Biology subjects

Dimmock, D.

Publications and source records attributed to Dimmock, D..

3 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2018

A meta-analysis of the diagnostic sensitivity and clinical utility of genome sequencing, exome sequencing and chromosomal microarray in children with suspected genetic diseases

IMPORTANCEGenetic diseases are a leading cause of childhood mortality. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) and whole exome sequencing (WES) are relatively new methods for diagnosing genetic diseases.\n\nOBJECTIVESCompare the diagnostic sensitivity (rate of causative, pathogenic or likely pathogenic genotypes in known disease genes) and rate of clinical utility (proportion in whom medical or surgical management was changed by diagnosis) of WGS, WES, and chromosomal microarrays (CMA) in children with suspected genetic diseases.\n\nDATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTIONSystematic review of the literature (January 2011 - August 2017) for studies of diagnostic sensitivity and/or clinical utility of WGS, WES, and/or CMA in children with suspected genetic diseases. 2% of identified studies met selection criteria.\n\nDATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESISTwo investigators extracted data independently following MOOSE/PRISMA guidelines.\n\nMAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESPooled rates and 95% Cl were estimated with a random-effects model. Metaanalysis of the rate of diagnosis was based on test type, family structure, and site of testing.\n\nRESULTSIn 36 observational series and one randomized control trial, comprising 20,068 children, the diagnostic sensitivity of WGS (0.41, 95% Cl 0.34-0.48, I2=44%) and WES (0.35, 95% Cl 0.31-0.39, I2=85%) were qualitatively greater than CMA (0.10, 95% Cl 0.08-0.12, I2=81%). Subgroup meta-analyses showed that the diagnostic sensitivity of WGS was significantly greater than CMA in studies published in 2017 (P<.0001, I2=13% and I2=40%, respectively), and the diagnostic sensitivity of WES was significantly greater than CMA in studies featuring within-cohort comparisons (P<001, I2=36%). Evidence for a significant difference in the diagnostic sensitivity of WGS and WES was lacking. In studies featuring within-cohort comparisons of singleton and trio WGS/WES, the likelihood of diagnosis was significantly greater for trios (odds ratio 2.04, 95% Cl 1.62-2.56, I2=12%; P<.0001). The diagnostic sensitivity of WGS/WES with hospital-based interpretation (0.41, 95% Cl 0.38-0.45, I2=50%) was qualitatively higher than that of reference laboratories (0.28, 95% Cl 0.24-0.32, I2=81%); this difference was significant in meta-analysis of studies published in 2017 (P=.004, I2=34% and I2=26%, respectively). The rates of clinical utility of WGS (0.27, 95% Cl 0.17-0.40, I2=54%) and WES (0.18, 95% Cl 0.13-0.24, I2-77%) were higher than CMA (0.06, 95% Cl 0.05-0.07, I2=42%); this difference was significant in meta-analysis of WGS vs CMA (P<.0001).\n\nCONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn children with suspected genetic diseases, the diagnostic sensitivity and rate of clinical utility of WGS/WES were greater than CMA. Subgroups with higher WGS/WES diagnostic sensitivity were trios and those receiving hospital-based interpretation. WGS/WES should be considered a first-line genomic test for children with suspected genetic diseases.\n\nKey PointsO_ST_ABSQuestionC_ST_ABSWhat is the relative diagnostic sensitivity and clinical utility of different genome tests in children with suspected genetic diseases?\n\nFindingsWhole genome sequencing had greater diagnostic sensitivity and clinical utility than chromosomal microarrays. Testing parent-child trios had greater diagnostic sensitivity than proband singletons. Hospital-based testing had greater diagnostic sensitivity than reference laboratories.\n\nMeaningTrio genomic sequencing is the most sensitive diagnostic test for children with suspected genetic diseases.

genomics↗

bioRxiv2018

Rapid Whole Genome Sequencing Decreases Morbidity and Healthcare Cost of Hospitalized Infants

BACKGROUNDGenetic disorders are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in infants. Rapid Whole Genome Sequencing (rWGS) can diagnose genetic disorders in time to change acute medical or surgical management (clinical utility) and improve outcomes in acutely ill infants.\n\nMETHODSRetrospective cohort study of acutely ill inpatient infants in a regional childrens hospital from July 2016-March 2017. Forty-two families received rWGS for etiologic diagnosis of genetic disorders. Probands received standard genetic testing as clinically indicated. Primary end-points were rate of diagnosis, clinical utility, and healthcare utilization. The latter was modelled in six infants by comparing actual utilization with matched historical controls and/or counterfactual utilization had rWGS been performed at different time points.\n\nFINDINGSThe diagnostic sensitivity was 43% (eighteen of 42 infants) for rWGS and 10% (four of 42 infants) for standard of care (P=.0005). The rate of clinical utility for rWGS (31%, thirteen of 42 infants) was significantly greater than for standard of care (2%, one of 42; P=.0015). Eleven (26%) infants with diagnostic rWGS avoided morbidity, one had 43% reduction in likelihood of mortality, and one started palliative care. In six of the eleven infants, the changes in management reduced inpatient cost by $800, 000 to $2,000,000.\n\nDISCUSSIONThese findings replicate a prior study of the clinical utility of rWGS in acutely ill inpatient infants, and demonstrate improved outcomes and net healthcare savings. rWGS merits consideration as a first tier test in this setting.

clinical trials↗

bioRxiv2017

The NSIGHT1 Randomized Controlled Trial: Rapid Whole Genome Sequencing for Accelerated Etiologic Diagnosis in Critically Ill Infants

ImportanceGenetic disorders, including congenital anomalies, are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in infants, especially in neonatal and pediatric intensive care units (NICU and PICU). While genomic sequencing is useful for diagnosis of genetic diseases, results are usually reported too late to guide inpatient management.\n\nObjectiveTo test the hypothesis that rapid whole genome sequencing (rWGS) increases the proportion of infants in NICUs and PICUs receiving a genetic diagnosis within 28 days.\n\nDesignAn investigator-initiated, partially blinded, pragmatic, randomized controlled study with enrollment from October 2014 - June 2016, and follow up until December 2016.\n\nSettingA regional neonatal and pediatric intensive care unit in a tertiary referral childrens hospital.\n\nParticipantsSixty five of 129 screened families with infants aged less than four months, in neonatal and pediatric intensive care units, and with illnesses of unknown etiology, completed the study.\n\nInterventionParent and infant trio rWGS.\n\nMain Outcome and MeasureThe hypothesis and end-points were formulated a priori. The primary end-point was rate of genetic diagnosis within 28 days of enrollment or first standard test order.\n\nResultsTwenty six female proband infants, 37 male infants, and two infants of undetermined sex were randomized to receive rWGS plus standard tests (n=32, cases) or standard tests alone (n=33, controls). The study was terminated early due to loss of equipoise: 63% (21) controls received genomic sequencing as standard tests. Nevertheless, intention to treat analysis showed the rate of genetic diagnosis within 28 days to be higher in cases (31%, ten of 32) than controls (3%, one of 33; difference, 28% [95% CI, 10% to 46%]; p=0.003). Among infants enrolled in the first 25 days of life, the rate of neonatal diagnosis was higher in cases (32%, seven of 22) than controls (0%, zero of 23; difference, 32% [95% CI, 11% to 53%]; p=0.004). Age at diagnosis (median in cases 25 days, range 14-90 days vs median in controls 130 days, range 37-451) and time to diagnosis (median in cases thirteen days, range 1-84 days vs median in controls 107 days, range 21-429 days) were significantly less in cases than controls (p=0.04).\n\nCONCLUSIONSrWGS increased the proportion of infants in a regional NICU and PICU who received a timely diagnosis of a genetic disease. Additional, adequately powered studies are needed to determine whether accelerated diagnosis is associated with improved outcomes in this setting. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02225522.

clinical trials↗