Next generation sequencing in neonatology: what does it mean for the next generation?

How Neonatologists Use Genetic Information

OBJECTIVE

To delineate specific ways in which neonatologists integrate genetic information into their clinical decision making.

STUDY DESIGN

We employed chart-stimulated recall, in which neonatologists described how they used genetic tests in specific patient cases, as well as semi-structured questioning about genetic information.

RESULTS

Based on 28 interviews with neonatologists, we document 6 uses of genetic information: making a diagnosis, categorizing/stereotyping as "genetic," informing prognosis, influencing treatment, informing goals of care, and supporting accountability. Both specific genetic diagnoses as well as a general categorization as "genetic" help neonatologists make sense of unusual clinical situations and calibrate their predictions about the future. Predictions, in turn, inform goals of care decisions, the timing of medical technology placement, and neonatologists' self-evaluations. Diagnoses rarely influence day-to-day treatment directly. Neonatologists assign great value to improved prognostication, but simultaneously feel a responsibility to ensure that genetic information is not applied in ways that are overly deterministic or reflect ableism.

CONCLUSIONS

Frameworks for measuring successes and failures of genetic information in the neonatal intensive care unit need to be aligned with the ways neonatologists use this information. Understanding neonatologists' use creates opportunity to maximize benefit and reduce bias in applying this complex information.

Storing paediatric genomic data for sequential interrogation across the lifespan

Genomic sequencing (GS) is increasingly used in paediatric medicine to aid in screening, research and treatment. Some health systems are trialling GS as a first-line test in newborn screening programmes. Questions about what to do with genomic data after it has been generated are becoming more pertinent. While other research has outlined the ethical reasons for storing deidentified genomic data to be used in research, the ethical case for storing data for future clinical use has not been explicated. In this paper, we examine the ethical case for storing genomic data with the intention of using it as a lifetime health resource. In this model, genomic data would be stored with the intention of reanalysis at certain points through one's life. We argue this could benefit individuals and create an important public resource. However, several ethical challenges must first be met to achieve these benefits. We explore issues related to privacy, consent, justice and equality. We conclude by arguing that health systems should be moving towards futures that allow for the sequential interrogation of genomic data throughout the lifespan.

Parents' perceptions of the utility of genetic testing in the NICU

PURPOSE

Although several studies have evaluated the perspectives of parents in the neonatal intensive care unit on the utility of genetic testing in a research context and concluded with a positive appraisal, some data point to more varied perceptions.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted to elicit parental beliefs about the ways in which clinical (nonresearch) genetic testing could be both helpful and harmful.

RESULTS

We interviewed 43 parents of 36 neonates who were recommended and either accepted or declined to participate in clinical genetic testing. Parents described 5 types of problems they believed genetic information may address, what we term problem-solving contexts: treatment, coping, parenting, prognostic, and existential contexts. Most parents consider multiple problem-solving contexts when assessing benefits, which frequently results in ambivalence.

CONCLUSION

Parents in the neonatal intensive care unit appear to be more ambivalent about the utility of genetic information than has been reflected in most recent studies. This discrepancy is likely related to our sample population, clinical rather than research methodology, which encouraged parents to discuss contexts beyond the medical field. Our findings suggest that informed pretest consent discussions and posttest counseling should encourage parents to discuss multiple problem-solving contexts. Researchers should also find ways to incorporate multiple contexts and diverse perspectives into their utility measures.

A systematic review of the assessment of the clinical utility of genomic sequencing: Implications of the lack of standard definitions and measures of clinical utility

PURPOSE

Exome sequencing (ES) and genome sequencing (GS) are diagnostic tests for rare genetic diseases. Studies report clinical utility of ES/GS. The goal of this systematic review is to establish how clinical utility is defined and measured in studies evaluating the impacts of ES/GS results for pediatric patients.

METHODS

Relevant articles were identified in PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Web of Science. Eligible studies assessed clinical utility of ES/GS for pediatric patients published before 2021. Other relevant articles were added based on articles' references. Articles were coded to assess definitions and measures of clinical utility.

RESULTS

Of 1346 articles, 83 articles met eligibility criteria. Clinical utility was not clearly defined in 19% of studies and 92% did not use an explicit measure of clinical utility. When present, definitions of clinical utility diverged from recommended definitions and varied greatly, from narrow (diagnostic yield of ES/GS) to broad (including decisions about withdrawal of care/palliative care and/or impacts on other family members).

CONCLUSION

Clinical utility is used to guide policy and practice decisions about test use. The lack of a standard definition of clinical utility of ES/GS may lead to under- or overestimations of clinical utility, complicating policymaking and raising ethical issues.

Ethical and Legal Issues Surrounding Genetic Testing in the NICU

Clinicians practicing in a modern NICU are noticing an increase in the proportion of patients who undergo genetic testing as well as changes in the types of genetic testing patients receive. These trends are not surprising given the increasing recognition of the genetic causes of neonatal illness and recent advances in genetic technology. Yet, the expansion of genetic testing in the NICU also raises a number of ethical questions. In this article, we will review the ethical issues raised by genetic testing, with a focus on the practical implications for neonatologists. First, we outline the complexities of measuring benefit, or utility, for neonatal genetic testing. Next, we discuss potential harms such as inequity, unexpected findings, disability biases, and legal risks. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of ethical issues related to consent for genetic testing. Throughout this article, we highlight solutions to challenges toward the ultimate goal of minimizing harms and maximizing the substantial potential benefits of genetic medicine in the NICU.

When the Unknown Is Unknowable: Confronting Diagnostic Uncertainty

The neonatology literature often refers to medical uncertainty and specifically the challenges of predicting morbidity for extremely premature infants, who can have widely varying outcomes. Less has been written about situations in which diagnoses are simply unknown or unattainable. This case highlights the importance of communication amidst uncertainty from a lack of knowledge about aspects of a patient's condition. Using epidemiologic and clinical reasoning, the authors challenge the assumption that diagnostic uncertainty must necessarily portend prognostic uncertainty. When physicians' quest for a diagnosis becomes burdensome and detrimental to the infant's quality of life, this should be abandoned and replaced by focusing on prognosis. The authors focus on the shift of the physician's role toward one of support, assisting the family in ascribing meaning to the dying experience. By focusing on prognosis and support, communication can proceed with more clarity, understanding, and empathy.

Understanding the Clinical Utility of Genome Sequencing in Critically Ill Newborns

Diagnostic genome sequencing (GS) in newborns may have many benefits. More accurate diagnosis could spur the development of innovative genomic therapies. A precise diagnosis could help doctors and parents anticipate clinical problems and inform a family's future reproductive choices. However, the integration of GS into neonatal care remains associated with a variety of ethical controversies, including concerns about informed consent, about interpreting uncertain results, about resource allocation and whether access to genomic services could exacerbate health disparities, and about the effect of genome diagnostics on people with disabilities. There also remains significant uncertainty about which babies should be tested and when and how the potential benefits of GS ought to be measured. Probably related to these challenges, some payors have been reluctant to cover the cost of GS for critically ill newborns. Much of the reluctance appears to turn on questions about the clinical benefit associated with GS and whether and for whom GS will be cost-effective. These situations point to the urgent need for careful assessments of the clinical utility of GS in critically ill infants. In this paper, we critically examine the ways in which the clinical utility of GS has been evaluated in this patient population. We focus on "change of management" (COM), a widely used measure of clinical utility for diagnostic GS. We suggest that this measure is often ambiguous because not all COMs can be attributed to genomic results and because not all COMs lead to patient benefit. Finally, we suggest ways that measurement of clinical utility could be improved.

Managing Prognosis in Precision Medicine: Utility, Imagination, and Communication

Research on how physicians predict and communicate prognosis focuses primarily on end-of-life care. Unsurprisingly, as genomic technology gains traction as a prognostic tool, the focus has also been on terminality, with research focused on how genetic results may be used to terminate pregnancies or redirect care towards palliation for neonates. However, genomic results also have powerful impacts on how patients who live prepare for their futures. Genomic testing provides broad-reaching and early—albeit complex, uncertain, and shifting—prognostic information. In this essay, we argue that as genomic testing occurs earlier and increasingly in a screening context, researchers and clinicians must strive to understand and manage the prognostic implications of results. While our understanding of the psychosocial and communicational aspects of prognosis in symptomatic populations is incomplete, it has progressed further than our understanding in a screening context and therefore provides useful lessons and feasible opportunities for further research. By providing an interdisciplinary and inter-specialty perspective on the psychosocial and communicational aspects of prognosis in genetics, we discuss prognostication with respect to genetics from the neonatal period through adulthood, highlighting medical specialties and patient populations that are especially informative for considering the longitudinal management of prognostic information in genomic medicine.

Hospital-level variation in genetic testing in children's hospitals' neonatal intensive care units from 2016 to 2021

PURPOSE

This study aimed to examine variation in genetic testing between neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) across hospitals over time.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter large-scale retrospective cohort study using NICU discharge data from the Pediatric Hospital Information System database between 2016 and 2021. We analyzed the variation in the percentage of NICU patients who had any genetic testing across hospitals and over time. We used a multivariable multilevel logistic regression model to investigate the potential association between patient characteristics and genetic testing.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 207,228 neonates from 38 hospitals. Overall, 13% of patients had at least 1 genetic test sent, although this varied from 4% to 50% across hospitals. Over the study period, the proportion of patients tested increased, with the increase disproportionately borne by hospitals already testing high proportions of patients. On average, patients who received genetic testing had higher illness severity. Controlling for severity, however, only minimally reduced the degree of hospital-level variation in genetic testing.

CONCLUSION

The percentage of NICU patients who undergo genetic testing varies among hospitals and increasingly so over time. Variation is largely unexplained by differences in severity between hospitals. The degree of variation suggests that clearer guidelines for NICU genetic testing are warranted.

Re: "Next generation sequencing in neonatology: what does it mean for the next generation?"

Available evidence does not support limiting the use of rapid or ultra-rapid exome or genome sequencing in critically ill neonates to cases of predicted high diagnostic yield. Such testing is best positioned to improve neonatal care when test utilization is conceptualized within the total care of the family with a goal of rapid resolution of the diagnostic odyssey.

End-of-life care over four decades in a quaternary neonatal intensive care unit

AIM

Death in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) commonly follows a decision to withdraw or limit life-sustaining treatment. Advances in medicine have changed the nature of life-sustaining interventions available and the potential prognosis for many newborn conditions. We aimed to assess changes in causes of death and end-of-life care over nearly four decades.

METHODS

A retrospective review of infants dying in the NICU was performed (2017-2020) and compared with previous audits performed in the same centre (1985-1987 and 1999-2001). Diagnoses at death were recorded for each infant as well as their apparent prognosis and any withdrawal or limitations of medical treatment.

RESULTS

In the recent epoch, there were 88 deaths out of 2084 admissions (4.2%), a reduction from the previous epochs (132/1362 (9.7%) and 111/1776 (6.2%), respectively, for epochs 1 and 2). More than 90% of infants died after withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, an increase from the previous two epochs (75%). There was a reduction in deaths from chromosomal abnormalities, complications related to prematurity and severe birth asphyxia.

CONCLUSIONS

There continue to be changes in both the diagnoses leading to death and approaches to withdrawal of treatment in the NICU. These may reflect ongoing changes in both prenatal and post-natal diagnostics as well as changing attitudes towards palliative care within the medical and wider community.

Rapid Genome Sequencing: Consent for New Technologies in the Neonatal Intensive Care Context

The clinical utility of rapid genome sequencing (rGS) in critically unwell infants has been consistently demonstrated, and there are calls for rGS to be implemented as a first-line test in the NICU. A diagnosis from rGS can enable rapid initiation of precision treatment, making it potentially lifesaving. However, in many patients rGS leads to the diagnosis of severe and life-limiting conditions, prompting discussion with families about withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. The complexity of information about rGS, together with the heightened emotions of parents in the NICU, poses significant challenges for informed decision making in this context. We present a case where both parents are unable to provide informed consent, and the treating team must decide whether to proceed with rGS. Our discussion highlights the important differences between genome sequencing and other types of genetic testing, and the crucial role played by pre-test counseling in facilitating informed consent and preparing parents for a range of possible outcomes. We then discuss the consent paradigms at play in NICUs; whereas admission generally comes with an understanding that the treating team will perform interventions thought to be in the best interest of the child, rGS is substantially different because of its long-term implications for patients and family members. Finally, we look at the ethical interplay between parental consent and the interests of the child. We conclude by showing how cases like this are resolved at our tertiary center and how they may be resolved differently in future.