Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium: Accelerating Evidence-Based Practice of Genomic Medicine

Despite rapid technical progress and demonstrable effectiveness for some types of diagnosis and therapy, much remains to be learned about clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) and its role within the practice of medicine. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium includes 18 extramural research projects, one National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) intramural project, and a coordinating center funded by the NHGRI and National Cancer Institute. The consortium is exploring analytic and clinical validity and utility, as well as the ethical, legal, and social implications of sequencing via multidisciplinary approaches; it has thus far recruited 5,577 participants across a spectrum of symptomatic and healthy children and adults by utilizing both germline and cancer sequencing. The CSER consortium is analyzing data and creating publically available procedures and tools related to participant preferences and consent, variant classification, disclosure and management of primary and secondary findings, health outcomes, and integration with electronic health records. Future research directions will refine measures of clinical utility of CGES in both germline and somatic testing, evaluate the use of CGES for screening in healthy individuals, explore the penetrance of pathogenic variants through extensive phenotyping, reduce discordances in public databases of genes and variants, examine social and ethnic disparities in the provision of genomics services, explore regulatory issues, and estimate the value and downstream costs of sequencing. The CSER consortium has established a shared community of research sites by using diverse approaches to pursue the evidence-based development of best practices in genomic medicine

Factors influencing health workers’ compliance with outpatient malaria ‘test and treat’ guidelines during the plateauing performance phase in Kenya, 2014–2016

Background Health workers’ compliance with outpatient malaria ‘test and treat’ guidelines has improved since 2010 but plateaued from 2014 at suboptimal levels in Kenya. This study examined the factors associated with high but suboptimal compliance levels at facilities with available malaria tests and drugs. Methods Data from four national, cross-sectional health facility surveys undertaken between 2014 and 2016 in Kenya were analysed. Association between 31 factors and compliance with malaria testing (survey range (SR): 65–69%) and no anti-malarial treatment for test negative patients (SR: 90–92%) were examined using multilevel logistic regression models. Results A total of 2,752 febrile patients seen by 594 health workers at 486 health facilities were analysed. Higher odds of malaria testing were associated with lake endemic (aOR = 12.12; 95% CI: 5.3–27.6), highland epidemic (aOR = 5.06; 95% CI: 2.7–9.5) and semi-arid seasonal (aOR = 2.07; 95% CI: 1.2–3.6) compared to low risk areas; faith-based (FBO)/ non-governmental organization (NGO)-owned compared to government-owned facilities (aOR = 5.80; 95% CI: 3.2–10.6); health workers’ perception of malaria endemicity as high-risk (aOR = 3.05; 95% CI: 1.8–5.2); supervision with feedback (aOR = 1.84; 95% CI: 1.2–2.9); access to guidelines (aOR = 1.96; 95% CI: 1.1–3.4); older patients compared to infants, higher temperature measurements and main complaints of fever, diarrhoea, headache, vomiting and chills. Lower odds of testing were associated with febrile patients having main complaints of a cough (aOR = 0.65; 95% CI: 0.5–0.9), a rash (aOR = 0.32; 95% CI: 0.2–0.7) or a running nose (aOR = 0.59; 95% CI: 0.4–0.9). Other factors associated with compliance with test negative results included the type of diagnostic test available at the facility, in-service training, health workers’ age, and correct knowledge of the targeted treatment policy. Conclusions To optimize outpatient malaria case-management, reduce testing compliance gaps and eliminate overtreatment of test negative patients, there is a need to focus on compliance within low malaria risk areas in addition to ensuring the universal and continuous availability of ‘test and treat’ commodities. Targeting of older and government health workers; dissemination of updated guidelines; and continuing with in-service training and supportive supervision with feedback is essential. Lastly, there is a need to improve health workers’ knowledge about malaria testing criteria considering their perceptions of endemicity

Factors influencing health workers’ compliance with outpatient malaria ‘test and treat’ guidelines during the plateauing performance phase in Kenya, 2014–2016

Background Health workers’ compliance with outpatient malaria ‘test and treat’ guidelines has improved since 2010 but plateaued from 2014 at suboptimal levels in Kenya. This study examined the factors associated with high but suboptimal compliance levels at facilities with available malaria tests and drugs. Methods Data from four national, cross-sectional health facility surveys undertaken between 2014 and 2016 in Kenya were analysed. Association between 31 factors and compliance with malaria testing (survey range (SR): 65–69%) and no anti-malarial treatment for test negative patients (SR: 90–92%) were examined using multilevel logistic regression models. Results A total of 2,752 febrile patients seen by 594 health workers at 486 health facilities were analysed. Higher odds of malaria testing were associated with lake endemic (aOR = 12.12; 95% CI: 5.3–27.6), highland epidemic (aOR = 5.06; 95% CI: 2.7–9.5) and semi-arid seasonal (aOR = 2.07; 95% CI: 1.2–3.6) compared to low risk areas; faith-based (FBO)/ non-governmental organization (NGO)-owned compared to government-owned facilities (aOR = 5.80; 95% CI: 3.2–10.6); health workers’ perception of malaria endemicity as high-risk (aOR = 3.05; 95% CI: 1.8–5.2); supervision with feedback (aOR = 1.84; 95% CI: 1.2–2.9); access to guidelines (aOR = 1.96; 95% CI: 1.1–3.4); older patients compared to infants, higher temperature measurements and main complaints of fever, diarrhoea, headache, vomiting and chills. Lower odds of testing were associated with febrile patients having main complaints of a cough (aOR = 0.65; 95% CI: 0.5–0.9), a rash (aOR = 0.32; 95% CI: 0.2–0.7) or a running nose (aOR = 0.59; 95% CI: 0.4–0.9). Other factors associated with compliance with test negative results included the type of diagnostic test available at the facility, in-service training, health workers’ age, and correct knowledge of the targeted treatment policy. Conclusions To optimize outpatient malaria case-management, reduce testing compliance gaps and eliminate overtreatment of test negative patients, there is a need to focus on compliance within low malaria risk areas in addition to ensuring the universal and continuous availability of ‘test and treat’ commodities. Targeting of older and government health workers; dissemination of updated guidelines; and continuing with in-service training and supportive supervision with feedback is essential. Lastly, there is a need to improve health workers’ knowledge about malaria testing criteria considering their perceptions of endemicity

Trends in health workers' compliance with outpatient malaria case-management guidelines across malaria epidemiological zones in Kenya, 2010-2016

BACKGROUND:Health workers' compliance with outpatient malaria case-management guidelines has been improving, specifically regarding the universal testing of suspected cases and the use of artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) only for positive results (i.e., 'test and treat'). Whether the improvements in compliance with 'test and treat' guidelines are consistent across different malaria endemicity areas has not been examined. METHODS:Data from 11 national, cross-sectional, outpatient malaria case-management surveys undertaken in Kenya from 2010 to 2016 were analysed. Four primary indicators (i.e., 'test and treat') and eight secondary indicators of artemether-lumefantrine (AL) dosing, dispensing, and counselling were measured. Mixed logistic regression models were used to analyse the annual trends in compliance with the indicators across the different malaria endemicity areas (i.e., from highest to lowest risk being lake endemic, coast endemic, highland epidemic, semi-arid seasonal transmission, and low risk). RESULTS:Compliance with all four 'test and treat' indicators significantly increased in the area with the highest malaria risk (i.e., lake endemic) as follows: testing of febrile patients (OR = 1.71 annually; 95% CI = 1.51-1.93), AL treatment for test-positive patients (OR = 1.56; 95% CI = 1.26-1.92), no anti-malarial for test-negative patients (OR = 2.04; 95% CI = 1.65-2.54), and composite 'test and treat' compliance (OR = 1.80; 95% CI = 1.61-2.01). In the low risk areas, only compliance with test-negative results significantly increased (OR = 2.27; 95% CI = 1.61-3.19) while testing of febrile patients showed declining trends (OR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.79-1.01). Administration of the first AL dose at the facility significantly increased in the areas of lake endemic (OR = 2.33; 95% CI = 1.76-3.10), coast endemic (OR = 5.02; 95% CI = 2.77-9.09) and semi-arid seasonal transmission (OR = 1.44; 95% CI = 1.02-2.04). In areas of the lowest risk of transmission and highland epidemic zone, none of the AL dosing, dispensing, and counselling tasks significantly changed over time. CONCLUSIONS:There is variability in health workers' compliance with outpatient malaria case-management guidelines across different malaria-risk areas in Kenya. Major improvements in areas of the highest risk have not been seen in low-risk areas. Interventions to improve practices should be targeted geographically

Short-term costs of integrating whole-genome sequencing into primary care and cardiology settings: a pilot randomized trial.

PurposeGreat uncertainty exists about the costs associated with whole-genome sequencing (WGS).MethodsOne hundred cardiology patients with cardiomyopathy diagnoses and 100 ostensibly healthy primary care patients were randomized to receive a family-history report alone or with a WGS report. Cardiology patients also reviewed prior genetic test results. WGS costs were estimated by tracking resource use and staff time. Downstream costs were estimated by identifying services in administrative data, medical records, and patient surveys for 6 months.ResultsThe incremental cost per patient of WGS testing was $5,098 in cardiology settings and$5,073 in primary care settings compared with family history alone. Mean 6-month downstream costs did not differ statistically between the control and WGS arms in either setting (cardiology: difference = -$1,560, 95$7,558 to $3,866, p = 0.36; primary care: difference =$681, 95% confidence interval -$884 to$2,171, p = 0.70). Scenario analyses showed the cost reduction of omitting or limiting the types of secondary findings was less than $69 and$182 per patient in cardiology and primary care, respectively.ConclusionShort-term costs of WGS were driven by the costs of sequencing and interpretation rather than downstream health care. Disclosing additional types of secondary findings has a limited cost impact following disclosure

Short-term costs of integrating whole-genome sequencing into primary care and cardiology settings: a pilot randomized trial.

PurposeGreat uncertainty exists about the costs associated with whole-genome sequencing (WGS).MethodsOne hundred cardiology patients with cardiomyopathy diagnoses and 100 ostensibly healthy primary care patients were randomized to receive a family-history report alone or with a WGS report. Cardiology patients also reviewed prior genetic test results. WGS costs were estimated by tracking resource use and staff time. Downstream costs were estimated by identifying services in administrative data, medical records, and patient surveys for 6 months.ResultsThe incremental cost per patient of WGS testing was $5,098 in cardiology settings and$5,073 in primary care settings compared with family history alone. Mean 6-month downstream costs did not differ statistically between the control and WGS arms in either setting (cardiology: difference = -$1,560, 95$7,558 to $3,866, p = 0.36; primary care: difference =$681, 95% confidence interval -$884 to$2,171, p = 0.70). Scenario analyses showed the cost reduction of omitting or limiting the types of secondary findings was less than $69 and$182 per patient in cardiology and primary care, respectively.ConclusionShort-term costs of WGS were driven by the costs of sequencing and interpretation rather than downstream health care. Disclosing additional types of secondary findings has a limited cost impact following disclosure

Discordant results between conventional newborn screening and genomic sequencing in the BabySeq Project

Abstract Purpose Newborn screening (NBS) is performed to identify neonates at risk for actionable, severe, early-onset disorders, many of which are genetic. The BabySeq Project randomized neonates to receive conventional NBS or NBS plus exome sequencing (ES) capable of detecting sequence variants that may also diagnose monogenic disease or indicate genetic disease risk. We therefore evaluated how ES and conventional NBS results differ in this population. Methods We compared results of NBS (including hearing screens) and ES for 159 infants in the BabySeq Project. Infants were considered "NBS positive" if any abnormal result was found indicating disease risk and "ES positive" if ES identified a monogenic disease risk or a genetic diagnosis. Results Most infants (132/159, 84%) were NBS and ES negative. Only one infant was positive for the same disorder by both modalities. Nine infants were NBS positive/ES negative, though seven of these were subsequently determined to be false positives. Fifteen infants were ES positive/NBS negative, all of which represented risk of genetic conditions that are not included in NBS programs. No genetic explanation was identified for eight infants referred on the hearing screen. Conclusion These differences highlight the complementarity of information that may be gleaned from NBS and ES in the newborn period