Literature DB >> 33157008

A Prospective Study of Parental Perceptions of Rapid Whole-Genome and -Exome Sequencing among Seriously Ill Infants.

Julie A Cakici1, David P Dimmock2, Sara A Caylor2, Mary Gaughran2, Christina Clarke2, Cynthia Triplett3, Michelle M Clark2, Stephen F Kingsmore2, Cinnamon S Bloss4.   

Abstract

Rapid diagnostic genomic sequencing recently became feasible for infants in intensive care units (ICUs). However, research regarding parents' perceived utility, adequacy of consent, and potential harms and benefits is lacking. Herein we report results of parental surveys of these domains from the second Newborn Sequencing in Genomic Medicine and Public Health (NSIGHT2) study, a randomized, controlled trial of rapid diagnostic genomic sequencing of infants in regional ICUs. More than 90% of parents reported feeling adequately informed to consent to diagnostic genomic sequencing. Despite only 23% (27) of 117 infants receiving genomic diagnoses, 97% (156) of 161 parents reported that testing was at least somewhat useful and 50.3% (88/161) reported no decisional regret (median 0, mean 10, range 0-100). Five of 117 families (4.3%) reported harm. Upon follow-up, one (1%) confirmed harm to child and parent related to negative results/no diagnosis, two (2%) reported stress or confusion, and two (2%) denied harm. In 81% (89) of 111 infants, families and clinicians agreed that genomic results were useful. Of the families for whom clinicians perceived harm from genomic testing, no parents reported harm. Positive tests/genomic diagnosis were more frequently perceived to be useful by parents, to benefit their infant, and to help manage potential symptoms (p < .05). In summary, the large majority of parents felt that first-tier, rapid, diagnostic genomic sequencing was beneficial for infants lacking etiologic diagnoses in ICUs. Most parents in this study perceived being adequately informed to consent, understood their child's results, and denied regret or harm from undergoing sequencing.
Copyright © 2020 American Society of Human Genetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  NSIGHT2; harms and benefits; neonatal intensive care unit; newborn; parental perceptions; pediatric intensive care unit; perceived utility; rapid whole-exome sequencing; rapid whole-genome sequencing; ultra-rapid whole-genome sequencing

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33157008      PMCID: PMC7675003          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2020.10.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Hum Genet        ISSN: 0002-9297            Impact factor:   11.025


  32 in total

1.  The stigma of disease: implications of genetic screening.

Authors:  H Markel
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 4.965

2.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

Authors:  Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2008-09-30       Impact factor: 6.317

3.  The nuanced negative: Meanings of a negative diagnostic result in clinical exome sequencing.

Authors:  Debra Skinner; Kelly A Raspberry; Martha King
Journal:  Sociol Health Illn       Date:  2016-08-19

4.  Diagnostic exome sequencing in children: A survey of parental understanding, experience and psychological impact.

Authors:  J Wynn; R Ottman; J Duong; A L Wilson; P Ahimaz; J Martinez; R Rabin; E Rosen; R Webster; C Au; M T Cho; C Egan; E Guzman; M Primiano; J E Shaw; R Sisson; R L Klitzman; P S Appelbaum; U Lichter-Konecki; K Anyane-Yeboa; A Iglesias; W K Chung
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2018-03-13       Impact factor: 4.438

5.  Validation of a decision regret scale.

Authors:  Jamie C Brehaut; Annette M O'Connor; Timothy J Wood; Thomas F Hack; Laura Siminoff; Elisa Gordon; Deb Feldman-Stewart
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2003 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Responsibility, culpability, and parental views on genomic testing for seriously ill children.

Authors:  Janet Malek; Stacey Pereira; Jill O Robinson; Amanda M Gutierrez; Melody J Slashinski; D Williams Parsons; Sharon E Plon; Amy L McGuire
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2019-06-12       Impact factor: 8.864

7.  Expectation versus Reality: The Impact of Utility on Emotional Outcomes after Returning Individualized Genetic Research Results in Pediatric Rare Disease Research, a Qualitative Interview Study.

Authors:  Cara N Cacioppo; Ariel E Chandler; Meghan C Towne; Alan H Beggs; Ingrid A Holm
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-04-15       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Neutral, Negative, or Negligible? Changes in Patient Perceptions of Disease Risk Following Receipt of a Negative Genomic Screening Result.

Authors:  Kelsey Stuttgen; Joel Pacyna; Iftikhar Kullo; Richard Sharp
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2020-04-17

9.  An RCT of Rapid Genomic Sequencing among Seriously Ill Infants Results in High Clinical Utility, Changes in Management, and Low Perceived Harm.

Authors:  David P Dimmock; Michelle M Clark; Mary Gaughran; Julie A Cakici; Sara A Caylor; Christina Clarke; Michele Feddock; Shimul Chowdhury; Lisa Salz; Cynthia Cheung; Lynne M Bird; Charlotte Hobbs; Kristen Wigby; Lauge Farnaes; Cinnamon S Bloss; Stephen F Kingsmore
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2020-11-05       Impact factor: 11.043

10.  A 26-hour system of highly sensitive whole genome sequencing for emergency management of genetic diseases.

Authors:  Neil A Miller; Emily G Farrow; Margaret Gibson; Laurel K Willig; Greyson Twist; Byunggil Yoo; Tyler Marrs; Shane Corder; Lisa Krivohlavek; Adam Walter; Josh E Petrikin; Carol J Saunders; Isabelle Thiffault; Sarah E Soden; Laurie D Smith; Darrell L Dinwiddie; Suzanne Herd; Julie A Cakici; Severine Catreux; Mike Ruehle; Stephen F Kingsmore
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2015-09-30       Impact factor: 11.117

View more
  16 in total

1.  The diagnostic odyssey: our family's story.

Authors:  Danny Miller
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 11.025

Review 2.  Rapid genomic testing for critically ill children: time to become standard of care?

Authors:  Zornitza Stark; Sian Ellard
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2021-11-08       Impact factor: 4.246

3.  Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives.

Authors:  Danya F Vears; Joel T Minion; Stephanie J Roberts; James Cummings; Mavis Machirori; Mwenza Blell; Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne; Lorraine Cowley; Stephanie O M Dyke; Clara Gaff; Robert Green; Alison Hall; Amber L Johns; Bartha M Knoppers; Stephanie Mulrine; Christine Patch; Eva Winkler; Madeleine J Murtagh
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-11-08       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Rapid exome sequencing in critically ill infants: implementation in routine care from French regional hospital's perspective.

Authors:  Constance F Wells; Guilaine Boursier; Kevin Yauy; Nathalie Ruiz-Pallares; Déborah Mechin; Valentin Ruault; Mylène Tharreau; Patricia Blanchet; Lucile Pinson; Christine Coubes; Marc Fila; Julien Baleine; Odile Pidoux; Maliha Badr; Christophe Milesi; Gilles Cambonie; Renaud Mesnage; Maëlle Dereure; Olivier Ardouin; Thomas Guignard; David Geneviève; Mouna Barat-Houari; Marjolaine Willems
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2022-06-22       Impact factor: 5.351

5.  Exome and genome sequencing for pediatric patients with congenital anomalies or intellectual disability: an evidence-based clinical guideline of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG).

Authors:  Kandamurugu Manickam; Monica R McClain; Laurie A Demmer; Sawona Biswas; Hutton M Kearney; Jennifer Malinowski; Lauren J Massingham; Danny Miller; Timothy W Yu; Fuki M Hisama
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 8.822

6.  Project Baby Bear: Rapid precision care incorporating rWGS in 5 California children's hospitals demonstrates improved clinical outcomes and reduced costs of care.

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

Review 7.  Genetic testing for unexplained perinatal disorders.

Authors:  Thomas Hays; Ronald J Wapner
Journal:  Curr Opin Pediatr       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 2.856

8.  Preferences and values for rapid genomic testing in critically ill infants and children: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Ilias Goranitis; Stephanie Best; John Christodoulou; Tiffany Boughtwood; Zornitza Stark
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2021-04-02       Impact factor: 4.246

9.  An RCT of Rapid Genomic Sequencing among Seriously Ill Infants Results in High Clinical Utility, Changes in Management, and Low Perceived Harm.

Authors:  David P Dimmock; Michelle M Clark; Mary Gaughran; Julie A Cakici; Sara A Caylor; Christina Clarke; Michele Feddock; Shimul Chowdhury; Lisa Salz; Cynthia Cheung; Lynne M Bird; Charlotte Hobbs; Kristen Wigby; Lauge Farnaes; Cinnamon S Bloss; Stephen F Kingsmore
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2020-11-05       Impact factor: 11.043

Review 10.  Utility of Genetic Testing from the Perspective of Parents/Caregivers: A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Robin Z Hayeems; Stephanie Luca; Daniel Assamad; Ayushi Bhatt; Wendy J Ungar
Journal:  Children (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.