BACKGROUND: Next-generation sequencing has become a first-line tool for the diagnosis of primary immunodeficiency. However, patient access remains limited because of restricted insurance coverage and a lack of guidelines addressing the use of targeted panels versus whole-exome sequencing (WES). OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare targeted next-generation sequencing with WES in a global population of patients with primary immunodeficiency. METHODS: This was a longitudinal study of 878 patients with likely primary immunodeficiency sequenced between 2010 and 2020. Most patients (n = 780) were first sequenced using a 264 gene panel. This was followed by WES in selected cases if a candidate gene was not found. A subset of patients (n = 98) were selected for a WES-only pipeline if the history was atypical for genes within the targeted panel. RESULTS: Disease-causing variants were identified in 498 of the 878 probands (56%), encompassing 152 distinct monogenic disorders. Sixteen patients had disorders that were novel at the time of sequencing (1.8%). Diagnostic yield in patients sequenced by targeted panel was 56% (433 of 780 patients), with subsequent WES leading to an additional 18 diagnoses (overall diagnostic yield 58%, 451 of 780 patients). The WES-only approach had a diagnostic yield of 45% (45 of 98 patients), reflecting that these cases had less common clinical and laboratory phenotypes. Cost analysis, based on current commercial WES and targeted panel prices, demonstrated savings ranging from $300 to $950 with a WES-only approach, depending on diagnostic yield. CONCLUSIONS: Advantages of WES over targeted next-generation sequencing include simplified workflow, reduced overall cost, and the potential for identification of novel diseases.
BACKGROUND: Next-generation sequencing has become a first-line tool for the diagnosis of primary immunodeficiency. However, patient access remains limited because of restricted insurance coverage and a lack of guidelines addressing the use of targeted panels versus whole-exome sequencing (WES). OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare targeted next-generation sequencing with WES in a global population of patients with primary immunodeficiency. METHODS: This was a longitudinal study of 878 patients with likely primary immunodeficiency sequenced between 2010 and 2020. Most patients (n = 780) were first sequenced using a 264 gene panel. This was followed by WES in selected cases if a candidate gene was not found. A subset of patients (n = 98) were selected for a WES-only pipeline if the history was atypical for genes within the targeted panel. RESULTS: Disease-causing variants were identified in 498 of the 878 probands (56%), encompassing 152 distinct monogenic disorders. Sixteen patients had disorders that were novel at the time of sequencing (1.8%). Diagnostic yield in patients sequenced by targeted panel was 56% (433 of 780 patients), with subsequent WES leading to an additional 18 diagnoses (overall diagnostic yield 58%, 451 of 780 patients). The WES-only approach had a diagnostic yield of 45% (45 of 98 patients), reflecting that these cases had less common clinical and laboratory phenotypes. Cost analysis, based on current commercial WES and targeted panel prices, demonstrated savings ranging from $300 to $950 with a WES-only approach, depending on diagnostic yield. CONCLUSIONS: Advantages of WES over targeted next-generation sequencing include simplified workflow, reduced overall cost, and the potential for identification of novel diseases.
Authors: Tiong Yang Tan; Oliver James Dillon; Zornitza Stark; Deborah Schofield; Khurshid Alam; Rupendra Shrestha; Belinda Chong; Dean Phelan; Gemma R Brett; Emma Creed; Anna Jarmolowicz; Patrick Yap; Maie Walsh; Lilian Downie; David J Amor; Ravi Savarirayan; George McGillivray; Alison Yeung; Heidi Peters; Susan J Robertson; Aaron J Robinson; Ivan Macciocca; Simon Sadedin; Katrina Bell; Alicia Oshlack; Peter Georgeson; Natalie Thorne; Clara Gaff; Susan M White Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Chloe M Reuter; Jennefer N Kohler; Devon Bonner; Diane Zastrow; Liliana Fernandez; Annika Dries; Shruti Marwaha; Jean Davidson; Elly Brokamp; Matthew Herzog; Joyce Hong; Ellen Macnamara; Jill A Rosenfeld; Kelly Schoch; Rebecca Spillmann; Joseph Loscalzo; Joel Krier; Joan Stoler; David Sweetser; Christina G S Palmer; John A Phillips; Vandana Shashi; David A Adams; Yaping Yang; Euan A Ashley; Paul G Fisher; John J Mulvihill; Jonathan A Bernstein; Matthew T Wheeler Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2019-09-03 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Vicki Modell; Megan Knaus; Fred Modell; Chaim Roifman; Jordan Orange; Luigi D Notarangelo Journal: Immunol Res Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 2.829
Authors: Sue Richards; Nazneen Aziz; Sherri Bale; David Bick; Soma Das; Julie Gastier-Foster; Wayne W Grody; Madhuri Hegde; Elaine Lyon; Elaine Spector; Karl Voelkerding; Heidi L Rehm Journal: Genet Med Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Francesc Rudilla; Clara Franco-Jarava; Mónica Martínez-Gallo; Marina Garcia-Prat; Andrea Martín-Nalda; Jacques Rivière; Aina Aguiló-Cucurull; Laura Mongay; Francisco Vidal; Xavier Solanich; Iñaki Irastorza; Juan Luis Santos-Pérez; Jesús Tercedor Sánchez; Ivon Cuscó; Clara Serra; Noelia Baz-Redón; Mónica Fernández-Cancio; Carmen Carreras; José Manuel Vagace; Vicenç Garcia-Patos; Ricardo Pujol-Borrell; Pere Soler-Palacín; Roger Colobran Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Stuart G Tangye; Waleed Al-Herz; Aziz Bousfiha; Talal Chatila; Charlotte Cunningham-Rundles; Amos Etzioni; Jose Luis Franco; Steven M Holland; Christoph Klein; Tomohiro Morio; Hans D Ochs; Eric Oksenhendler; Capucine Picard; Jennifer Puck; Troy R Torgerson; Jean-Laurent Casanova; Kathleen E Sullivan Journal: J Clin Immunol Date: 2020-01-17 Impact factor: 8.317
Authors: Mary E Norton; Jessica Van Ziffle; Billie R Lianoglou; Ugur Hodoglugil; W Patrick Devine; Teresa N Sparks Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2021-07-28 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Elena Valeryevna Feofanova; Guo-Qiang Zhang; Samden Lhatoo; Ginger A Metcalf; Eric Boerwinkle; Eric Venner Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2021-03-26
Authors: Kim Elsink; Manon M H Huibers; Iris H I M Hollink; Annet Simons; Evelien Zonneveld-Huijssoon; Lars T van der Veken; Helen L Leavis; Stefanie S V Henriet; Marcel van Deuren; Frank L van de Veerdonk; Judith Potjewijd; Dagmar Berghuis; Virgil A S H Dalm; Clementien L Vermont; Annick A J M van de Ven; Annechien J A Lambeck; Kristin M Abbott; P Martin van Hagen; Godelieve J de Bree; Taco W Kuijpers; Geert W J Frederix; Mariëlle E van Gijn; Joris M van Montfrans Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2021-12-21 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Kushani Jayasinghe; You Wu; Zornitza Stark; Peter G Kerr; Andrew J Mallett; Clara Gaff; Melissa Martyn; Ilias Goranitis; Catherine Quinlan Journal: Kidney Int Rep Date: 2021-09-08
Authors: Rabab E El Hawary; Safa S Meshaal; Dalia S Abd Elaziz; Radwa Alkady; Sohilla Lotfy; Alia Eldash; Aya Erfan; Engy A Chohayeb; Mai M Saad; Rania K Darwish; Jeannette A Boutros; Nermeen M Galal; Aisha M Elmarsafy Journal: J Clin Immunol Date: 2022-04-28 Impact factor: 8.542