International Undiagnosed Diseases Programs (UDPs): components and outcomes.

Over the last 15 years, Undiagnosed Diseases Programs have emerged to address the significant number of individuals with suspected but undiagnosed rare genetic diseases, integrating research and clinical care to optimize diagnostic outcomes. This narrative review summarizes the published literature surrounding Undiagnosed Diseases Programs worldwide, including thirteen studies that evaluate outcomes and two commentary papers. Commonalities in the diagnostic and research process of Undiagnosed Diseases Programs are explored through an appraisal of available literature. This exploration allowed for an assessment of the strengths and limitations of each of the six common steps, namely enrollment, comprehensive clinical phenotyping, research diagnostics, data sharing and matchmaking, results, and follow-up. Current literature highlights the potential utility of Undiagnosed Diseases Programs in research diagnostics. Since participants have often had extensive previous genetic studies, research pipelines allow for diagnostic approaches beyond exome or whole genome sequencing, through reanalysis using research-grade bioinformatics tools and multi-omics technologies. The overall diagnostic yield is presented by study, since different selection criteria at enrollment and reporting processes make comparisons challenging and not particularly informative. Nonetheless, diagnostic yield in an undiagnosed cohort reflects the potential of an Undiagnosed Diseases Program. Further comparisons and exploration of the outcomes of Undiagnosed Diseases Programs worldwide will allow for the development and improvement of the diagnostic and research process and in turn improve the value and utility of an Undiagnosed Diseases Program.

Australian human research ethics committee members' confidence in reviewing genomic research applications.

Human research ethics committees (HRECs) are evaluating increasing quantities of genomic research applications with complex ethical considerations. Genomic confidence is reportedly low amongst many non-genetics-experts; however, no studies have evaluated genomic confidence levels in HREC members specifically. This study used online surveys to explore genomic confidence levels, predictors of confidence, and genomics resource needs of members from 185 HRECs across Australia. Surveys were fully or partially completed by 145 members. All reported having postgraduate 94 (86%) and/or bachelor 15 (14%) degrees. Participants consisted mainly of researchers (n = 45, 33%) and lay members (n = 41, 30%), affiliated with either public health services (n = 73, 51%) or public universities (n = 31, 22%). Over half had served their HREC [Formula: see text]3 years. Fifty (44%) reviewed genomic studies [Formula: see text]3 times annually. Seventy (60%) had undertaken some form of genomic education. While most (94/103, 91%) had high genomic literacy based on familiarity with genomic terms, average genomic confidence scores (GCS) were moderate (5.7/10, n = 119). Simple linear regression showed that GCS was positively associated with years of HREC service, frequency of reviewing genomic applications, undertaking self-reported genomic education, and familiarity with genomic terms (p < 0.05 for all). Conversely, lay members and/or those relying on others when reviewing genomic studies had lower GCSs (p < 0.05 for both). Most members (n = 83, 76%) agreed further resources would be valuable when reviewing genomic research applications, and online courses and printed materials were preferred. In conclusion, even well-educated HREC members familiar with genomic terms lack genomic confidence, which could be enhanced with additional genomic education and/or resources.