RESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedad Crítica , Pruebas Genéticas , Recién Nacido , Humanos , Secuenciación del Exoma , Estudios Prospectivos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Países Bajos , Estudios de Cohortes , Pruebas Genéticas/métodosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The effects of a stroke, such as hemiparesis, can severely hamper the ability to walk and to maintain balance during gait. Providing support to stroke survivors through a robotic exoskeleton, either to provide training or daily-life support, requires an understanding of the balance impairments that result from a stroke. Here, we investigate the differences between the paretic and non-paretic leg in making recovery steps to restore balance following a disturbance during walking. METHODS: We perturbed 10 chronic-stage stroke survivors during walking using mediolateral perturbations of various amplitudes. Kinematic data as well as gluteus medius muscle activity levels during the first recovery step were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: The results show that this group of subjects is able to modulate foot placement in response to the perturbations regardless of the leg being paretic or not. Modulation in gluteus medius activity with the various perturbations is in line with this observation. In general, the foot of the paretic leg was laterally placed further away from the center of mass than that of the non-paretic leg, while subjects spent more time standing on the non-paretic leg. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that, though stroke-related gait characteristics are present, the modulation with the various perturbations remains unaffected. This might be because all subjects were only mildly impaired, or because these stepping responses partly occur through involuntary pathways which remain unaffected by the complications after the stroke.
Asunto(s)
Paresia/etiología , Paresia/fisiopatología , Pelvis/fisiopatología , Accidente Cerebrovascular/complicaciones , Accidente Cerebrovascular/fisiopatología , Caminata , Adulto , Anciano , Fenómenos Biomecánicos , Enfermedad Crónica , Femenino , Pie/fisiopatología , Humanos , Pierna/fisiopatología , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Músculo Esquelético/fisiopatología , Rehabilitación de Accidente Cerebrovascular , Sobrevivientes , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: To diagnose the full spectrum of hereditary and congenital diseases, genetic laboratories use many different workflows, ranging from karyotyping to exome sequencing. A single generic high-throughput workflow would greatly increase efficiency. We assessed whether genome sequencing (GS) can replace these existing workflows aimed at germline genetic diagnosis for rare disease. METHODS: We performed short-read GS (NovaSeq™6000; 150 bp paired-end reads, 37 × mean coverage) on 1000 cases with 1271 known clinically relevant variants, identified across different workflows, representative of our tertiary diagnostic centers. Variants were categorized into small variants (single nucleotide variants and indels < 50 bp), large variants (copy number variants and short tandem repeats) and other variants (structural variants and aneuploidies). Variant calling format files were queried per variant, from which workflow-specific true positive rates (TPRs) for detection were determined. A TPR of ≥ 98% was considered the threshold for transition to GS. A GS-first scenario was generated for our laboratory, using diagnostic efficacy and predicted false negative as primary outcome measures. As input, we modeled the diagnostic path for all 24,570 individuals referred in 2022, combining the clinical referral, the transition of the underlying workflow(s) to GS, and the variant type(s) to be detected. RESULTS: Overall, 95% (1206/1271) of variants were detected. Detection rates differed per variant category: small variants in 96% (826/860), large variants in 93% (341/366), and other variants in 87% (39/45). TPRs varied between workflows (79-100%), with 7/10 being replaceable by GS. Models for our laboratory indicate that a GS-first strategy would be feasible for 84.9% of clinical referrals (750/883), translating to 71% of all individuals (17,444/24,570) receiving GS as their primary test. An estimated false negative rate of 0.3% could be expected. CONCLUSIONS: GS can capture clinically relevant germline variants in a 'GS-first strategy' for the majority of clinical indications in a genetics diagnostic lab.
Asunto(s)
Secuenciación de Nucleótidos de Alto Rendimiento , Enfermedades Raras , Humanos , Enfermedades Raras/diagnóstico , Enfermedades Raras/genética , Secuenciación Completa del Genoma , Secuencia de Bases , Mapeo Cromosómico , Secuenciación del ExomaRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Pruebas Genéticas , Unidades de Cuidado Intensivo Neonatal , Niño , Diagnóstico Precoz , Femenino , Humanos , Recién Nacido , Embarazo , Estudios Retrospectivos , Secuenciación del ExomaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) is increasingly used for the diagnosis of rare genetic disorders. The aim of this study is to review the different approaches for economic evaluations of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) in pediatric care used to date, to identify all costs, effects, and time horizons taken into account. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify published economic evaluations of NGS applications in pediatric diagnostics, i.e. exome sequencing (ES) and/or genome sequencing (GS). Information regarding methodological approach, costs, effects, and time horizon was abstracted from these publications. RESULTS: Twenty-eight economic evaluations of ES/GS within pediatrics were identified. Costs included were mainly restricted to direct in-hospital healthcare costs and varied widely in inclusion of sort of costs and time-horizon. Nineteen studies included diagnostic yield and eight studies included cost-effectiveness as outcome measures. Studies varied greatly in terms of included sort of costs data, effects, and time horizon. CONCLUSION: Large differences in inclusion of cost and effect parameters were identified between studies. Validity of outcomes can therefore be questioned, which hinders valid comparison and widespread generalization of conclusions. In addition to current health economic guidance, specific guidance for evaluations in pediatric care is therefore necessary to improve the validity of outcomes and furthermore facilitate comparable decision-making for implementing novel NGS-based diagnostic modalities in pediatric genetics and beyond.