Estimating the sensitivity of genomic newborn screening for treatable inherited metabolic disorders

IF 6.6 1区 医学 Q1 GENETICS & HEREDITY Genetics in Medicine Pub Date : 2024-09-28 DOI:10.1016/j.gim.2024.101284
Sarah L. Bick , Aparna Nathan , Hannah Park , Robert C. Green , Monica H. Wojcik , Nina B. Gold
{"title":"Estimating the sensitivity of genomic newborn screening for treatable inherited metabolic disorders","authors":"Sarah L. Bick ,&nbsp;Aparna Nathan ,&nbsp;Hannah Park ,&nbsp;Robert C. Green ,&nbsp;Monica H. Wojcik ,&nbsp;Nina B. Gold","doi":"10.1016/j.gim.2024.101284","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Over 30 research groups and companies are exploring newborn screening using genomic sequencing (NBSeq), but the sensitivity of this approach is not well understood.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We identified individuals with treatable inherited metabolic disorders (IMDs) and ascertained the proportion whose DNA analysis revealed explanatory deleterious variants (EDVs). We examined variables associated with EDV detection and estimated the sensitivity of DNA-first NBSeq. We further predicted the annual rate of true-positive and false-negative NBSeq results in the United States for several conditions on the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We identified 635 individuals with 80 unique IMDs. In univariate analyses, Black race (OR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.16-0.89, <em>P</em> = .02) and public insurance (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.39-0.91, <em>P</em> = .02) were less likely to be associated with finding EDVs. Had all individuals been screened with NBSeq, the sensitivity would have been 80.3%. We estimated that between 0 and 649.9 cases of Recommended Uniform Screening Panel IMDs would be missed annually by NBSeq in the United States.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The overall sensitivity of NBSeq for treatable IMDs is estimated at 80.3%. That sensitivity will likely be lower for Black infants and those who are on public insurance.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12717,"journal":{"name":"Genetics in Medicine","volume":"27 1","pages":"Article 101284"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Genetics in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098360024002181","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Over 30 research groups and companies are exploring newborn screening using genomic sequencing (NBSeq), but the sensitivity of this approach is not well understood.

Methods

We identified individuals with treatable inherited metabolic disorders (IMDs) and ascertained the proportion whose DNA analysis revealed explanatory deleterious variants (EDVs). We examined variables associated with EDV detection and estimated the sensitivity of DNA-first NBSeq. We further predicted the annual rate of true-positive and false-negative NBSeq results in the United States for several conditions on the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel.

Results

We identified 635 individuals with 80 unique IMDs. In univariate analyses, Black race (OR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.16-0.89, P = .02) and public insurance (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.39-0.91, P = .02) were less likely to be associated with finding EDVs. Had all individuals been screened with NBSeq, the sensitivity would have been 80.3%. We estimated that between 0 and 649.9 cases of Recommended Uniform Screening Panel IMDs would be missed annually by NBSeq in the United States.

Conclusion

The overall sensitivity of NBSeq for treatable IMDs is estimated at 80.3%. That sensitivity will likely be lower for Black infants and those who are on public insurance.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
估算基因组新生儿筛查对可治疗遗传性代谢紊乱的敏感性。
简介:30 多个研究小组和公司正在探索使用基因组测序(NBSeq)进行新生儿筛查,但对这种方法的敏感性还不甚了解:30 多个研究小组和公司正在探索利用基因组测序(NBSeq)进行新生儿筛查,但对这种方法的灵敏度还不甚了解:我们确定了患有可治疗遗传性代谢紊乱(IMDs)的个体,并确定了 DNA 分析显示出解释性有害变异(EDVs)的比例。我们研究了与 EDV 检测相关的变量,并估算了 "DNA 优先 "NBSeq 的灵敏度。我们进一步预测了美国每年针对推荐统一筛查样本(RUSP)中几种疾病的 NBSeq 结果的真阳性率和假阴性率:结果:我们确定了 635 人的 80 个独特 IMD。在单变量分析中,黑人种族(OR = 0.37,95% CI:0.16-0.89,p = 0.02)和公共保险(OR = 0.60,95% CI:0.39-0.91,p = 0.02)与发现 EDV 的可能性较低。如果所有个体都接受了 NBSeq 筛查,灵敏度将达到 80.3%。我们估计,在美国,NBSeq 每年会漏检 0 到 649.9 例 RUSP IMDs:据估计,NBSeq 对可治疗 IMD 的总体灵敏度为 80.3%。黑人婴儿和参加公共保险的婴儿的灵敏度可能较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Genetics in Medicine
Genetics in Medicine 医学-遗传学
CiteScore
15.20
自引率
6.80%
发文量
857
审稿时长
1.3 weeks
期刊介绍: Genetics in Medicine (GIM) is the official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. The journal''s mission is to enhance the knowledge, understanding, and practice of medical genetics and genomics through publications in clinical and laboratory genetics and genomics, including ethical, legal, and social issues as well as public health. GIM encourages research that combats racism, includes diverse populations and is written by authors from diverse and underrepresented backgrounds.
期刊最新文献
Pathogenicity assessment of genetic variants identified in patients with severe hypertriglyceridemia: novel cases of Familial Chylomicronemia Syndrome from the Dyslipidemia Registry of the Spanish Atherosclerosis Society. Genomic sequencing in diverse and underserved pediatric populations: parent perspectives on understanding, uncertainty, psychosocial impact, and personal utility of results. Newborn screening for common genetic variants associated with permanent hearing loss: Implementation in Ontario and a review of the first 3 years. Longitudinal Outcomes in Noonan Syndrome. The impact of genetic counselor involvement in genetic and genomic test order review: A scoping review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1