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 , Aparna Nathan , Hannah Park , Robert C. Green , Monica H. Wojcik , 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.
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.