Perceived clinical utility of a test for predicting inadequate response to TNF inhibitor therapies in rheumatoid arthritis: results from a decision impact study.

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) therapies are often the first biologic therapy used to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. However, a substantial fraction of patients do not respond adequately to TNFi therapies. A test with the ability to predict response would inform therapeutic decision-making and improve clinical and financial outcomes. A 32-question decision-impact survey was conducted with 248 rheumatologists to gauge the perceived clinical utility of a novel test that predicts inadequate response to TNFi therapies in RA patients. Participants were informed about the predictive characteristics of the test and asked to indicate prescribing decisions based on four result scenarios. Overall, rheumatologists had a favorable view of the test: 80.2% agreed that it would improve medical decision-making, 92.3% said it would increase their confidence when making prescribing decisions, and 81.5% said it would be useful when considering TNFi therapies. Rheumatologists would be more likely to prescribe a TNFi therapy when the test reported that no signal of non-response was detected (79.8%) and less likely to prescribe a TNFi therapy when a signal of non-response was detected (11.3%-25.4%). Rheumatologists (84.7%) agreed that payers should provide coverage for such a test. This study shows that rheumatologists support the clinical need for a test to predict inadequate response to TNFi therapies. Test results were perceived to lead to changes in prescribing behaviors as results instill confidence in the ordering rheumatologist.

Fragile X syndrome carrier screening accompanied by genetic consultation has clinical utility in populations beyond those recommended by guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Fragile X syndrome (FXS) is the most common inherited form of intellectual disability. Many providers offer preconception or prenatal FXS carrier screening. However, guidelines recommend screening only for those with a family history or undergoing fertility evaluation. Wider screening has been resisted because of concerns about patient understanding of FXS-associated inheritance patterns and phenotypes. Additionally, the clinical utility has been questioned. METHODS: We addressed these concerns by analyzing reproductive decision-making and pregnancy management informed by post-test genetic consultation among 122 FMR1 premutation carriers identified by expanded carrier screening. RESULTS: Sixty-three percent of those screened met guidelines screening criteria; the remaining 37% did not. Ninety-eight percent had undergone post-test genetic consultation. Of respondents screened preconceptionally, 74% reported planning or pursuing actions to reduce the risk of an affected pregnancy; the extent to which couples planned/pursued these actions was not significantly different between those meeting either screening criterion (76%) versus those meeting neither criterion (55%). Of respondents screened prenatally, 41% pursued prenatal diagnostic testing; the extent to which couples pursued prenatal diagnosis was not significantly different between those who met either screening criterion (37%) versus those who met neither criterion (31%). CONCLUSION: These results support the expansion of FXS screening criteria in guidelines.

Correction: Sequencing as a first-line methodology for cystic fibrosis carrier screening.

The original version of this Article contained an error in Figure 3. Specifically, the result "3 (67%) TOP" should read "2 (67%) TOP." This has now been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.

Sequencing as a first-line methodology for cystic fibrosis carrier screening.

PURPOSE: Medical society guidelines recommend offering genotyping-based cystic fibrosis (CF) carrier screening to pregnant women or women considering pregnancy. We assessed the performance of sequencing-based CF screening relative to genotyping, in terms of analytical validity, clinical validity, clinical impact, and clinical utility. METHODS: Analytical validity was assessed using orthogonal confirmation and reference samples. Clinical validity was evaluated using the CFTR2 database. Clinical impact was assessed using ~100,000 screened patients. Three screening strategies were compared: genotyping 23 guideline-recommended variants ("CF23"), sequencing all coding bases in CFTR ("NGS"), and sequencing with large copy-number variant (CNV) identification ("NGS + CNV"). Clinical utility was determined via self-reported actions of at-risk couples (ARCs). RESULTS: Analytical accuracy of NGS + CNV was 100% for SNVs, indels, and CNVs; interpretive clinical specificity relative to CFTR2 was 99.5%. NGS + CNV detected 58 ARCs, 18 of whom would have gone undetected with CF23 alone. Most ARCs (89% screened preconceptionally, 56% prenatally) altered pregnancy management, and no significant differences were observed between ARCs with or without at least one non-CF23 variant. CONCLUSION: Modern NGS and variant interpretation enable accurate sequencing-based CF screening. Limiting screening to 23 variants does not improve analytical validity, clinical validity, or clinical utility, but does fail to detect approximately 30% (18/58) of ARCs.