Understanding the Clinical Utility of Genome Sequencing in Critically Ill Newborns

Diagnostic genome sequencing (GS) in newborns may have many benefits. More accurate diagnosis could spur the development of innovative genomic therapies. A precise diagnosis could help doctors and parents anticipate clinical problems and inform a family's future reproductive choices. However, the integration of GS into neonatal care remains associated with a variety of ethical controversies, including concerns about informed consent, about interpreting uncertain results, about resource allocation and whether access to genomic services could exacerbate health disparities, and about the effect of genome diagnostics on people with disabilities. There also remains significant uncertainty about which babies should be tested and when and how the potential benefits of GS ought to be measured. Probably related to these challenges, some payors have been reluctant to cover the cost of GS for critically ill newborns. Much of the reluctance appears to turn on questions about the clinical benefit associated with GS and whether and for whom GS will be cost-effective. These situations point to the urgent need for careful assessments of the clinical utility of GS in critically ill infants. In this paper, we critically examine the ways in which the clinical utility of GS has been evaluated in this patient population. We focus on "change of management" (COM), a widely used measure of clinical utility for diagnostic GS. We suggest that this measure is often ambiguous because not all COMs can be attributed to genomic results and because not all COMs lead to patient benefit. Finally, we suggest ways that measurement of clinical utility could be improved.