Hadley Stevens Smith1, John M Swint2, Seema R Lalani3,4, Marcia C de Oliveira Otto2, Jose-Miguel Yamal2, Heidi V Russell5,6, Brendan H Lee3. 1. Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. hadley.smith@bcm.edu. 2. The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health, Houston, TX, USA. 3. Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. 4. Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, TX, USA. 5. Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. 6. Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: As exome sequencing (ES) is increasingly used as a diagnostic tool, we aimed to compare ES with status quo genetic diagnostic workup for infants with suspected genetic disorders in terms of identifying diagnoses, survival, and cost of care. METHODS: We studied newborns and infants admitted to intensive care with a suspected genetic etiology within the first year of life at a US quaternary-referral children's hospital over 5 years. In this propensity-matched cohort study using electronic medical record data, we compared patients who received ES as part of a diagnostic workup (ES cohort, n = 368) with clinically similar patients who did not receive ES (No-ES cohort, n = 368). RESULTS: Diagnostic yield (27.4% ES, 25.8% No-ES; p = 0.62) and 1-year survival (80.2% ES, 84.8% No-ES; p = 0.10) were no different between cohorts. ES cohort patients had higher cost of admission, diagnostic investigation, and genetic testing (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: ES did not differ from status quo genetic testing collectively in terms of diagnostic yield or patient survival; however, it had high yield as a single test, led to complementary classes of diagnoses, and was associated with higher costs. Further work is needed to define the most efficient use of diagnostic ES for critically ill newborns and infants.
PURPOSE: As exome sequencing (ES) is increasingly used as a diagnostic tool, we aimed to compare ES with status quo genetic diagnostic workup for infants with suspected genetic disorders in terms of identifying diagnoses, survival, and cost of care. METHODS: We studied newborns and infants admitted to intensive care with a suspected genetic etiology within the first year of life at a US quaternary-referral children's hospital over 5 years. In this propensity-matched cohort study using electronic medical record data, we compared patients who received ES as part of a diagnostic workup (ES cohort, n = 368) with clinically similar patients who did not receive ES (No-ES cohort, n = 368). RESULTS: Diagnostic yield (27.4% ES, 25.8% No-ES; p = 0.62) and 1-year survival (80.2% ES, 84.8% No-ES; p = 0.10) were no different between cohorts. ES cohort patients had higher cost of admission, diagnostic investigation, and genetic testing (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: ES did not differ from status quo genetic testing collectively in terms of diagnostic yield or patient survival; however, it had high yield as a single test, led to complementary classes of diagnoses, and was associated with higher costs. Further work is needed to define the most efficient use of diagnostic ES for critically ill newborns and infants.
Entities:
Keywords:
comparative effectiveness; exome sequencing; health economics; health policy; neonatal intensive care unit
Authors: David Dimmock; Sara Caylor; Bryce Waldman; Wendy Benson; Christina Ashburner; Jason L Carmichael; Jeanne Carroll; Elaine Cham; Shimul Chowdhury; John Cleary; Arthur D'Harlingue; A Doshi; Katarzyna Ellsworth; Carolina I Galarreta; Charlotte Hobbs; Kathleen Houtchens; Juliette Hunt; Priscilla Joe; Maries Joseph; Robert H Kaplan; Stephen F Kingsmore; Jason Knight; Aaina Kochhar; Richard G Kronick; Jolie Limon; Madelena Martin; Katherine A Rauen; Adam Schwarz; Suma P Shankar; Rosanna Spicer; Mario Augusto Rojas; Ofelia Vargas-Shiraishi; Kristen Wigby; Neda Zadeh; Lauge Farnaes Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Monica H Wojcik; Pankaj B Agrawal; Alissa M D'Gama; Maya C Del Rosario; Mairead A Bresnahan; Timothy W Yu Journal: NPJ Genom Med Date: 2022-09-05 Impact factor: 6.083