Sequencing projects will screen 200,000 newborns for disease

U.K. and New York City efforts face cost and ethical issues.

Baby steps

[Figure: see text].

Consent and Privacy in the Era of Precision Medicine and Biobanking Genomic Data

"Big Data represents a challenge that points to the need for collective and political approaches to self-protection rather than solely individual, atomistic approaches."- Anita Allen, "Protecting One's Own Privacy in a Big Data Economy".

What Genomic Sequencing Can Offer Universal Newborn Screening Programs

Massively parallel sequencing, also known as next-generation sequencing, has the potential to significantly improve newborn screening programs in the United States and around the world. Compared to genetic tests whose use is well established, sequencing allows for the analysis of large amounts of DNA, providing more comprehensive and rapid results at a lower cost. It is already being used in limited ways by some public health newborn screening laboratories in the United States and other countries-and it is under study for broader and more widespread use, including as a core part of newborn screening programs. Sequencing technology has the potential to significantly improve these essential public health programs. For many of the conditions that newborns are already screened for, sequencing can return more specific and more sensitive results. The technology could also enable newborn screening programs to expand the list of rare pediatric conditions that they look for, thereby identifying more infants who can benefit from immediate care.

Commercial Interests, the Technological Imperative, and Advocates: Three Forces Driving Genomic Sequencing in Newborns

While the NSIGHT program was driven by a desire to define and gather data about both the benefits and harms of introducing genomic sequencing into the care of newborns, it remains to be seen how much influence these data will have in shaping the use of this technology in newborns. Ultimately, three additional forces-commercial interests, the technological imperative, and advocates-may play a significant role in shaping the use of sequencing in newborns. Policy-makers and clinicians should be aware of the effects of these additional forces when considering the appropriate use of this technology in clinical practice and public health screening programs.

Families' Experiences with Newborn Screening: A Critical Source of Evidence

Debates about expanding newborn screening with whole genome sequencing are fueled by data about public perception, public opinion, and the positions taken by public advocates and advocacy groups. One form of evidence that merits attention as we consider possible uses of whole-genome sequencing during the newborn period is parents' (and children's) diverse experiences with existing expanded screening protocols. What do we know about this experience base? And what implications might these data have for decisions about how we use whole genome sequencing and how we assess its impact in the future? Although the broader literature on genetic susceptibility testing suggests that testing usually does not have adverse effects on children's psychosocial well-being, certain newborn screening results have been demonstrated to cause distress, alter behavior, and even to influence the formation of new parental and family identities.

Eugenics Redux: "Reproductive Benefit" as a Rationale for Newborn Screening

In recent years, as newborn screening has expanded to include conditions for which treatment is questionable, new rationales for screening have proliferated. One such rationale is the potential reproductive benefit to parents from the detection of a genetic condition or carrier status in infants. An unanticipated consequence of invoking knowledge of reproductive risk as a major benefit of screening has been to open newborn screening to the charge that it constitutes state-sanctioned eugenics. Thus, an endeavor that had been viewed as the converse of state programs of selective breeding has come to be seen in some quarters as yet another of its incarnations. The result has been serious and self-inflected harm to the reputation of newborn screening programs.

Using Newborn Sequencing to Advance Understanding of the Natural History of Disease

A significant portion of newborns cared for in the neonatal intensive care unit or other ICUs, such as the cardiac ICU, have a medical condition with a genetic component, including congenital malformations, the leading cause of death in the NICU. In many cases, however, it is not clear which condition the child has or what can be done to help him or her. Genomic sequencing of sick newborns has the potential to bypass the prolonged journey to a diagnosis, improving the medical care of individual infants. Sequencing also has the potential to benefit others beyond the child whose genome is sequenced and his or her immediate family. Sequence data from sick newborns will expand medicine's understanding of genetic diseases, leading to improvements in clinicians' ability to counsel family and to provide even more targeted care. Not only will more frequent use of sequencing lead to discovery of new genes; it will also provide unique insights into the full spectrum of known Mendelian genetic diseases, so-called phenotypic expansion, when a gene previously recognized as associated with a phenotype is found to be associated with an expanded set of clinical features. Genetic and environmental changes that modify the expression of a genetic disease may also be elucidated.

Sequencing Newborns: A Call for Nuanced Use of Genomic Technologies

Many scientists and doctors hope that affordable genome sequencing will lead to more personalized medical care and improve public health in ways that will benefit children, families, and society more broadly. One hope in particular is that all newborns could be sequenced at birth, thereby setting the stage for a lifetime of medical care and self-directed preventive actions tailored to each child's genome. Indeed, commentators often suggest that universal genome sequencing is inevitable. Such optimism can come with the presumption that discussing the potential limits, cost, and downsides of widespread application of genomic technologies is pointless, excessively pessimistic, or overly cautious. We disagree. Given the pragmatic challenges associated with determining what sequencing data mean for the health of individuals, the economic costs associated with interpreting and acting on such data, and the psychosocial costs of predicting one's own or one's child's future life plans based on uncertain testing results, we think this hope and optimism deserve to be tempered. In the analysis that follows, we distinguish between two reasons for using sequencing: to diagnose individual infants who have been identified as sick and to screen populations of infants who appear to be healthy. We also distinguish among three contexts in which sequencing for either diagnosis or screening could be deployed: in clinical medicine, in public health programs, and as a direct-to-consumer service. Each of these contexts comes with different professional norms, policy considerations, and public expectations. Finally, we distinguish between two main types of genome sequencing: targeted sequencing, where only specific genes are sequenced or analyzed, and whole-exome or whole-genome sequencing, where all the DNA or all the coding segments of all genes are sequenced and analyzed. In a symptomatic newborn, targeted or genome-wide sequencing can help guide other tests for diagnosis or for specific treatment that is urgently needed. Clinicians use the infant's symptoms (or phenotype) to interrogate the sequencing data. These same complexities and uncertainties, however, limit the usefulness of genome-wide sequencing as a population screening tool. While we recognize considerable benefit in using targeted sequencing to screen for or detect specific conditions that meet the criteria for inclusion in newborn screening panels, use of genome-wide sequencing as a sole screening tool for newborns is at best premature. We conclude that sequencing technology can be beneficially used in newborns when that use is nuanced and attentive to context.

A New Era, New Strategies: Education and Communication Strategies to Manage Greater Access to Genomic Information

As next-generation genomic sequencing, including whole-genome sequencing information, becomes more common in research, clinical, and public health contexts, there is a need for comprehensive communication strategies and education approaches to prepare patients and clinicians to manage this information and make informed decisions about its use, and nowhere is that imperative more pronounced than when genomic sequencing is applied to newborns. Unfortunately, in-person counseling is unlikely to be applicable or cost-effective when parents obtain genomic risk information directly via the Internet. As a rule, communication strategies should match how people are accessing health information. Today, many people can obtain health information in a variety of settings, including through direct-to-consumer services, via websites, and through other digital channels or settings. In response to these changes, new communication strategies need to be considered. Adopting a comprehensive communication model means understanding the multiple levels of influence experienced by parents and the clinicians who serve them. In addition, applying communication-science principles can help in addressing some key challenges to effectively communicating genomic information to parents.

Are Parents Really Obligated to Learn as Much as Possible about Their Children's Genomes?

As new parents quickly learn, parenting always involves choosing your battles. Ideally, parents have the freedom to make those moral choices without the prejudice of an unreasonable or premature inflicted ought. Resolving the predictive uncertainties of genomic information is the professional responsibility of the biomedical community, just as clarifying the impact of global warming or assessing the risks of rising multidrug resistance is the responsibility of similar specialists. Until sequencing can give parents clear and meaningful information that they can use to protect their children without also burdening parents with uncertain findings about which little if anything can be done, it makes no sense to impute an obligation for them to seek it out. To do so not only increases the mental and emotional burden on parents but also distorts the scope of parental responsibility in ways that undermine parents' capacity to play their immediate role as the nurturers of a new life.

[Unsolicited genomic findings in daily clinical practice]

Whole genome sequencing (WGS) is increasingly being used in clinical practice. As a result, various healthcare professionals now encounter ethical dilemmas that were formerly confined within the genetics clinic. In addition to autonomy and well-being of both patients and their family members, which need to be balanced carefully, a societal perspective is also vital to ensure the ethically sound introduction of whole genome sequencing into daily practice. Important choices to be made are: who is eligible for whole genome sequencing; how can informed consent be sensibly obtained, when dealing with such vast quantities of genomic information; which type of information should be offered to patients; should professionals actively search for pathogenic mutations. The rise of WGS has an impact on the moral responsibilities incumbent on healthcare professionals and necessitates a comprehensive societal debate on the advent of personalized medicine.

[Ethical dilemmas in a general practitioner's clinic due to incidental findings resulting from whole genome sequencing]

Whole genome sequencing (WGS) is increasingly being used in clinical practice. As a result, various healthcare professionals now encounter ethical dilemmas that were formerly confined within the genetics clinic. In addition to autonomy and well-being of both patients and their family members, which need to be balanced carefully, a societal perspective is also vital to ensure the ethically sound introduction of whole genome sequencing into daily practice. Important choices to be made are: who is eligible for whole genome sequencing; how can informed consent be sensibly obtained, when dealing with such vast quantities of genomic information; which type of information should be offered to patients; should professionals actively search for pathogenic mutations. The rise of WGS has an impact on the moral responsibilities incumbent on healthcare professionals and necessitates a comprehensive societal debate on the advent of personalized medicine.

Ethical Implications of Rapid Whole-Genome Sequencing in Neonates

Using rapid whole-genome sequencing (WGS), an infant's genome can now be sequenced in as little as 26 hours allowing for rapid diagnosis and precise, individualized management of monogenetic causes of disease. The potential for decreasing cost and valuable time to diagnosis along with pain and suffering is becoming a reality in the NICU. Coupled with rapidly developing technology is a need to explore the associated ethical implication.

The rise of the genome and personalised medicine

Virtually all medical specialties are impacted by genetic disease. Enhanced understanding of the role of genetics in human disease, coupled with rapid advancement in sequencing technology, is transforming the speed of diagnosis for patients and providing increasing opportunities to tailor management. As set out in the Annual report of the Chief Medical Officer 2016: Generation Genome1 and the recent NHS England board paper Creating a genomic medicine service to lay the foundations to deliver personalised interventions and treatments,2 the increasing 'mainstreaming' of genetic testing into routine practice and plans to embed whole genome sequencing in the NHS mean that the profile and importance of genomics is on the rise for many clinicians. This article provides a brief overview of genomics and its current clinical applications, including its contribution to personalised medicine. Physicians will be signposted to key issues that will allow the successful implementation of genomics for rare disease diagnosis and cancer management.

Scanning the body, sequencing the genome: Dealing with unsolicited findings

The introduction of novel diagnostic techniques in clinical domains such as genomics and radiology has led to a rich ethical debate on how to handle unsolicited findings that result from these innovations. Yet while unsolicited findings arise in both genomics and radiology, most of the relevant literature to date has tended to focus on only one of these domains. In this article, we synthesize and critically assess similarities and differences between "scanning the body" and "sequencing the genome" from an ethical perspective. After briefly describing the novel diagnostic contexts leading to unsolicited findings, we synthesize and reflect on six core ethical issues that relate to both specialties: terminology; benefits and risks; autonomy; disclosure of unsolicited findings to children; uncertainty; and filters and routine screening. We identify ethical rationales that pertain to both fields and may contribute to more ethically sound policies. Considerations of preserving public trust and ensuring that people perceive healthcare policies as fair also support the need for a combined debate.

The Continuing Evolution of Ethical Standards for Genomic Sequencing in Clinical Care: Restoring Patient Choice

Developing ethical standards for clinical use of large-scale genome and exome sequencing has proven challenging, in part due to the inevitability of incidental or secondary findings. Policy of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) has evolved but remains problematic. In 2013, ACMG issued policy recommending mandatory analysis of 56 extra genes whenever sequencing was ordered for any indication, in order to ascertain positive findings in pathogenic and actionable genes. Widespread objection yielded a 2014 amendment allowing patients to opt-out from analysis of the extra genes. In 2015, ACMG published the amended policy, providing that patients could opt out of the full set of extra genes, but not a subset. In 2016, ACMG enlarged the set and indicated planned expansion of the roster of extra genes to include pharmacogenetic findings. ACMG policy does not protect the respect for patient choice that prevails in other domains of clinical medicine, where informed consent allows patients to opt in to desired testing. By creating an expanding domain of genomic testing that will be routinely conducted unless patients reject the entire set of extra tests, ACMG creates an exceptional domain clinical practice that is not supported by ethics or science.

A Framework for Unrestricted Prenatal Whole-Genome Sequencing: Respecting and Enhancing the Autonomy of Prospective Parents

Noninvasive, prenatal whole genome sequencing (NIPW) may be a technological reality in the near future, making available a vast array of genetic information early in pregnancy at no risk to the fetus or mother. Many worry that the timing, safety, and ease of the test will lead to informational overload and reproductive consumerism. The prevailing response among commentators has been to restrict conditions eligible for testing based on medical severity, which imposes disputed value judgments and devalues those living with eligible conditions. To avoid these difficulties, we propose an unrestricted testing policy, under which prospective parents could obtain information on any variant of known significance after a careful informed consent process that uses an interactive decision aid to deliver a mandatory presentation on the purposes, techniques, and limitations of genomic testing, as well as optional resources for reflection and consultation. This process would encourage thoughtful, informed deliberation by prospective parents before deciding whether or how to use NIPW.