Biomedical subjects

Bowen Xiao

Publications and source records attributed to Bowen Xiao.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2025

Comparing the performance of exome and genome sequencing for rare disease diagnostics: A randomized implementation effectiveness trial.

PURPOSE: Exome sequencing (ES) and genome sequencing (GS) can improve rare disease diagnosis but are not routinely available in many jurisdictions. To inform implementation, we report on a randomized implementation effectiveness trial comparing ES and GS. METHODS: Eligible trios were randomized to receive ES or GS in the same clinically accredited laboratory. Patient-level data on diagnostic utility and turnaround times were collected. Outcomes were compared statistically between clinically important subgroups. RESULTS: Of 1048 patients, 68.5% had syndromic intellectual disability/developmental delay (ID/DD) and 20.5% had multisystem disorders without ID/DD. Most had prior genetic test(s) that were nondiagnostic (95.5%), and of these, 91.6% included chromosome microarray. Diagnostic yields were 33.8% and 33.6%, for ES (n = 526) and GS (n = 522), respectively. Within sequencing groups, diagnostic results were more frequent among those with ID/DD than those without (P < .005). For routine (ie, nonexpedited) patients (n = 1020), 87.0% were reported in <12 weeks, and the mean turnaround time was 55.5 days (SD: 24.0). Turnaround time for ES and GS did not differ; however, result type (P < .001) and age of onset (P < .005) significantly affected turnaround time. CONCLUSION: Findings provide robust evidence of diagnostic utility and timeliness of ES and GS and will inform policy related to the organization, delivery, and reimbursement of clinical-grade genome diagnostics for rare diseases.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2025

A microcosting and cost consequence analysis from a randomized controlled trial comparing genome sequencing with exome sequencing for genetic diagnosis.

PURPOSE: Diagnosing rare diseases is costly. The objectives were to microcost exome (ES) and genome sequencing (GS) trios and estimate the incremental costs of GS per additional diagnosis from an institutional payer perspective. METHODS: Trios (proband plus biological parents) that are referred for sequencing were randomly assigned to ES or GS. Laboratory workflow and sequencing were microcosted. Total and category cost per trio were estimated probabilistically. Effectiveness was expressed as diagnostic yield (rates of diagnostic or partially diagnostic variants detected). Incremental costs and effectiveness were calculated. RESULTS: The mean total cost per trio was CAD 2888.79 (95% CI 2567.72, 3492.72) for ES (n = 329) and 4364.02 (95% CI 3984.94, 5013.67) for GS (n = 324). Reagents accounted for 34% and 61% of total costs for ES and GS, respectively. The incremental cost of GS was 1475.23. The diagnostic yield was 35.9% for ES and 32.7% for GS with a difference of 0.032 (95% CI: -0.041, 0.104, P value .397). CONCLUSION: GS demonstrated higher costs and a similar diagnostic yield to ES but was limited by technical capabilities at the time of the study. The study provides comprehensive costs for the economic evaluation comparing alternative diagnostic pathways and impetus for further evaluating variants uniquely detectable by GS.

Humans↗

PubMed2025

The Clinician-reported Genetic Testing Utility InDEx for Neonatal Intensive Care (C-GUIDE NICU): Quantifying genome-wide sequencing utility in the NICU.

PURPOSE: Use of genomic sequencing (GS) in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) has increased with improved diagnostic yield. However, uncertainty persists regarding when and for whom GS is most useful. Because a standardized approach to assessing utility is lacking, we developed a novel version of the Clinician-reported Genetic testing Utility InDEx (C-GUIDE) to quantify the utility of GS in NICUs. METHODS: Informed by a scoping review, we developed a draft C-GUIDE NICU tool to quantify utility, which underwent iterative revisions through feedback from clinician interviews and questionnaires on item relevance, comprehensibility, and comprehensiveness. We finalized the expert-informed C-GUIDE NICU using an international Delphi consensus process. RESULTS: Scoping review (n = 25 articles) and interviews (n = 21) revealed key themes of utility. Guided by qualitative feedback and item scoring, C-GUIDE was iteratively reduced to include 21, 18, and 14 items. The Delphi consensus process with 22 experts achieved item consensus and stability, yielding a final 10-item tool. CONCLUSION: Using a rigorous process, we developed a consensus-based standardized method for capturing the clinical utility of GS in NICUs. C-GUIDE NICU can be used by clinicians, researchers, and payers to assess GS value to patient care and will be available for licensed use following reliability and validity testing.

Humans↗