing effort of an entire population of IEM-affected cases, allowing unbiased assessment of current capabilities of WES as a tool for population screening.

FDA oversight of NSIGHT genomic research: the need for an integrated systems approach to regulation.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded the Newborn Sequencing In Genomic medicine and public HealTh (NSIGHT) Consortium to investigate the implications, challenges, and opportunities associated with the possible use of genomic sequence information in the newborn period. Following announcement of the NSIGHT awardees in 2013, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) contacted investigators and requested that pre-submissions to investigational device exemptions (IDE) be submitted for the use of genomic sequencing under Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR) part 812. IDE regulation permits clinical investigation of medical devices that have not been approved by the FDA. To our knowledge, this marked the first time the FDA determined that NIH-funded clinical genomic research projects are subject to IDE regulation. Here, we review the history of and rationale behind FDA oversight of clinical research and the NSIGHT Consortium's experiences in navigating the IDE process. Overall, NSIGHT investigators found that FDA's application of existing IDE regulations and medical device definitions aligned imprecisely with the aims of publicly funded exploratory clinical research protocols. IDE risk assessments by the FDA were similar to, but distinct from, protocol risk assessments conducted by local Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), and had the potential to reflect novel oversight of emerging genomic technologies. However, the pre-IDE and IDE process delayed the start of NSIGHT research studies by an average of 10 months, and significantly limited the scope of investigation in two of the four NIH approved projects. Based on the experience of the NSIGHT Consortium, we conclude that policies and practices governing the development and use of novel genomic technologies in clinical research urgently need clarification in order to mitigate potentially conflicting or redundant oversight by IRBs, NIH, FDA, and state authorities.

Sequencing Newborns: A Call for Nuanced Use of Genomic Technologies.

Many scientists and doctors hope that affordable genome sequencing will lead to more personalized medical care and improve public health in ways that will benefit children, families, and society more broadly. One hope in particular is that all newborns could be sequenced at birth, thereby setting the stage for a lifetime of medical care and self-directed preventive actions tailored to each child's genome. Indeed, commentators often suggest that universal genome sequencing is inevitable. Such optimism can come with the presumption that discussing the potential limits, cost, and downsides of widespread application of genomic technologies is pointless, excessively pessimistic, or overly cautious. We disagree. Given the pragmatic challenges associated with determining what sequencing data mean for the health of individuals, the economic costs associated with interpreting and acting on such data, and the psychosocial costs of predicting one's own or one's child's future life plans based on uncertain testing results, we think this hope and optimism deserve to be tempered. In the analysis that follows, we distinguish between two reasons for using sequencing: to diagnose individual infants who have been identified as sick and to screen populations of infants who appear to be healthy. We also distinguish among three contexts in which sequencing for either diagnosis or screening could be deployed: in clinical medicine, in public health programs, and as a direct-to-consumer service. Each of these contexts comes with different professional norms, policy considerations, and public expectations. Finally, we distinguish between two main types of genome sequencing: targeted sequencing, where only specific genes are sequenced or analyzed, and whole-exome or whole-genome sequencing, where all the DNA or all the coding segments of all genes are sequenced and analyzed. In a symptomatic newborn, targeted or genome-wide sequencing can help guide other tests for diagnosis or for specific treatment that is urgently needed. Clinicians use the infant's symptoms (or phenotype) to interrogate the sequencing data. These same complexities and uncertainties, however, limit the usefulness of genome-wide sequencing as a population screening tool. While we recognize considerable benefit in using targeted sequencing to screen for or detect specific conditions that meet the criteria for inclusion in newborn screening panels, use of genome-wide sequencing as a sole screening tool for newborns is at best premature. We conclude that sequencing technology can be beneficially used in newborns when that use is nuanced and attentive to context.

Newborn Sequencing in Genomic Medicine and Public Health.

The rapid development of genomic sequencing technologies has decreased the cost of genetic analysis to the extent that it seems plausible that genome-scale sequencing could have widespread availability in pediatric care. Genomic sequencing provides a powerful diagnostic modality for patients who manifest symptoms of monogenic disease and an opportunity to detect health conditions before their development. However, many technical, clinical, ethical, and societal challenges should be addressed before such technology is widely deployed in pediatric practice. This article provides an overview of the Newborn Sequencing in Genomic Medicine and Public Health Consortium, which is investigating the application of genome-scale sequencing in newborns for both diagnosis and screening.

Parental Views on Expanded Newborn Screening Using Whole-Genome Sequencing.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The potential application of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) to state-mandated standard newborn screening (NBS) challenges the traditional public health approach to NBS and raises ethical, policy, and clinical practice issues. This article examines the perspectives and values of diverse healthy pregnant women and parents of children diagnosed with a primary immunodeficiency disorder about traditional NBS and expanded NBS with the use of WGS. METHODS: We conducted 4 focus groups (3 in English and 1 in Spanish) with socioeconomically and ethnically diverse pregnant women (n = 26), and a comparison group with parents of children diagnosed with a primary immunodeficiency disorder (n = 5). RESULTS: Pediatric policy-relevant themes that emerged from our analysis of the focus group data are presented within 4 categories: (1) perspectives on traditional NBS, (2) informed consent, (3) return of results, and (4) storage and retrieval of results. Analyses indicate that study participants desired greater inclusion in the NBS process. Despite an optimistic orientation to the potential benefits and limited harms likely to result from genomic applications of NBS, parents voiced concerns about privacy and control over test results. Limited trust in the medical system and the state-run NBS program informed these concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Expanded NBS with WGS for pediatricians may require management of more genetic conditions, including mutations that convey risk to both the child and parents for adult-onset disorders, and an informed-consent process to manage the genomic data and storage of blood spots. Attention to how these technologies are understood in diverse populations is needed for effective implementation.