Inherited metabolic disorders in adults: systematic review on patient characteristics and diagnostic yield of broad sequencing techniques (exome and genome sequencing).
adults
diagnostics
exome sequencing
genome sequencing
genomics
inherited metabolic disorders (IMD)
metabolic
Journal
Frontiers in neurology
ISSN: 1664-2295
Titre abrégé: Front Neurol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101546899
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
14
04
2023
accepted:
26
06
2023
medline:
10
8
2023
pubmed:
10
8
2023
entrez:
10
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The timely diagnosis of inherited metabolic disorders (IMD) is essential for initiating treatment, prognostication and genetic testing of relatives. Recognition of IMD in adults is difficult, because phenotypes are different from those in children and influenced by symptoms from acquired conditions. This systematic literature review aims to answer the following questions: (1) What is the diagnostic yield of exome/genome sequencing (ES/GS) for IMD in adults with unsolved phenotypes? (2) What characteristics do adult patients diagnosed with IMD through ES/GS have? A systematic search was conducted using the following search terms (simplified): "Whole exome sequencing (WES)," "Whole genome sequencing (WGS)," "IMD," "diagnostics" and the 1,450 known metabolic genes derived from ICIMD. Data from 695 articles, including 27,702 patients, were analyzed using two different methods. First, the diagnostic yield for IMD in patients presenting with a similar phenotype was calculated. Secondly, the characteristics of patients diagnosed with IMD through ES/GS in adulthood were established. The diagnostic yield of ES and/or GS for adult patients presenting with unexplained neurological symptoms is 11% and for those presenting with dyslipidemia, diabetes, auditory and cardiovascular symptoms 10, 9, 8 and 7%, respectively. IMD patients diagnosed in adulthood (n = 1,426), most frequently portray neurological symptoms (65%), specifically extrapyramidal/cerebellar symptoms (57%), intellectual disability/dementia/psychiatric symptoms (41%), pyramidal tract symptoms/myelopathy (37%), peripheral neuropathy (18%), and epileptic seizures (16%). The second most frequently observed symptoms were ophthalmological (21%). In 47% of the IMD diagnosed patients, symptoms from multiple organ systems were reported. On average, adult patients are diagnosed 15 years after first presenting symptoms. Disease-related abnormalities in metabolites in plasma, urine or cerebral spinal fluid were identified in 40% of all patients whom underwent metabolic screening. In 52% the diagnosis led to identification of affected family members with the same IMD. ES and/or GS is likely to yield an IMD diagnosis in adult patients presenting with an unexplained neurological phenotype, as well as in patients with a phenotype involving multiple organ systems. If a gene panel does not yield a conclusive diagnosis, it is worthwhile to analyze all known disease genes. Further prospective research is needed to establish the best diagnostic approach (type and sequence of metabolic and genetic test) in adult patients presenting with a wide range of symptoms, suspected of having an IMD. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42021295156.
Sections du résumé
Background/Objectives
UNASSIGNED
The timely diagnosis of inherited metabolic disorders (IMD) is essential for initiating treatment, prognostication and genetic testing of relatives. Recognition of IMD in adults is difficult, because phenotypes are different from those in children and influenced by symptoms from acquired conditions. This systematic literature review aims to answer the following questions: (1) What is the diagnostic yield of exome/genome sequencing (ES/GS) for IMD in adults with unsolved phenotypes? (2) What characteristics do adult patients diagnosed with IMD through ES/GS have?
Methods
UNASSIGNED
A systematic search was conducted using the following search terms (simplified): "Whole exome sequencing (WES)," "Whole genome sequencing (WGS)," "IMD," "diagnostics" and the 1,450 known metabolic genes derived from ICIMD. Data from 695 articles, including 27,702 patients, were analyzed using two different methods. First, the diagnostic yield for IMD in patients presenting with a similar phenotype was calculated. Secondly, the characteristics of patients diagnosed with IMD through ES/GS in adulthood were established.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The diagnostic yield of ES and/or GS for adult patients presenting with unexplained neurological symptoms is 11% and for those presenting with dyslipidemia, diabetes, auditory and cardiovascular symptoms 10, 9, 8 and 7%, respectively. IMD patients diagnosed in adulthood (n = 1,426), most frequently portray neurological symptoms (65%), specifically extrapyramidal/cerebellar symptoms (57%), intellectual disability/dementia/psychiatric symptoms (41%), pyramidal tract symptoms/myelopathy (37%), peripheral neuropathy (18%), and epileptic seizures (16%). The second most frequently observed symptoms were ophthalmological (21%). In 47% of the IMD diagnosed patients, symptoms from multiple organ systems were reported. On average, adult patients are diagnosed 15 years after first presenting symptoms. Disease-related abnormalities in metabolites in plasma, urine or cerebral spinal fluid were identified in 40% of all patients whom underwent metabolic screening. In 52% the diagnosis led to identification of affected family members with the same IMD.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
ES and/or GS is likely to yield an IMD diagnosis in adult patients presenting with an unexplained neurological phenotype, as well as in patients with a phenotype involving multiple organ systems. If a gene panel does not yield a conclusive diagnosis, it is worthwhile to analyze all known disease genes. Further prospective research is needed to establish the best diagnostic approach (type and sequence of metabolic and genetic test) in adult patients presenting with a wide range of symptoms, suspected of having an IMD.
Systematic review registration
UNASSIGNED
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42021295156.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37560457
doi: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1206106
pmc: PMC10408679
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
1206106Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Ferreira, Buijs, Wijngaard, Daams, Datema, Engelen, Karnebeek, Oud, Vaz, Wamelink, Crabben and Langeveld.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2021 Nov 11;385(20):1868-1880
pubmed: 34758253
Semin Neonatol. 2002 Feb;7(1):3-15
pubmed: 12069534
Virchows Arch. 2019 Dec;475(6):671-686
pubmed: 31363843
Neurol Clin Pract. 2017 Dec;7(6):518-522
pubmed: 29431165
Genet Med. 2015 May;17(5):405-24
pubmed: 25741868
J Inherit Metab Dis. 2018 May;41(3):571-582
pubmed: 29362952
Lancet Reg Health West Pac. 2021 Dec 12;19:100344
pubmed: 35024668
EBioMedicine. 2020 Jun;56:102784
pubmed: 32454403
Am J Hum Genet. 1999 Feb;64(2):479-94
pubmed: 9973285
Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2020 Aug 18;15(1):210
pubmed: 32811506
J Inherit Metab Dis. 2022 Jul;45(4):663-681
pubmed: 35506430
Mol Genet Metab Rep. 2020 Oct 01;25:100653
pubmed: 33072517
Sudan J Paediatr. 2011;11(1):20-8
pubmed: 27493302
J Inherit Metab Dis. 2021 Jan;44(1):164-177
pubmed: 33340416
J Biol Chem. 2022 Sep;298(9):102320
pubmed: 35933016
PLoS One. 2014 Jan 22;9(1):e86340
pubmed: 24466038
Mol Genet Metab Rep. 2017 Feb 03;10:92-95
pubmed: 28224082
JIMD Rep. 2016;27:85-91
pubmed: 26450566
Ann Indian Acad Neurol. 2022 Jan-Feb;25(1):106-113
pubmed: 35342266
Ann Transl Med. 2018 Dec;6(24):467
pubmed: 30740398
Nucleic Acids Res. 2017 Jan 4;45(D1):D865-D876
pubmed: 27899602
Brain. 2007 Jan;130(Pt 1):120-33
pubmed: 17003072
Mol Vis. 2021 Dec 07;27:706-717
pubmed: 35002215
Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 5;5(1):210
pubmed: 27919275
Ann Saudi Med. 2010 Jul-Aug;30(4):271-7
pubmed: 20622343