RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Evaluating whole genome sequencing for rare diseases in newborn screening: evidence synthesis from a series of systematic reviews
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.09.03.24312979
DO 10.1101/2024.09.03.24312979
A1 Freeman, Karoline
A1 Dinnes, Jacqueline
A1 Shinkins, Bethany
A1 Clark, Corinna
A1 Kander, Inès
A1 Scandrett, Katie
A1 Chockalingam, Shivashri
A1 Osman, Aziza
A1 Dracup, Naila
A1 Court, Rachel
A1 Butt, Furqan
A1 Visintin, Cristina
A1 Bonham, James R
A1 Elliman, David
A1 Shortland, Graham
A1 Mackie, Anne
A1 Miedzybrodzka, Zosia
A1 Morgan, Sian
A1 Boardman, Felicity
A1 Takwoingi, Yemisi
A1 Taylor-Phillips, Sian
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/04/2024.09.03.24312979.abstract
AB Background Assessment of newborn screening using whole genome sequencing (WGS) presents considerable challenges for policy advisors, not least given the logistics of simultaneously evaluating the evidence for 200 rare genetic conditions. The ‘genotype first’ approach has the potential for harms, and benefits are uncertain.Objective To assess different approaches to evaluating WGS for newborn screening to inform the development of a robust method for informing policy decisions.Methods We undertook ‘traditional’ reviews of five conditions using standard systematic review methods (considering gene penetrance, expressivity, and prevalence, the accuracy and effectiveness of WGS, and effect of earlier treatment) (search inception to November 2023), evaluated the NIH Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) for evidence on the five conditions, reviewed genomic studies of paediatric screening cohorts reporting penetrance for pathogenic variants (search inception to February 2024) and undertook a methodological review of economic evaluations of WGS/ whole exome sequencing (WES) (search inception to January 2024). We explored public views on evaluating WGS.Data sources MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Web of Science, Science Citation Index (via Clarivate), the Cochrane Library (via Wiley), CEA registry and Econlit.Actionability reports and scores were downloaded from the ClinGen website on 30th April 2024.Results The traditional review approach identified 221 studies that either reported on the genetic spectrum of individuals with the five conditions or provided limited evidence about the benefits of earlier treatment. No evidence about penetrance and expressivity or the accuracy or effectiveness of WGS in newborns was identified. ClinGen reviews were available for four of the five conditions. The ClinGen ‘actionability’ ratings for all four conditions disagreed with the findings of our traditional reviews. Our review of 14 genomic studies of newborn screening cohorts found insufficient information to allow individual highly penetrant pathogenic variants for any condition to be identified for consideration in a screening programme. None of the 86 economic evaluations of WGS or WES were set in a screening context. Some micro-costing studies are available that could help understand the resource use and costs associated with WGS. Following a series of PPI meetings, attendees appreciated the uncertainties of WGS and suggested that a wider stakeholder perspective was needed to inform policy decisions.Limitations Although we only examined five conditions in depth, the consistency in lack of data suggests our conclusions are robust.Conclusions The traditional systematic review approach for evaluating WGS of newborns identified a paucity of high-quality evidence. Extending the review to all 200 conditions is not feasible and is unlikely to yield the level of evidence required by policy advisors. The use of existing genome resources and review of genomic studies of newborn screening cohorts were not found to be viable alternatives. The cost-effectiveness of WGS in a newborn screening context is unknown.Future work Large-scale collaborative research is required to evaluate the short- and long-term harms, benefits and economic implications of WGS for screening newborns. We propose a staged approach to evaluation considering only conditions with pathogenic variants with very high penetrance to minimise harm from overdiagnosis.Study registration The protocol for this study is registered on PROSPERO: CRD42023475529Funding details This study/project is funded by the NIHR Evidence Synthesis Programme (ESG_HTA_NIHR159928). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.Competing Interest StatementPrimary conflicts of interest: KF, JD, BS, CC, IK, KS, SC, AO, ND, RC, FB, FB, YT and STP received funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research Evidence Synthesis Programme (ESG_HTA_NIHR1599280) to undertake this work. JD received funding from the Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). FB received funding from Genomics England Limited for a process and impact evaluation. BS is a member of the UK NSC. CV is a Principal Evidence Review Manager of the UK NSC. JRB, DE and GS are clinical advisors to the UK NSC. AM is the Director of Programmes for the UK NSC. JRB is President of the International Society of Neonatal Screening. ZM is co-chair of the Scottish Clinical Genomics Forum and a committee member of the Clinical Genetics Society, the Scottish Strategic Network for genomic medicine, the NHSE rare disease test evaluation working group and board member of the Royal Colleges Genomics Advisory Board. FB is a member of the UK NSC Foetal, Maternal and Child Health Reference Group, the Bloodspot Task group and the Spinal Muscular Atrophy In Service Evaluation Partnership Board. STP is a member of the UK NSC AI task group, and chair of the UK NSC Research Methodology Group. SM has nothing to declare. Clinical Protocols https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=475529 Funding StatementThis study/project is funded by the NIHR Evidence Synthesis Programme (ESG_HTA_NIHR159928). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI 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.YesNo new data have been created in the preparation of this article and therefore there is nothing available for access and further sharing. All queries should be submitted to the corresponding author. BiallelicReferring to both alleles of a geneClinGenResource funded by the National Institutes of Health that centralises information about the clinical relevance of genes and variantsClinical actionabilityLevel of evidence about pathogenicity, penetrance and expressivity of a genetic variant and the extent to which interventions can be used to mitigate the effect of the diseaseDigenicReferring to two genesDosage sensitivityRefers to the impact of changes in gene dosage (the number of copies of a gene) on an organism’s phenotypeExonCoding sequence of DNA within a gene that is retained during the RNA splicing process before translation into proteinExpressivityDegree to which a trait/condition is expressed in individuals with a particular genetic variantFounder effectPhenomenon where a small group of individuals establishes a new population, leading to reduced genetic diversity compared to the original population. The presence of an allele at an unusually high frequency in an isolated population.Gene-disease validityLevel of evidence supporting the association between a specific gene and a disease/phenotypeGene dosageNumber of copies of a particular gene present in a cell/organism and hence related to the amount of gene productGeneration StudyUK study run by Genomics England in partnership with the NHS to sequence the genome of newborn babies in the UK and screen for 200 rare genetic conditionsGenomics EnglandCompany set up by the UK Department of Health and Social care to run the 100,000 Genomes Project. It is now overseeing the Generation StudyGermline variantA variant within germ cells that can be passed on to offspringIntronNon-coding sequence of DNA within a gene that is removed during the RNA splicing process before translation into proteinMonoallelicReferring to a single allele of a geneMosaicismRefers to the presence of multiple populations of cells with different genotypes in a single individual due to variants occurring in some cells during developmentPenetranceProportion of individuals with a given genetic variant who display the traits/conditionPrivate variantsGene variants that is specific to an individual or family and not commonly found in the wider populationProbandIndividual in a family who is first identified as having a particular genetic conditionSporadic variantsGene variants that arise spontaneously in an individual without being inherited from a parentVairant annotationVariant annotation is the process of assigning functional information to an DNA alteration such as the effect on protein structure.VariantChange/alteration in the DNA sequence that may affect how a gene functions. Variants can be benign, pathogenic or of unknown significanceVariant interpretationVariant interpretation is the process of drawing direct links between individual variants and a disease phenotype for decisions on reporting. This requires expert interpretation and literature review and Consideration of context (other genetic factors, environmental factors, ancestry, sex, type of phenotype (symptomatic disease) under Consideration). Guidelines for variant interpretation for instance by ACMG are available to standardise interpretation of variant pathogenicity and categorisation into pathogenic, likely pathogenic, uncertain, likely benign and benign.Variant of unknown significanceVariant for which there is insufficient information to determine its impact on disease risk/health.Variant prioritisationVariant prioritisation is the process of filtering variants identified through sequencing using bioinformatic tools to identify variants most likely linked to a disease phenotype. More advanced tools include information on predictions about effect on protein structure, conservation (conserved sequences across all vertebrates), constraint (gene regions intolerant to loss of function variants), variant frequency, mode of inheritance and gene-disease associations.Pathogenicity (variant pathogenicity)A variant is classified as pathogenic if evidence confirms that it causes disease based on variant interpretation. Information for variant interpretation and variant prioritisation is generally based on family, clinical and case control studies which are enriched for etiological co-factors, which means penetrance in these cohorts is overestimated. Pathogenicity annotations used in the screening context have got implications for specificity as ‘known’ pathogenic variants have lower penetrance in population-based studies. Degree to which a variant impacts the function of a gene. >99% probability of pathogenicity defined as pathogenic variant and 90%–99% probability of pathogenicity defined as likely pathogenic variant.Whole exome sequencingTechnique for sequencing all the protein-coding regions of genes (exons) in a genomeWhole genome sequencingTechnique for sequencing the entire DNA (genome) of an individualAABRAutomated Auditory Brainstem ResponseACMGAmerican College of Medical Genetics and GenomicsCEACost-Effectiveness AnalysisClinGenClinical Genome ResourceClinVarClinical VariationCNVCopy Number VariantCRDCentre For Reviews And DisseminationDBSDried Blood SpotDEIBDiversity, Equity, Inclusion, And BelongingDNADeoxyribonucleic AcidFAODFatty Acid Oxidation DisordersFHFamily HistoryfHLHFamilial Hemophagocytic LymphohistiocytosisG6PDDGlucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiencyGELGenomics England LimitedGSGenomic SequencingHLHHaemophagocytic LymphohistiocytosisHPLCHigh Performance Liquid ChromatographyhRBHeritable RetinoblastomaHSCTHematopoietic Stem-Cell TransplantationHTAHealth Technology AssessmentICoNSInternational Consortium On Newborn SequencingICUIntensive Care UnitIDDIntellectual Developmental DelayIEIInborn Errors of ImmunityIEMInborn Errors of MetabolismIMDInherited Metabolic DiseaseIQIntelligence QuotientLRTLysine Reduction TherapyMCADDMedium Chain Acyl-Coa Dehydrogenase DeficiencyMeSHMedical Subject HeadingsMLPAMultiplex Ligation Dependent Probe AmplificationmRNAMessenger Ribonucleic AcidNBSNewborn BloodspotNGSNext Generation SequencingNESTSNEwborn Screening with Targeted SequencingNHS EEDNHS Economic Evaluation DatabaseNICUNeonatal Intensive Care UnitNSCNational Screening CommitteePCRPolymerase Chain ReactionPDEPyridoxine Dependent EpilepsyPi/DOral phosphate and calcitriol (active vitamin D)PKUPhenylketonuriaPPIEPatient And Public Involvement EngagementQALYQuality Adjusted Life YearQUIPSQuality In Prognostic StudiesRCTRandomized Controlled TrialRECRetinoblastoma Variant Effect ClassROBISRisk Of Bias In Systematic ReviewsSDStandard DeviationSGPScottish Genomes PartnershipSMASpinal Muscular AtrophySNVSingle Nucleotide VariantSSCPSingle Strand Conformation PolymorphismVUSVariant of Unknown SignificanceWESWhole Exome SequencingWGSWhole Genome SequencingXLHRX-Linked Hypophosphataemic Rickets