RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Gaps in the phenotype descriptions of ultra-rare genetic conditions: review and multicenter consensus reporting guidelines
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.09.13.23295418
DO 10.1101/2023.09.13.23295418
A1 AlMail, Ali
A1 Jamjoom, Ahmed
A1 Pan, Amy
A1 Feng, Min Yi
A1 Chau, Vann
A1 D’Gama, Alissa
A1 Howell, Katherine
A1 Liang, Nicole S.Y.
A1 McTague, Amy
A1 Poduri, Annapurna
A1 Wiltrout, Kimberly
A1 ,
A1 Bassett, Anne S.
A1 Christodoulou, John
A1 Dupuis, Lucie
A1 Gill, Peter
A1 Levy, Tess
A1 Siper, Paige
A1 Stark, Zornitza
A1 Vorstman, Jacob A.S.
A1 Diskin, Catherine
A1 Jewitt, Natalie
A1 Baribeau, Danielle
A1 Costain, Gregory
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/09/14/2023.09.13.23295418.abstract
AB Background Genome-wide sequencing and genetic matchmaker services are propelling a new era of genotype-first ascertainment of novel genetic conditions. The degree to which reported phenotype data in discovery-focused studies address informational priorities for clinicians and families is unclear.Methods We identified reports published from 2017-2021 in ten genetics journals of novel Mendelian disorders ascertained genotype-first. We adjudicated the quality and detail of the phenotype data via 46 questions pertaining to six priority domains: (I) Development, cognition, and mental health; (II) Feeding and growth; (III) Medication use and treatment history; (IV) Pain, sleep, and quality of life; (V) Adulthood; and (VI) Epilepsy. For a subset of articles, all subsequent published follow-up case descriptions were identified and assessed in a similar manner. A modified Delphi approach was used to develop consensus reporting guidelines, with input from content experts across four countries.Results In total, 200 of 3243 screened publications met inclusion criteria. Relevant phenotypic details across each of the six domains were rated superficial or deficient in >87% of papers. For example, less than 10% of publications provided details regarding neuropsychiatric diagnoses and “behavioural issues”, or about the type/nature of feeding problems. Follow-up reports (n=95) rarely addressed the limitations of the original reports. Reporting guidelines were developed for each domain.Conclusion Phenotype information relevant to clinical management, genetic counseling, and the stated priorities of patients and families is lacking for many newly described genetic diseases. Use of the proposed guidelines could improve phenotype reporting in the genomic era.Competing Interest StatementD.B. has received research funds from MapLight Therapeutics. K.W. has consulted for Stoke Therapeutics. J.A.S.V. has served as a consultant for NoBias Therapeutics Inc. and has received speaker fees for Henry Stewart Talks Ltd. These relationships did not influence content of this manuscript but are disclosed for potential future considerations.The remaining authors declare no financial or non-financial competing interests.Funding StatementThis study was funded by (refer to manuscript draft for funding details).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethics committee of The Hospital for Sick Children gave ethical approval for this workI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.Yes