Biomedical subjects

Meredith K Gillespie

Publications and source records attributed to Meredith K Gillespie.

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

Mainstreaming of clinical genetic testing: A conceptual framework.

PURPOSE: Demand for genetic testing is increasing across medicine, whereas the genetics workforce remains stable. In response, mainstreaming models are being introduced, in which nongeneticist clinicians are increasingly involved in the genetic testing pathway. Because a standardized approach would facilitate evaluation and optimal patient care, a unified framework is warranted. METHODS: Through a focus group with clinical genetics experts, a conceptual framework for the mainstreaming of clinical genetic testing is proposed. Through a consensus process, experts elucidated the steps in the diagnostic care pathway and defined a set of variables that influence which mainstreaming model is best suited to specific patient care scenarios. RESULTS: A total of 35 individuals representing 20 distinct clinical genetics services and all Canadian provinces participated in the development of the framework. The framework describes 4 generalizable mainstreaming models of care, each with varying levels of involvement of the clinical genetics service in the diagnostic care pathway. CONCLUSION: This framework will help guide clinical teams in the design and evaluation of mainstreaming efforts. It is critical that these programs are evaluated and shared in a standardized way so that we can implement strategies that allow optimal utilization of genetics resources and improve patient care.

Humans↗