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.

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.

Infants born via cesarean delivery with longer length of hospital stay have a decreased risk for readmission. As hospitals implement protocols to standardize length of stay, mode of delivery may be a useful factor to identify late-preterm infants at higher risk for readmission.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.