Rapid Whole Genome Sequencing in Critically Ill Neonates Enables Precision Medicine Pipeline

Time to diagnosis in rapid exome/genome sequencing in the clinical inpatient setting

Exome and genome sequencing are clinically available, with many laboratories offering expedited testing (e.g., "rapid" and "ultra-rapid"). With the increase in uptake of expedited testing, there is a need for the development of inpatient protocols for best practices based on real-life data. A retrospective 2-year review (October 2019-November 2021) of the utilization of rapid exome and genome sequencing for inpatient cases at a tertiary care center using a utilization management tracking database with subsequent chart review was performed. Thirty-three expedited "rapid/priority" exome/genome tests were performed clinically. The average total turnaround time (TAT) was 17.88 days (5-43 days) with an average TAT of 13.97 days (3-41 days) for the performing laboratory. There were 5 positive diagnostic results (15.2%), 3 likely positive diagnostic results (9%), 2 noncontributory results (6%), and 26 nondiagnostic results (69.7%). Real-life data suggest that there is an approximately 3.91-day lag in getting samples to the performing laboratory. Although laboratories may advertise their expected TAT, a number of factors can potentially impact the actual time from test order placement to communication of the results for clinical use. Understanding the points of delay will enable the development of internal protocols and policies to improve time to diagnosis.

Intensive Care Clinicians' Perspectives on Ethical Challenges Raised by Rapid Genomic Testing in Critically Ill Infants

Rapid genomic testing (rGT) enables genomic information to be available in a matter of hours, allowing it to be used in time-critical settings, such as intensive care units. Although rGT has been shown to improve diagnostic rates in a cost-effective manner, it raises ethical questions around a range of different areas, including obtaining consent and clinical decision-making. While some research has examined the perspectives of parents and genetics health professionals, the attitudes of intensive care clinicians remain under-explored. To address this gap, we administered an online survey to English-speaking neonatal/paediatric intensivists in Europe, Australasia and North America. We posed two ethical scenarios: one relating to obtaining consent from the parents and the second assessing decision-making regarding the provision of life-sustaining treatments. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data. We received 40 responses from 12 countries. About 50-75% of intensivists felt that explicit parental consent was necessary for rGT. About 68-95% felt that a diagnosis from rGT should affect the provision of life-sustaining care. Results were mediated by intensivists' level of experience. Our findings show divergent attitudes toward ethical issues generated by rGT among intensivists and suggest the need for guidance regarding ethical decision-making for rGT.