The second Newborn Sequencing in Genomic Medicine and Public Health study was a randomized, controlled trial of the effectiveness of rapid whole-genome or -exome sequencing (rWGS or rWES, respectively) in seriously ill infants with diseases of unknown etiology.Here we report comparisons of analytic and diagnostic performance. Of 1,248 ill inpatient infants, 578 (46%) had diseases of unknown etiology. 213 infants (37% of those eligible) were enrolled within 96 h of admission. 24 infants (11%) were very ill and received ultrarapid whole-genome sequencing (urWGS). The remaining infants were randomized, 95 to rWES and 94 to rWGS. The analytic performance of rWGS was superior to rWES, including variants likely to affect protein function, and ClinVar pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (p < 0.0001). The diagnostic performance of rWGS and rWES were similar (18 diagnoses in 94 infants [19%] versus 19 diagnoses in 95 infants [20%], respectively), as was time to result (median 11.0 versus 11.2 days, respectively). However, the proportion diagnosed by urWGS (11 of 24 [46%]) was higher than rWES/rWGS (p ¼ 0.004) and time to result was less (median 4.6 days, p < 0.0001). The incremental diagnostic yield of reflexing to trio after negative proband analysis was 0.7% (1 of 147). In conclusion, rapid genomic sequencing can be performed as a first-tier diagnostic test in inpatient infants. urWGS had the shortest time to result, which was important in unstable infants, and those in whom a genetic diagnosis was likely to impact immediate management. Further comparison of urWGS and rWES is warranted because genomic technologies and knowledge of variant pathogenicity are evolving rapidly.

By informing timely targeted treatments, rapid whole-genome sequencing can improve the outcomes of seriously ill children with genetic diseases, particularly infants in neonatal and pediatric intensive care units (ICUs). The need for highly qualified professionals to decipher results, however, precludes widespread implementation. We describe a platform for population-scale, provisional diagnosis of genetic diseases with automated phenotyping and interpretation. Genome sequencing was expedited by bead-based genome library preparation directly from blood samples and sequencing of paired 100-nt reads in 15.5 hours. Clinical natural language processing (CNLP) automatically extracted children’s deep phenomes from electronic health records with 80% precision and 93% recall. In 101 children with 105 genetic diseases, a mean of 4.3 CNLP-extracted phenotypic features matched the expected phenotypic features of those diseases, compared with a match of 0.9 phenotypic features used in manual interpretation. We automated provisional diagnosis by combining the ranking of the similarity of a patient’s CNLP phenome with respect to the expected phenotypic features of all genetic diseases, together with the ranking of the pathogenicity of all of the patient’s genomic variants. Automated, retrospective diagnoses concurred well with expert manual interpretation (97% recall and 99% precision in 95 children with 97 genetic diseases). Prospectively, our platform correctly diagnosed three of seven seriously ill ICU infants (100% precision and recall) with a mean time saving of 22:19 hours. In each case, the diagnosis affected treatment. Genome sequencing with automated phenotyping and interpretation in a median of 20:10 hours may increase adoption in ICUs and, thereby, timely implementation of precise treatments.

The second Newborn Sequencing in Genomic Medicine and Public Health (NSIGHT2) study was a randomized, controlled trial of rapid whole-genome sequencing (rWGS) or rapid whole-exome sequencing (rWES) in infants with diseases of unknown etiology in intensive care units (ICUs). Gravely ill infants were not randomized and received ultra-rapid whole-genome sequencing (urWGS). Herein we report results of clinician surveys of the clinical utility of rapid genomic sequencing (RGS). The primary end-point-clinician perception that RGS was useful-was met for 154 (77%) of 201 infants. Both positive and negative tests were rated as having clinical utility (42 of 45 [93%] and 112 of 156 [72%], respectively). Physicians reported that RGS changed clinical management in 57 (28%) infants, particularly in those receiving urWGS (p ¼ 0.0001) and positive tests (p < 0.00001). Outcomes of 32 (15%) infants were perceived to be changed by RGS. Positive tests changed outcomes more frequently than negative tests (p < 0.00001). In logistic regression models, the likelihood that RGS was perceived as useful increased 6.7-fold when associated with changes in management (95% CI 1.8-43.3). Changes in management were 10.1-fold more likely when results were positive (95% CI 4.7-22.4) and turnaround time was shorter (odds ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.85-0.99). RGS seldom led to clinician-perceived confusion or distress among families (6 of 207 [3%]). In summary, clinicians perceived high clinical utility and low likelihood of harm with first-tier RGS of infants in ICUs with diseases of unknown etiology. RGS was perceived as beneficial irrespective of whether results were positive or negative.

Rapid diagnostic genomic sequencing recently became feasible for infants in intensive care units (ICUs). However, research regarding parents' perceived utility, adequacy of consent, and potential harms and benefits is lacking. Herein we report results of parental surveys of these domains from the second Newborn Sequencing in Genomic Medicine and Public Health (NSIGHT2) study, a randomized, controlled trial of rapid diagnostic genomic sequencing of infants in regional ICUs. More than 90% of parents reported feeling adequately informed to consent to diagnostic genomic sequencing. Despite only 23% ( 27) of 117 infants receiving genomic diagnoses, 97% (156) of 161 parents reported that testing was at least somewhat useful and 50.3% (88/161) reported no decisional regret (median 0, mean 10, range 0-100). Five of 117 families (4.3%) reported harm. Upon follow-up, one (1%) confirmed harm to child and parent related to negative results/no diagnosis, two (2%) reported stress or confusion, and two (2%) denied harm. In 81% (89) of 111 infants, families and clinicians agreed that genomic results were useful. Of the families for whom clinicians perceived harm from genomic testing, no parents reported harm. Positive tests/genomic diagnosis were more frequently perceived to be useful by parents, to benefit their infant, and to help manage potential symptoms (p < .05). In summary, the large majority of parents felt that first-tier, rapid, diagnostic genomic sequencing was beneficial for infants lacking etiologic diagnoses in ICUs. Most parents in this study perceived being adequately informed to consent, understood their child's results, and denied regret or harm from undergoing sequencing.