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.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There are no US Food and Drug Administration-approved therapies for neonatal seizures. Phenobarbital and phenytoin frequently fail to control seizures. There are concerns about the safety of seizure medications in the developing brain. Levetiracetam has proven efficacy and an excellent safety profile in older patients; therefore, there is great interest in its use in neonates. However, randomized studies have not been performed. Our objectives were to study the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam compared with phenobarbital as a first-line treatment of neonatal seizures. METHODS:The study was a multicenter, randomized, blinded, controlled, phase IIb trial investigating the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam compared with phenobarbital as a firstline treatment for neonatal seizures of any cause. The primary outcome measure was complete seizure freedom for 24 hours, assessed by independent review of the EEGs by 2 neurophysiologists.RESULTS: Eighty percent of patients (24 of 30) randomly assigned to phenobarbital remained seizure free for 24 hours, compared with 28% of patients (15 of 53) randomly assigned to levetiracetam (P , .001; relative risk 0.35 [95% confidence interval: 0.22-0.56]; modified intention-to-treat population). A 7.5% improvement in efficacy was achieved with a dose escalation of levetiracetam from 40 to 60 mg/kg. More adverse effects were seen in subjects randomly assigned to phenobarbital (not statistically significant). CONCLUSIONS:In this phase IIb study, phenobarbital was more effective than levetiracetam for the treatment of neonatal seizures. Higher rates of adverse effects were seen with phenobarbital treatment. Higher-dose studies of levetiracetam are warranted, and definitive studies with long-term outcome measures are needed.WHAT'S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT: In 1999, a randomized controlled trial comparing phenobarbital and phenytoin in neonates revealed that each drug had 45% efficacy. These treatments remain the standard of care for neonatal seizures. Levetiracetam has a better safety profile; however, its efficacy is unproven in neonates.WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: In this study conducted in the hypothermia era and with near real-time response to continuous video EEG monitoring, phenobarbital was more effective than levetiracetam in achieving seizure cessation. Dose-finding studies and phase III trials with long-term outcomes are needed.

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.

No abstract