Original Investigation | Pediatrics Comparison of Untargeted Metabolomic Profiling vs Traditional Metabolic Screening to Identify Inborn Errors of

Ning Liu, PhD; Jing Xiao, PhD; Charul Gijavanekar, PhD; Kirk L. Pappan, PhD; Kevin E. Glinton, MD, PhD; Brian J. Shayota, MD; Adam D. Kennedy, PhD; Qin Sun, PhD; V. Reid Sutton, MD; Sarah H. Elsea, PhD

Abstract Key Points Question Is untargeted metabolomic IMPORTANCE Recent advances in newborn screening (NBS) have improved the diagnosis of inborn profiling associated with a significant errors of metabolism (IEMs); however, many potentially treatable IEMs are not included on NBS increase in the diagnostic rate of panels, nor are they covered in standard, first-line biochemical testing. screening for inborn errors of metabolism (IEMs) compared with the OBJECTIVE To examine the utility of untargeted metabolomics as a primary screening tool for IEMs traditional metabolic screening by comparing the diagnostic rate of clinical metabolomics with the recommended traditional approach? metabolic screening approach. Findings This cross-sectional analysis DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cross-sectional study compares data from 4464 of 4464 traditional metabolic screening clinical samples received from 1483 unrelated families referred for trio testing of plasma amino acids, samples and 2000 plasma metabolomic plasma acylcarnitine profiling, and urine organic acids (June 2014 to October 2018) and 2000 screening samples received at a clinical consecutive plasma samples from 1807 unrelated families (July 2014 to February 2019) received for biochemical laboratory between July clinical metabolomic screening at a College of American Pathologists and Clinical Laboratory 2014 and February 2019 found a 1.3% Improvement Amendments–certified biochemical genetics laboratory. Data analysis was performed diagnostic rate for traditional metabolic from September 2019 to August 2020. screening, whereas clinical metabolomics supported diagnosis EXPOSURES Metabolic and molecular tests performed at a genetic testing reference laboratory in in 7.1% of cases, providing an the US and available clinical information for each patient were assessed to determine diagnostic rate. approximately 6-fold higher diagnostic rate in screening for IEMs and MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The diagnostic rate of traditional metabolic screening identifying more disorders and more compared with clinical metabolomic profiling was assessed in the context of expanded NBS. disease types compared with the traditional screening approach. RESULTS Of 1483 cases screened by the traditional approach, 912 patients (61.5%) were male and Meaning With expanded newborn 1465 (98.8%) were pediatric (mean [SD] age, 4.1 [6.0] years; range, 0-65 years). A total of 19 families screening available in all states in the US, were identified with IEMs, resulting in a 1.3% diagnostic rate. A total of 14 IEMs were detected, a broader approach to primary including 3 conditions not included in the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel for NBS. Of the screening for IEMs is needed, and these 1807 unrelated families undergoing plasma metabolomic profiling, 1059 patients (58.6%) were male, data support the application of and 1665 (92.1%) were pediatric (mean [SD] age, 8.1 [10.4] years; range, 0-80 years). Screening untargeted clinical metabolomics to identified 128 unique cases with IEMs, giving an overall diagnostic rate of 7.1%. In total, 70 different serve as a primary screening approach. metabolic conditions were identified, including 49 conditions not presently included on the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel for NBS. + Supplemental content CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE These findings suggest that untargeted metabolomics provided Author affiliations and article information are a 6-fold higher diagnostic yield compared with the conventional screening approach and identified listed at the end of this article. a broader spectrum of IEMs. Notably, with the expansion of NBS programs, traditional metabolic testing approaches identify few disorders beyond those covered on the NBS. These data support the

(continued)

Open Access. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(7):e2114155. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14155 (Reprinted) July 12, 2021 1/14

Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ on 09/29/2021 JAMA Network Open | Pediatrics Untargeted Metabolomic Profiling vs Traditional Screening to Identify Inborn Errors of Metabolism

Abstract (continued) capability of clinical untargeted metabolomics in screening for IEMs and suggest that broader screening approaches should be considered in the initial evaluation for metabolic disorders.

JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(7):e2114155. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14155

Introduction

Early detection and diagnosis of inborn errors of metabolism (IEMs) are imperative because many conditions are amenable to treatment, and sequelae that develop before therapy is initiated are often irreversible.1-3 Newborn screening (NBS) is the first-tier assessment of IEMs and aims to identify apparently healthy newborns with serious conditions to improve neonatal and lifelong health outcomes. As a result of advances in tandem mass spectrometry technology, NBS has expanded, and 49 metabolic conditions, including 25 core conditions and 24 secondary conditions, are currently listed on the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel (RUSP) with variations in different states. However, many treatable IEMs are not included on the RUSP; thus, individuals with signs and symptoms of an IEM still require further testing, even when the NBS findings are normal. The standard diagnostic approach for IEMs involves the recognition of symptoms and routine laboratory abnormalities followed by biochemical and/or genetic testing. Clinically, IEMs have a wide range of presentations, from acute to chronic, involving virtually any tissue or organ of the human body, and clinical manifestations may arise at different periods, ranging from neonatal to late adulthood.4,5 Therefore, the nonspecific nature of these sequelae often presents diagnostic challenges. Laboratory assessments of metabolic disorders may be prolonged because the standard approach involves multiple, and often sequential, targeted biochemical tests.1,6 Optimal evaluation of patients presenting with nonspecific neurological findings, including intellectual disability, global developmental delays, or spectrum disorder, follows recommendations provided by the American Academy of Neurology, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry, stating that first-line screening for IEMs should be considered in the initial evaluation.7-9 The traditional metabolic screening approach includes a trio of biochemical analyses: plasma amino acids (PAA), plasma acylcarnitine profile (ACP), and urine organic acids (UOA). NBS targets 43 of 49 disorders diagnosable by this trio of tests, and, to our knowledge, no recent studies have assessed the current diagnostic rate for this trio of tests in the era of expanded NBS (eTable 1 in the Supplement). Clinical metabolomics, a broad, comprehensive analysis of small molecules in body fluids, uses liquid chromatography–coupled mass spectrometry and is sensitive, with diverse coverage.10,11 This method is capable of detecting multiple metabolites with varying chemical properties in a single test for the global analysis of perturbations in biochemical pathways that would otherwise require multiple targeted tests. The potential application of untargeted metabolomics to clinical diagnostic screening for IEMs in the precision medicine era is supported by multiple published studies.12-15 To test our hypothesis that untargeted metabolomics could function as a primary initial screen for IEMs, we assessed data from a large-scale clinical analysis of 2000 clinical metabolomic samples to determine the diagnostic rate compared with that of traditional metabolic screening (PAA, ACP, and UOA).

Methods

This study was approved by the Baylor College of Medicine institutional review board with a waiver of informed consent because this study was performed to assess effectiveness of clinical laboratory testing, involved no more than minimal risk to the participants, could not be performed practicably without the waiver, and would not adversely affect the rights and welfare of the participants. All

JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(7):e2114155. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14155 (Reprinted) July 12, 2021 2/14

Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ on 09/29/2021 JAMA Network Open | Pediatrics Untargeted Metabolomic Profiling vs Traditional Screening to Identify Inborn Errors of Metabolism

laboratory testing reported in this study was performed at the request of the referring clinician and in the process of clinical care of the patient. This study follows the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guideline.

Patient Population This cross-sectional study compared data from 2 different cohorts: a traditional metabolic screening cohort and a metabolomic screening cohort defined by the tests ordered in our clinical laboratory. The traditional screening cohort included samples from 1488 consecutive patients from 1483 unrelated families (4464 clinical samples collected in total, 1 sample each for 3 tests) referred for clinical biochemical testing from June 2014 through October 2018. All individuals underwent PAA, ACP, and UOA analyses from samples collected on the same day. Most samples received were not submitted with a clinical indication or phenotyping information; however, it is likely that most were obtained to screen for IEMs or follow-up of equivocal results from other testing, including NBS. The clinical metabolomic screening cohort consisted of plasma samples from 1807 unrelated families (2000 clinical samples collected in total) assessed by untargeted metabolomic profiling between July 2014 and February 2019, including 158 families that were also analyzed by traditional screening approach. Only the initial plasma metabolomic samples collected from the probands were included in our analysis pipeline, as the metabolites of the repeated specimens may not accurately reflect the real disease states because of dietary or medication management. Most of the clinical metabolomic samples were submitted with detailed descriptions of the patient’s clinical phenotype. A request for traditional targeted biochemical testing and/or metabolomic testing was made solely at the discretion of the referring health care practitioner with no required or potential criteria and no filtering by the laboratory reflecting the unbiased comparison of these approaches. All testing was performed in the clinical biochemical genetics laboratory at Baylor Genetics. Untargeted clinical metabolomics was performed in collaboration with Metabolon, Inc. Both laboratories are certified by the College of American Pathologists and in compliance with the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments.

Procedures Targeted clinical biochemical tests (PAA, ACP, and UOA) were performed as described previously (eAppendix 1 in the Supplement).13 Clinical metabolomic profiling of plasma was developed and performed through a collaboration between Baylor College of Medicine, Baylor Genetics, and Metabolon, Inc, and was performed as previously described (eAppendix 2 in the Supplement).10,11,13,16-20

Analysis Pipeline and Diagnostic Criteria Testing results from PAA, ACP, and UOA analyses were reviewed, analyzed, and interpreted by board- certified clinical biochemical geneticists through a standard data analysis pipeline (Figure 1A). A case was classified as abnormal when substantial abnormal results were detected in a single sample, such as the presence, reduction, or elevation of specific diagnostic markers for known metabolic disorders, or when combined results of PAA, ACP, and/or UOA analyses suggested a pattern indicating a possible IEM. When no substantial abnormalities were detected, the patient was not further considered in the analysis pipeline. An abnormal case was classified as diagnosed after in-depth analysis considering all other data collected from the patient. To facilitate this analysis, all available clinical and genetic details were considered, including clinical phenotype, metabolomic profiling analysis, targeted biochemical diagnostic testing results, and molecular testing results, which may include exome sequencing, microarray, cytogenetic analysis, fluorescent in situ hybridization, targeted sequencing panels, mitochondrial DNA sequencing, and/or mitochondrial DNA copy number analysis. Data were integrated, reviewed, and interpreted by an interdisciplinary analysis team according to current American College of and Genomics and Association for Molecular Pathology guidelines. A case was considered confirmed only

JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(7):e2114155. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14155 (Reprinted) July 12, 2021 3/14

Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ on 09/29/2021 JAMA Network Open | Pediatrics Untargeted Metabolomic Profiling vs Traditional Screening to Identify Inborn Errors of Metabolism

when available clinical presentation, genetic testing results, and follow-up evaluations were consistent with the biochemical findings for a diagnosis of IEMs. Cases with a definitive diagnosis were pooled, and the positive diagnostic rate was determined. To assess clinical metabolomic screening outcomes, a similar global meta-analysis pipeline was applied to provide an in-depth analysis for every clinical sample. The cases in the metabolomic cohort with substantial biochemical abnormalities were divided into different categories according to whether the biochemical profiles were (1) specific for, (2) indicative of, or (3) nonspecific for an IEM (Figure 1B). Further in-depth analysis of these categories by integrating other findings were applied to confirm or exclude the diagnosis for each case (the same pipeline as described already for the traditional screening approach). Of note, some cases were not classified as positive in this analysis even though metabolomic profiling data were consistent with a disease pattern; this underestimate of final positive diagnostic rate was due either to metabolomic data not being definitively diagnostic for the specific condition and/or the absence of other testing to confirm the diagnosis. As a reference laboratory, follow-up and/or comprehensive clinical data were not available for all patients tested.

Figure 1. Assessment of Clinical Samples Referred for Metabolic Screening

A Analysis of clinical samples received for traditional B Analysis of clinical samples received for plasma clinical metabolomic profiling biochemical screening approach

1483 Traditional screening 1807 Metabolomic screening cohort (plasma) approach cohort

895 Normal or no substantial 1324 Normal or no substantial metabolomic abnormalities metabolic abnormalities

912 Metabolic abnormalities identified 159 Biochemical abnormalities indicate suspicion of diagnosis of IEM 128 Abnormalities were 655 Abnormalities were 129 Abnormalities were diagnostic for IEM suggestive of a specific nonspecific for an IEM 19 Confirmed by integration category of IEM of all available genetic information from patients 71 Ruled out by integrated 84 Confirmed by integration of all 40 Confirmed by integration 3 Confirmed by integration of other biochemical and available genetic information of all available genetic metabolomic, biochemical sequencing testing from patients information from patients and sequencing data, and 69 No follow-up data available 56 Metabolomics, sequencing 36 Metabolomics, sequencing clinical phenotypes data, and clinical data, and clinical 3 Confirmed by further phenotypes were phenotypes were targeted biochemical tests consistent for IEM consistent for IEM 1 Metabolomics and clinical 28 Confirmed by further 18 Confirmed by further phenotypes were consistent targeted biochemical targeted biochemical for non-IEM condition tests tests 5 Ruled out by integrated 28 Metabolomics and clinical 4 Metabolomics and clinical targeted biochemical and features were consistent features were consistent sequencing testing for IEM for IEM 120 No follow-up data available 16 Confirmed by further 2 Confirmed by further targeted biochemical targeted biochemical tests tests 44 No follow-up data available 53 Ruled out by integrated targeted biochemical and sequencing testing 562 No follow-up data available

128 Confirmed diagnostic cases in total 67 Metabolomics findings confirmed by targeted biochemical tests

A, Analysis of clinical samples received for traditional biochemical screening. Patients metabolomics. Patients referred for plasma metabolomic profiling between July 2014 referred for targeted traditional screening approaches including plasma amino acids, and February 2019 were evaluated to provide a comprehensive and in-depth analysis. urine organic acids, and plasma acylcarnitine profile between June 2014 and October Numbers represent unique, unrelated families. IEMs indicates inborn errors of 2018 were reviewed and all associated patient data evaluated. Numbers represent metabolism. unrelated families. B, Analysis of clinical samples received for plasma untargeted clinical

JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(7):e2114155. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14155 (Reprinted) July 12, 2021 4/14

Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ on 09/29/2021 JAMA Network Open | Pediatrics Untargeted Metabolomic Profiling vs Traditional Screening to Identify Inborn Errors of Metabolism

Statistical Analysis Data were collected from samples received between July 2014 and February 2019. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the clinical data using Excel for Mac spreadsheet software version 16.30 (Microsoft). Available current clinical data from all referred cases were gathered and analyzed from September 2019 to August 2020.

Results

Traditional Metabolic Screening for IEMs Demographic Characteristics of Clinical Cases Traditional metabolic screening performed on samples from 1483 families submitted to the biochemical genetics laboratory for traditional metabolic screening was primarily pediatric (1465 children [98.8%]; mean [SD] age, 4.1 [6.0] years; range, 0-65 years), including 912 (61.5%) male patients. The cohort included 1016 children younger than 5 years (68.5%), 449 children and adolescents aged 5 to 21 years (30.3%), and 18 individuals older than 21 years (1.2%) (Table 1). Limited clinical information was provided for each patient; however, most samples were submitted because of nonspecific neurological presentations, whereas others were submitted for the follow-up of abnormal NBS results.

Traditional Metabolic Screening Findings By following a multistep workflow pipeline for data integration and analysis (Figure 1A and as described in the Methods), 159 of 1483 families (10.7%) with biochemical abnormalities were identified. Further integrated analysis revealed that 19 of 159 cases (11.9%) were considered diagnostic for an IEM, giving a final positive diagnostic rate of 1.3% (19 of 1483 cases), whereas an IEM was ruled out for 71 cases (44.7%). The remaining 69 cases (43.4%) lacked other available testing information to confirm the diagnosis. In total, 14 IEMs were identified (Table 1 and eTable 2 in the Supplement). With the exception of L-2/D-2-hydroxyglutaric aciduria, homocystinuria megaloblastic anemia, cblG type, and ethylmalonic encephalopathy, 11 of 14 conditions (78.6%) are included on the RUSP, including 7 conditions covered by the core conditions and 4 disorders covered by RUSP secondary conditions, corresponding to a diagnostic rate of 0.2% for non-RUSP IEMs (3 of 1483 IEMs).

Metabolomic Screening for IEMs Demographic Characteristics of Clinical Cases A global meta-analysis process was applied to delineate the findings from plasma metabolomic profiling of 2000 consecutive clinical samples from 1807 unrelated families tested in a similar period as traditional metabolic screening (Table 1). Laboratory sample submission requirements included a detailed clinical note and laboratory test history; however, this guideline was followed only approximately 75% of the time, limiting the analysis of data. In this cohort, most patients were pediatric (1665 patients [92.1%]; mean [SD] age, 8.1 [10.4] years; range, 0-80 years) and male (1059

Table 1. Cohort Demographic Characteristics and Comparison of Diagnostic Rate Between Clinical Metabolomics and Traditional Metabolic Screening Approaches

Patients, No. (%) Overall screening resultsa Screening cohort, Positive diagnostic Screening methods No. of samples Male Age <21 y Neurological Positive cases, No. Identified IEMs, No. rate, % Traditional approach 4464 912 (61.5) 1465 (98.8) NA 19 14 (11 covered by RUSP) 1.3 (plasma, urine) (n = 1483 families) Metabolomics (plasma) 2000 1059 (58.6) 1665 (92.1) 1464 (81) 128 70 (21 covered by RUSP) 7.1 (n = 1807 families) Abbreviations: IEMs, inborn errors of metabolism; NA, not available; RUSP, Recommended Uniform Screening Panel. a A total of 158 families appeared in both cohorts with 20 of 158 (12.7%) receiving a diagnosis; however, 7 of 158 (4.4%) were positively screened by both testing approaches, whereas 13 of 158 (8.2%) were identified only by metabolomics.

JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(7):e2114155. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14155 (Reprinted) July 12, 2021 5/14

Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ on 09/29/2021 JAMA Network Open | Pediatrics Untargeted Metabolomic Profiling vs Traditional Screening to Identify Inborn Errors of Metabolism

patients [58.6%]), including 894 children younger than 5 years (49.5%), 771 children and adolescents aged 5 to 21 years (42.6%), and 142 individuals older than 21 years (7.9%). In this cohort, 1464 patients (81.0%) presented with autism spectrum disorder, speech delay, hypotonia, and/or , whereas 219 (12.1%) had nonneurological presentations. Clinical data were not provided for the remaining 124 (6.9%) patients.

Overview of Metabolomic Screening In each individual plasma sample, a mean (SD) of 776 (130) metabolites were detected, and 620 (78) metabolites were z-scored. An integrated analysis of metabolomic data considered all available clinical and genetic information for every patient and followed a step-by-step filtering workflow pipeline (Figure 1B). A total of 1807 unique families were stratified according to the metabolic abnormalities revealed by plasma metabolomic profiling into 2 major categories: 912 families (50.5%) with substantial alterations of disease-associated analytes and 895 families (49.5%) with normal or not substantially abnormal profiles. Among the 912 families with abnormal results, biochemical patterns were categorized as follows: (1) specific and diagnostic for an IEM (128 of 912 families [14.0%]); (2) suggestive of a single IEM or single category of IEM but not definitive (655 of 912 families [71.8%]); or (3) abnormal but nonspecific for a known disease of category (129 of 912 families [14.1%]). Among the 128 families in the diagnostic category, 84 (65.6%) were further confirmed as positive according to additional testing, and 39 different metabolic conditions were identified. The remaining 44 families (34.4%) did not have additional testing available for absolute confirmation of diagnosis and were considered diagnostic on the basis of the metabolomic profile; however, according to our strict assessment criteria, these cases were not included in the final number of confirmed cases reported here. Details of positive diagnosed cases and known and novel disease-related secondary analytes revealed by metabolomics21-35 are reported in Table 2 and eTable 3 in the Supplement. Among the 655 families in the suggestive category (Figure 1B), 40 families (6.1%) were confirmed by further testing, including 36 families (90.0%) confirmed via molecular testing. In 53 families (8.1%), a suspected diagnosis was ruled out, and the remaining 562 families (85.8%) were not analyzed because of the lack of available information. This analysis identified 36 different conditions in this category (eTable 3 in the Supplement). For the remaining 129 families in the nonspecific category, the inclusion of sequencing data, as well as other genetic information, led to confirmed diagnoses in 3 families (2.3%) with identification of 3 different conditions and 1 non-IEM condition in 1 family (0.78%), whereas suspected diagnoses were ruled out for 5 families (3.9%) (Table 2 and eTable 3 in the Supplement). The remaining 120 families (93.0%) were not further analyzed because of a lack of information. In total, our analysis confirmed 128 of 912 cases (14.0%) as positive, including 95 cases that were confirmed by molecular testing and 67 cases that had confirmation with additional targeted quantitative metabolic testing, further supporting the reliability of metabolomic profiling. A conservative overall diagnostic rate of 7.1% (approximately 6-fold higher than that for traditional screening) was determined in our cohort of 1807 families.

Metabolomic Profiling Expands Diagnostic Screening for IEMs Through this comprehensive, integrated analysis, we were able to successfully identify either key diagnostic metabolites or related secondary metabolites for 70 distinct IEMs in 128 unique families (Table 2 and eTable 3 in the Supplement). Although 21 of these conditions are on the RUSP, including 13 disorders covered as core conditions and 8 as secondary conditions, 49 identified IEMs (70.0%) are not presently included on the RUSP and represent a wide variety of metabolic disorders, including amino acidopathies, organic acidemias, fatty acid oxidation disorders, vitamin or deficiencies, carbohydrate metabolism disorders, mitochondrial respiratory chain defects, peroxisomal disorders, disorders, and neurotransmitter abnormalities; 26 of

JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(7):e2114155. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14155 (Reprinted) July 12, 2021 6/14

Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ on 09/29/2021 JAMA Network Open | Pediatrics Untargeted Metabolomic Profiling vs Traditional Screening to Identify Inborn Errors of Metabolism

Table 2. IEMs Identified by Plasma Clinical Metabolomic Screening

RUSP category and IEM No. IEM name OMIM No.a Family No. Key disease-related analytes detected in plasmab Conditions not on RUSP 1 Adenylosuccinase deficiency (ADSLD)23 103050 28, 85, 390, 499, N6-succinyladenosine 584, 1749 2 AICA-ribosiduria due to ATIC deficiency 608688 1797 N6-succinyladenosine 3 α-methylacyl-CoA racemase deficiency (AMACRD)c 614307 847 Phytanate, 7-α-hydroxy-3-oxo-4-cholestenoated 4 Aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase deficiency 608643 180, 812 3-Methoxytyrosine, 3-methoxytyramine sulfate ↓,d vanillylmandelate ↓, (AADCD)18,24 dopamine 3-O-sulfate ↓d 5 Autism, susceptibility to, X-linked 6 (AUTSX6) 300872 576, 814, 1461 N6,N6,N6-trimethyllysine, acetylcarnitine ↓, propionylcarnitine ↓, carnitine ↓, deoxycarnitine ↓ 6 β-ureidopropionase deficiency (UPB1D) 613161 1258 3-Ureidopropionate, 5,6-dihydrothymine, 5,6-, 3-aminoisobutyrate ↓ 7 Brown-Vialetto-Van Laere syndrome 2 (BVVLS2)21 614707 1757 Riboflavin (due to initiation of supplement), pyridoxine and pyridoxate (normalized in response to riboflavin), medium chain (C6, C8, C10:1) and very long chain acylcarnitines (C24), 2-hydroxyglutarate, methylsuccinate, ethylmalonate, kynurenine,d N-formylanthranilic acid,d kynurenate ↓,d picolinate ↓,d methionine sulfone ↓d 8 synthetase I deficiency, 237300 184 Pyroglutamine,d citrulline ↓ hyperammonemia due to 9 Cerebral creatine deficiency syndrome 2 (CCDS2) 612736 57, 234, 347, Guanidinoacetate, creatine ↓ 1550 10 D-bifunctional protein deficiency33 261515 958, 1486 1-Lignoceroyl-GPC (24:0), docosadienoate, multiple sphingomyelins ↓, phosphatidylcholines ↓ 11 Developmental and epileptic encephalopathy 25, 615905 39, 41, 52 Citrate with amelogenesis imperfecta (DEE25)26 12 Dihydrolipoamide dehydrogenase deficiency (DLDD) 246900 137 Lactate, pyruvate, 3-methyl-2-oxobutyrate,d 3-methyl-2-oxovalerate,d 4-methyl-2-oxopentanoate,d 2-hydroxyglutarate 13 Encephalopathy, ethylmalonic (EE)25 602473 430, 1246, 1470, Ethylmalonate, butyrylcarnitine, isobutyrylcarnitine, isovalerylcarnitine, 1603 glutarylcarnitine, 2-methylbutyrylcarnitine, methylsuccinate, phenol sulfate ↓, 3-indoxyl sulfate ↓, glycolithocholate sulfate ↓ 14 Epilepsy, pyridoxine-dependent (EPD) 266100 102, 933 Pipecolate, 6-oxopiperidine-2-carboxylate 15 Fructose intolerance, hereditary (HFI) 229600 902 Fructose 16 GABA-transaminase deficiency20 613163 27, 292, 387, 2-Pyrrolidinone,d succinimide,d succinamic acidd 1333 17 Glutaric aciduria III (GA3) 231690 207 Glutarate, arachidate (20:0),d octadecadienedioate (C18:2-DC),d hexadecanedioate,d octadecenedioate (C18:1-DC),d ximenoylcarnitine (C26:1)d 18 Glycerol kinase deficiency (GKD)27 307030 562, 987 Glycerol, long chain and very long chain monoacylglycerolsd 19 Glycine encephalopathy (GCE) 605899 514 Glycine 20 Glycogen storage disease 1A (GSD1A) 232200 1347 Lactate, urate, pyruvate, palmitoyl-linoleoyl-glycerol,d ↓ 21 Homocystinuria due to deficiency of n(5,10)- 236250 156 Methionine sulfoxide ↓,d betaine ↓, methionine ↓, methionine sulfone methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase activity ↓d 22 Homocystinuria-megaloblastic anemia, cblG 250940 923 S-adenosylhomocysteine,d methionine ↓ complementation type (HMAG) 23 Hyperornithinemia-hyperammonemia- 238970 557 Ornithine, homocitrulline, N-δ-acetylornithined homocitrullinuria syndrome (HHHS) 24 Isopentenyl-diphosphate delta 1 (IDI1)a 604055 1733 Deoxycholate,d 1-(1-enyl-stearoyl)-2-docosahexaenoyl-GPE (P-18:0/22:6),d octadecadienedioate (C18:2-DC),d dodecadienoate (12:2),d 1-(1-enyl-palmitoyl)-2-linoleoyl-GPE (P-16:0/18:2),d 1-(1- enyl-stearoyl)-2-linoleoyl-GPE (P-18:0/18:2),d 1,2-dilinoleoyl-GPC (18:2/18:2),d multiple sphingomyelins ↓ 25 L-2-hydroxyglutaric aciduria (L2HGA) 236792 469 2-Hydroxyglutaric acid 26 Lesch-Nyhan syndrome (LNS) 300322 358 Inosine, 27 Lipoyltransferase 1 deficiency (LIPT1D)28 616299 731 Leucine, isoleucine, valine, 2-hydroxyadipate, isovalerylcarnitine, glycine isovalerylglycine, isovalerylcarnitine (C5), 1-stearoyl-2- arachidonoyl-GPI (18:0/20:4), 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutarate, 2-aminoadipate, tyrosine, arginine, serine oxalate (ethanedioate) ↓, malonate ↓ 28 Liver failure, infantile, transient (LFIT) 613070 595 3-(4-Hydroxyphenyl) lactate,d phenyllactate,d 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate,d N-acetylphenylalanine,d fumarate,d alanine,d lactate, pyruvate, glycochenodeoxycholate,d glycohycholate,d taurocholate,d bilirubin 29 Lysinuric protein intolerance (LPI) 222700 1302 Ornithine ↓, urea ↓, arginine ↓, lysine ↓, dimethylarginine ↓d 30 Mitochondrial complex V (ATP synthase) deficiency, 614052 34, 1556 3-Methylglutaconate, 3-methylglutarylcarnitine, alanine, lactate nuclear type 2 (MC5DN2)

(continued)

JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(7):e2114155. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14155 (Reprinted) July 12, 2021 7/14

Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ on 09/29/2021 JAMA Network Open | Pediatrics Untargeted Metabolomic Profiling vs Traditional Screening to Identify Inborn Errors of Metabolism

Table 2. IEMs Identified by Plasma Clinical Metabolomic Screening (continued)

RUSP category and IEM No. IEM name OMIM No.a Family No. Key disease-related analytes detected in plasmab 31 Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome 1 603041 1120 Thymidine, , 5,6-dihydrothymine ↓ (mitochondrial neurogastrointestinal encephalomyopathy type) (MTDPS1)29 32 Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome 9 245400 50 Succinylcarnitine, propionylcarnitine, methylmalonate, (encephalomyopathic type with methylmalonic hexanoylcarnitine, butyrylcarnitine, malate ↓ aciduria) (MTDPS9) 33 Mitochondrial short-chain enoyl-CoA hydratase 1 616277 1261 β-hydroxyisovalerate, 1-lignoceroyl-GPC (24:0),d 3-hydroxy-3- deficiency (ECHS1D)30 methylglutarate, laurate (12:0)d 34 Multiple mitochondrial dysfunctions syndrome 1 605711 1469 Glycinee (MMDS1)31 35 Neurodegeneration, infantile-onset, biotin- 618973 171 Pantothenate (vitamin B5) ↓,d carnitine ↓,d multiple carnitine responsive (NERIB) derivatives ↓d 36 Ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency, 311250 177, 819, 1094 Orotate, ornithine, N-carbamoylaspartate,d uridine, uracil, alanine, hyperammonemia due to32 aspartate, glutamine, citrulline ↓, arginine ↓ 37 Peroxisome biogenesis disorder 1A (Zellweger) 214100 361 Pipecolate, docosadioate,d multiple sphingomyelins ↓ (PDB1A)33 38 Peroxisome biogenesis disorder 4A (Zellweger) 614862 440 Pipecolate, 1-lignoceryl-GPC,d 7-HOCA,d hexadecanedioate,d (PDB4A) octadecanedioate,d eicosanodioate,d docosadioate,d phytanate, multiple sphingomyelins ↓,d plasmalogens ↓, phosphatidylcholines ↓,d phosphatidylethanolamines ↓d 39 Peroxisome biogenesis disorder 8A (Zellweger) 614876 252 Pipecolate, phytanate, long chain fatty acids, 1-lignoceryl-GPC,d (PDB8A) 7-HOCA,d hexadecanedioate,d octadecanedioate,d eicosanodioate,d docosadioate,d phytanate, multiple sphingomyelins ↓,d plasmalogens ↓, phosphatidylcholines ↓,d phosphatidylethanolamines ↓d 40 Phosphoglycerate dehydrogenase deficiency 610992 1253 Serine ↓, glycine ↓, glycerophosphocholine ↓,d (PSATD)19 glycerophosphoethanolamine ↓,d multiple lipids ↓d 41 Phosphoserine aminotransferase deficiency 601815 863, 1063 Serine ↓, glycine ↓, glycerophosphocholine ↓,d (PHGDHD)19 glycerophosphoethanolamine ↓,d multiple lipids ↓d 42 Pyruvate dehydrogenase, α-1 (PDHA1) 300502 393 Lactate, pyruvate, alanine 43 Short stature, developmental delay, and congenital 617044 1034 Ribitol, arabitol/xylitol, ribonate, erythronate, arabonate/xylonate,d heart defects (SDDHD; TKT)34 erythritol, ribose 44 Smith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome (SLOS) 270400 373, 647 7-Dehydrocholesterol, cholesterol ↓ 45 Spastic paraplegia 9B, autosomal recessive (SPG9B) 616586 60, 1449 Proline ↓, ornithine ↓, citrulline ↓ 46 Spondyloepimetaphyseal dysplasia, Genevieve type 610442 1483 N-acetylglucosamine/N-acetylgalactosamine,d N-acetylneuraminate ↓ (SEMDG) 47 Succinic semialdehyde dehydrogenase deficiency 271980 721 2-Pyrrolidinone,d 4-guanidinobutanoated (SSADHD) 48 Transaldolase deficiency (TALDOD)34 606003 420, 1028 Ribitol, ribonate, erythronate, arabitol/xylitol, erythritol, sedoheptulose 49 Urocanase deficiency (UROCD)35 276880 606, 1411 Trans-urocanate, imidazole propionate,d cis-urocanate RUSP core conditions 50 Acyl-CoA dehydrogenase, medium-chain, deficiency 201450 226, 1441, 1602, Hexanoylcarnitine, octanoylcarnitine, hexanoylglycine, cis-4- of (ACADMD) 1800 decenoylcarnitine 51 Adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD) 300100 341 Numerous significant abnormalities in bile acid, fatty acid, and lipid metabolism 52 Carnitine deficiency, systemic primary (CDSP) 212140 704, 1222 Carnitine ↓, multiple acylcarnitines ↓ 53 Citrullinemia, classic32 215700 1006 Citrulline, N-acetylcitrullined 54 Galactosemia I (GALAC1) 230400 1489, 1519 Galactitol, galactonate 55 Glutaric acidemia I (GA1) 231670 916, 1091 Glutarylcarnitine, glutarate 56 HSD10 mitochondrial disease (HSD10MD) 300438 854, 1072, 1450 Tiglylcarnitine, tiglylglycine (rare), 2-hydroxy-3-methylvalerate, β-hydroxyisovalerate, isoleucine, 3-hydroxyisobutyrate, 3-hydroxy-2-ethylpropionate,d 2-methylbutyroylcarnitined 57 Isovaleric acidemia (IVA) 243500 1035 Isovalerylcarnitine, 2-methylbutyroylcarnitine, isovalerylglycine, isovalerate 58 Maple syrup urine disease (MSUD) 248600 86, 1648 Leucine, valine, isoleucine, allo-isoleucine, 2-hydroxy-3- methylvalerate, 3-methyl-2-oxovalerate, isovalerate, β-hydroxyisovalerate, N-acetylisoleucine,d N-acetylleucine,d 3-methyl-2-oxobutyrated 59 Methylmalonic aciduria due to methylmalonyl-CoA 251000 62, 792, 971, Propionylcarnitine, 2-methylcitrate, methylmalonate mutase deficiency 1121, 1178 60 Phenylketonuria (PKU) 261600 482, 672, 1191, Phenylalanine, phenylpyruvate, phenyllactate, phenylacetate, 1299 N-acetylphenylalanine,d N-formylphenylalanine,d 3-(4-hydroxyphenyl) lactated

(continued)

JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(7):e2114155. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14155 (Reprinted) July 12, 2021 8/14

Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ on 09/29/2021 JAMA Network Open | Pediatrics Untargeted Metabolomic Profiling vs Traditional Screening to Identify Inborn Errors of Metabolism

Table 2. IEMs Identified by Plasma Clinical Metabolomic Screening (continued)

RUSP category and IEM No. IEM name OMIM No.a Family No. Key disease-related analytes detected in plasmab 61 Propionic acidemia 606054 51, 127, 223, Propionylcarnitine, propionylglycine, 2-methylcitrate, glycine 1223 62 Tyrosinemia, type I (TYRSN1) 276700 791 3-(4-Hydroxyphenyl) lactate,d 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate, phenyllactate, tyrosine, N-acetyltyrosine RUSP secondary conditions 63 2-Methylbutyryl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency 610006 1274 2-Methylbutyroylcarnitine, 2-methylbutyrylglycine, 3-hydroxy-2- ethylpropionate, tiglylcarnitine, isobutyrylglycine 64 3-Hydroxyisobutyryl-CoA deficiency 250620 70 3-Hydroxyisobutyrate ↓ (HIBCHD) 65 Acyl-CoA dehydrogenase, short-chain, deficiency of 201470 253, 833 Ethylmalonate, butyrylcarnitine, methylsuccinate (ACADSD) 66 Argininemia32 207800 33, 254, 539, Arginine, argininate, N-acetylarginine, 2-oxoarginine, dimethylarginine, 650, 829, 1683 4-guanidinobutanoate, homoarginine, orotate, uracil, urea ↓, ornithine ↓ 67 Citrullinemia, type II, neonatal onset 605814 1753 Citrulline, homocitrulline,d arginine, argininate,d homoarginine,d methionine, phenyllactate, 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate, N-acetylphenylalanine,d argininosuccinate, bilirubin, galactonate, galactitol, cholesterol 68 Hyperphenylalaninemia, nonphenylketonuria mild, 261600 201 Phenylalanine, phenylpyruvate, phenyllactate included 69 Methylmalonic aciduria and homocystinuria, cblC 277400 315 Methylmalonate, 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaric acid, propionylcarnitine, type (MAHCC) methionine ↓ 70 Multiple acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency 231680 522, 1156, 1532 α-hydroxyisovalerate,d 2-hydroxy-3-methylvalerate, (MADD) 2-hydroxyglutarate, 2-methylbutyrylglycine, glutarate, glutarylcarnitine, ethylmalonate, methylsuccinate,d butyrylcarnitine and a wide variety of various acylcarnitines Abbreviations: ↓, Decrease in analyte; IEMs, inborn errors of metabolism; OMIM, Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man; RUSP, Recommended Uniform Screening Panel. a Mendelian Inheritance in Man numbers are shown for all disorders except isopentenyl-diphosphate-δ-isomerase 1 deficiency, for which the Mendelian Inheritance in Man gene number is provided (https://www.omim.org). b Analytes listed achieved a z score less than or equal to −2 or greater than or equal to 2 compared with reference control population or were identified as a rare molecule and were not z scored. All analytes listed represent elevations unless indicated with a downward arrow (↓). c Pristanate was not identified in this patient sample because of the absence of pristanate in the compound library at the early time of testing; the current platform identifies this metabolite as a rare compound. d Indicates analytes that were not previously reported for the indicated IEMs and may represent new biomarkers. e Elevated glycine and lactate were found in cerebrospinal fluid metabolomics.

Figure 2. Comparison of Metabolic Conditions Screened by Plasma Clinical Metabolomics, Traditional Metabolic Screening, and Newborn Screening (NBS)

16

Metabolomics only, not covered by RUSP 14 Metabolomics only, covered by RUSP 12 Metabolomics and traditional, not covered by RUSP

10 Metabolomics and traditional, covered by RUSP

8

6 No. of disorders No.

4

2

0 Carbohydrates Glycosylation Lipids Mitochondrial Nitrogen Peroxisomes Vitamins Category of inborn error of metabolism

In this cohort analysis, clinical metabolomics (plasma) identified 70 metabolic conditions that were categorized into 7 disease groups according to their respective biochemical pathways or disease groups, as well as common pathophysiological mechanisms. The Recommended Uniform Screening Panel (RUSP) was applied as the criterion for determining the conditions screened by NBS. IEMbase version 2.0.0 was applied as the criterion for categorizing the conditions screened by clinical metabolomics and the RUSP.Carbohydrates refers to disorders of carbohydrates, glycosylation refers to congenital disorders of glycosylation, lipids refers to disorders of lipids, mitochondrial refers to mitochondrial disorders of energy metabolism, nitrogen refers to disorders of nitrogen-containing compounds, peroxisomal refers to disorders of peroxisomes and oxalate, and vitamins refers to disorders of vitamins, cofactors, and minerals.

JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(7):e2114155. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14155 (Reprinted) July 12, 2021 9/14

Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ on 09/29/2021 JAMA Network Open | Pediatrics Untargeted Metabolomic Profiling vs Traditional Screening to Identify Inborn Errors of Metabolism

these 49 conditions are not covered by the traditional screening approach, and 7 of these 26 disorders are currently treatable (Figure 2, Table 2, and eTable 4 in the Supplement).

Discussion

In this cross-sectional study, we conducted a comprehensive comparison of metabolomic screening with traditional metabolic screening to provide insight into the utility and efficacy of both approaches in the identification and diagnosis of inherited metabolic disorders. Traditional combined metabolic screening assays (PAA, ACP,and UOA) had a positive diagnostic rate of 1.3% and identified 14 IEMs, 11 of which (78.6%) are included on the RUSP, identifying only 3 conditions not on the recommended NBS panel. In comparison, the diagnostic rate for clinical metabolomic screening was 7.1%, and the platform successfully identified 21 conditions included in the RUSP, as well as 49 conditions not included in the RUSP (Table 2). Importantly, 26 of these 49 conditions are not covered by the traditional screening approach, and 7 of these 26 disorders are currently treatable, indicating that early screening of these conditions by clinical metabolomics may prevent severe clinical consequences caused by these disorders (eTable 4 in the Supplement). These findings suggest that untargeted metabolomic profiling has a higher diagnostic rate (approximately 6-fold higher) in screening for IEMs and, more importantly, screens for more metabolic diseases compared with the traditional screening approach, supporting the utility of clinical metabolomics as a first-line screening tool for IEMs (Figure 2 and eTable 4 in the Supplement).7-9,36 We observed that 84 of 128 cases in the diagnostic category were confirmed as positive by integrated analysis with additional genomic and/or biochemical testing, confirming the diagnosis of 39 different metabolic conditions in this category (eTable 3 in the Supplement). These findings suggest that in addition to broadly screening for IEMs, metabolomics alone has the ability to be used as a diagnostic tool for these disorders. For many cases in the suggestive category, although metabolomic profiling indicated abnormalities in specific metabolic pathways, the biochemical profile alone could not distinguish between related disorders. However, subsequent testing, such as DNA sequencing and analysis, indeed confirmed a specific IEM. In these cases, although the associated metabolomic patterns were not pathognomonic, screening results provided further guidance for follow-up testing, thus preventing incorrect and/or delayed diagnoses in these cases. Of note, a large number of cases lacked further testing results for us to consider in our diagnostic pipeline; therefore, the 7.1% diagnostic rate for clinical metabolomics may be an underestimate. A major advantage of untargeted metabolomic analysis over targeted metabolic testing is the wide range of metabolites and classes of metabolites that may be assayed in a single biological sample. Similar metabolite coverage by targeted approaches would otherwise require multiple individual clinical tests, which may still focus on only a limited set of analytes from a single biochemical class. Moreover, because most of the compounds in the reference standard library are not clinically available as targeted assays performed in clinical biochemical genetics laboratories in the US, clinical metabolomics has a greater capacity to find novel and specific biomarkers for known IEMs, as well as discovering new metabolic disorders. In addition, metabolomics also allows for the detection of pathway-related secondary metabolites often not present in targeted assays. These biochemicals may serve as novel and confirmative biomarkers.20,37 For example, in GABA-transaminase deficiency (cases 27, 292, 387, and 1333 in Table 2; eTable 3 in the Supplement), metabolomics identified significantly elevated 2-pyrrolidinone (a lactam cyclization form of GABA), succinimide, and succinamic acid, which are more readily detected than labile GABA, and identified as novel biomarkers for this disorder.20 A recent publication38 has asserted that classic biomarkers for some disorders could be missed by untargeted metabolomics; however, detection of secondary metabolites may still provide sufficient clues to facilitate the follow-up testing of these IEMs.18 In this study, we describe a novel clinical metabolomics method that was applied in the clinical screening and diagnosis of IEMs. Disease identification by metabolomic profiling is based on the

JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(7):e2114155. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14155 (Reprinted) July 12, 2021 10/14

Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ on 09/29/2021 JAMA Network Open | Pediatrics Untargeted Metabolomic Profiling vs Traditional Screening to Identify Inborn Errors of Metabolism

substantial alterations of key biomarkers and is buttressed by the pattern of findings within known biochemical pathways. This comprehensive approach is especially helpful when patients present with a nonspecific neurologic phenotype or in cases where prior metabolic testing has been unrevealing. With current technologies, the diagnostic yield of the traditional screening approach is limited beyond the identification of disorders already contained in the RUSP and screened for at birth. However, our results and those of others demonstrate that metabolomics can detect many disorders not included in most NBS panels.12-14,21,39 Therefore, plasma metabolomic analysis should be considered as an initial screening approach when screening for IEMs, and it may also be useful to provide functional evidence for genomic variants of uncertain significance.22

Limitations This untargeted metabolomic analysis platform has several limitations. First, the test is designed to detect small molecules and will not detect larger metabolites such as complex oligosaccharides and lipids, potentially limiting the applicability for lysosomal disorders or congenital disorders of glycosylation. Second, some clinically relevant molecules that require special extraction methods (eg, homocysteine) are not identified in this assay. Third, semiquantitative z scores, not absolute values, for measured compounds are provided in this screening assay. Fourth, the current turnaround time for this assay is 14 to 21 days, limiting its use for acute metabolic interventions; however, statistical analysis with reporting within 3 of 5 days of sample receipt is possible. Fifth, as with any metabolic testing, diet, medication, or clinical status at the time of sample collection may mask or otherwise alter metabolic abnormalities; thus, a nondiagnostic metabolic assessment does not completely rule out the possibility of underlying metabolic disease.

Conclusions

In this cross-sectional study, we presented a clinical untargeted metabolomic profiling method with a higher diagnostic screening rate for IEMs (approximately 6-fold higher) that detected more IEMs than the traditional metabolic screening approach, identifying many disorders not included in NBS. With the implementation of expanded NBS, our results support the need to use a broader screening approach, such as untargeted clinical metabolomics or a large panel of targeted analytes, to more comprehensively assess for metabolic disorders in the initial assessment of patients for IEMs and especially for the initial evaluation of neurological phenotypes that include intellectual disability, seizures, global developmental delays, or autism spectrum disorder. Furthermore, in consideration of the increasing use of genome first approaches to diagnosis, including exome or whole genome sequencing, clinical metabolomics offers a broad spectrum functional screen for IEMs that can support a comprehensive approach to genetic diagnosis.

ARTICLE INFORMATION Accepted for Publication: April 16, 2021. Published: July 12, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14155 Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.©2021LiuNetal. JAMA Network Open. Corresponding Author: Sarah H. Elsea, PhD, Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, R717, Houston, TX 77030 ([email protected]). Author Affiliations: Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (Liu, Xiao, Glinton, Shayota, Sun, Sutton, Elsea); Baylor Genetics, Houston, Texas (Liu, Gijavanekar, Sun, Sutton, Elsea); Metabolon, Inc, Durham, North Carolina (Pappan, Kennedy); Now with Owlstone Medical, Inc, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (Pappan); Now with Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City (Shayota).

JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(7):e2114155. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14155 (Reprinted) July 12, 2021 11/14

Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ on 09/29/2021 JAMA Network Open | Pediatrics Untargeted Metabolomic Profiling vs Traditional Screening to Identify Inborn Errors of Metabolism

Author Contributions: Drs Liu and Elsea had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Concept and design: Sutton, Elsea. Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Liu, Xiao, Gijavanekar, Pappan, Glinton, Shayota, Kennedy, Sun, Elsea. Drafting of the manuscript: Liu, Xiao, Pappan, Shayota, Sutton, Elsea. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Gijavanekar, Pappan, Glinton, Shayota, Kennedy, Sun, Elsea. Statistical analysis: Liu, Xiao, Shayota, Kennedy, Elsea. Obtained funding: Elsea. Administrative, technical, or material support: Xiao, Shayota, Sun, Elsea. Supervision: Sun, Sutton, Elsea. Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Baylor College of Medicine derives revenue for genetic testing in a joint venture with Baylor Genetics. Baylor Genetics has an ongoing business collaboration with Metabolon, Inc, to support the development of the testing described in this study. Dr Kennedy reported owning stock options in Metabolon, Inc, outside the submitted work; in addition, Dr Kennedy reported having a patent for Metabolomics issued. No other disclosures were reported. Funding/Support: This work was supported, in part, by the National Institutes of Health (grant T32 GM007526 to Drs Liu and Shayota), the Takeda American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Foundation Next Generation Medical Biochemical Subspecialty Fellowship (grant to Dr Shatoya), and the Urea Cycle Disorders Consortium (grant to Dr Glinton). Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Additional Contributions: We thank the Baylor Genetics IT group for their assistance with access to molecular testing results and Susan Toon, BS, in particular for her excellent IT support. We thank all the members of the Baylor Genetics Biochemical Genetics Laboratory for their technical assistance. Gerard Berry, MD (Boston Children’s Hospital), and colleagues from Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital, including Michael F. Wangler, MD, Lisa Emrick, MD, William Craigen, MD, PhD, Seema Lalani, MD, Fernando Scaglia, MD, Lindsay C. Burrage, MD, PhD, Brendan Lee, MD, PhD, Thomas C. Caskey, MD, and Arthur Beaudet, MD, provided encouragement, suggestions, and feedback. None of these individuals was compensated for their contributions beyond their normal salary. Additional Information: The RUSP can be found at https://www.hrsa.gov/advisory-committees/heritable- disorders/rusp/index.html and https://www.babysfirsttest.org. A list of treatable IEMs can be found at https:// www.treatable-id.org/about.html. IEMbase 7 version 2.0.0 (http://www.iembase.org) was applied as the criterion 8 for categorizing conditions screened by clinical metabolomics and the RUSP.

REFERENCES 1. Burton BK. Inborn errors of metabolism in infancy: a guide to diagnosis. Pediatrics. 1998;102(6):E69. doi:10. 1542/peds.102.6.e69 2. Harthan AA. An introduction to pharmacotherapy for inborn errors of metabolism. J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther. 2018;23(6):432-446. doi:10.5863/1551-6776-23.6.432 3. Saudubray JM, Garcia-Cazorla À. Inborn errors of metabolism overview: pathophysiology, manifestations, evaluation, and management. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2018;65(2):179-208. doi:10.1016/j.pcl.2017.11.002 4. Leonard JV, Morris AA. Inborn errors of metabolism around time of birth. Lancet. 2000;356(9229):583-587. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02591-5 5. Saudubray JM, Mochel F. The phenotype of adult versus pediatric patients with inborn errors of metabolism. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2018;41(5):753-756. doi:10.1007/s10545-018-0209-9 6. Lanpher B, Brunetti-Pierri N, Lee B. Inborn errors of metabolism: the flux from Mendelian to complex diseases. Nat Rev Genet. 2006;7(6):449-460. doi:10.1038/nrg1880 7. Filipek PA, Accardo PJ, Ashwal S, et al. Practice parameter: screening and diagnosis of autism—report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the Child Neurology Society. Neurology. 2000;55(4):468-479. doi:10.1212/WNL.55.4.468 8. Moeschler JB, Shevell M; Committee on Genetics. Comprehensive evaluation of the child with intellectual disability or global developmental delays. Pediatrics. 2014;134(3):e903-e918. doi:10.1542/peds.2014-1839

JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(7):e2114155. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14155 (Reprinted) July 12, 2021 12/14

Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ on 09/29/2021 JAMA Network Open | Pediatrics Untargeted Metabolomic Profiling vs Traditional Screening to Identify Inborn Errors of Metabolism

9. Shevell M, Ashwal S, Donley D, et al; Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology; Practice Committee of the Child Neurology Society. Practice parameter: evaluation of the child with global developmental delay—report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and The Practice Committee of the Child Neurology Society. Neurology. 2003;60(3):367-380. doi:10.1212/01.WNL. 0000031431.81555.16 10. Kennedy AD, Wittmann BM, Evans AM, et al. Metabolomics in the clinic: a review of the shared and unique features of untargeted metabolomics for clinical research and clinical testing. J Mass Spectrom. 2018;53(11): 1143-1154. doi:10.1002/jms.4292 11. Ford L, Kennedy AD, Goodman KD, et al. Precision of a clinical metabolomics profiling platform for use in the identification of inborn errors of metabolism. J Appl Lab Med. 2020;5(2):342-356. doi:10.1093/jalm/jfz026 12. Bonte R, Bongaerts M, Demirdas S, et al. Untargeted metabolomics-based screening method for inborn errors of metabolism using semi-automatic sample preparation with an UHPLC-Orbitrap-MS platform. Metabolites. 2019;9(12):E289. doi:10.3390/metabo9120289 13. Miller MJ, Kennedy AD, Eckhart AD, et al. Untargeted metabolomic analysis for the clinical screening of inborn errors of metabolism. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2015;38(6):1029-1039. doi:10.1007/s10545-015-9843-7 14. Coene KLM, Kluijtmans LAJ, van der Heeft E, et al. Next-generation metabolic screening: targeted and untargeted metabolomics for the diagnosis of inborn errors of metabolism in individual patients. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2018;41(3):337-353. doi:10.1007/s10545-017-0131-6 15. Körver-Keularts IMLW, Wang P, Waterval HWAH, et al. Fast and accurate quantitative organic acid analysis with LC-QTOF/MS facilitates screening of patients for inborn errors of metabolism. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2018;41(3): 415-424. doi:10.1007/s10545-017-0129-0 16. Evans AM, DeHaven CD, Barrett T, Mitchell M, Milgram E. Integrated, nontargeted ultrahigh performance liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry platform for the identification and relative quantification of the small-molecule complement of biological systems. Anal Chem. 2009;81(16):6656-6667. doi: 10.1021/ac901536h 17. Dehaven CD, Evans AM, Dai H, Lawton KA. Organization of GC/MS and LC/MS metabolomics data into chemical libraries. J Cheminform. 2010;2(1):9. doi:10.1186/1758-2946-2-9 18. Atwal PS, Donti TR, Cardon AL, et al. Aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase deficiency diagnosed by clinical metabolomic profiling of plasma. Mol Genet Metab. 2015;115(2-3):91-94. doi:10.1016/j.ymgme.2015.04.008 19. Glinton KE, Benke PJ, Lines MA, et al. Disturbed phospholipid metabolism in serine defects revealed by metabolomic profiling. Mol Genet Metab. 2018;123(3):309-316. doi:10.1016/j.ymgme.2017.12.009 20. Kennedy AD, Pappan KL, Donti T, et al. 2-Pyrrolidinone and succinimide as clinical screening biomarkers for GABA-transaminase deficiency: anti- medications impact accurate diagnosis. Front Neurosci. 2019;13:394. doi:10.3389/fnins.2019.00394 21. Pillai NR, Amin H, Gijavanekar C, et al. Hematologic presentation and the role of untargeted metabolomics analysis in monitoring treatment for riboflavin transporter deficiency. Am J Med Genet A. 2020;182(11):2781-2787. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.61851 22. Alaimo JT, Glinton KE, Liu N, et al. Integrated analysis of metabolomic profiling and exome data supplements sequence variant interpretation, classification, and diagnosis. Genet Med. 2020;22(9):1560-1566. doi:10.1038/ s41436-020-0827-0 23. Donti TR, Cappuccio G, Hubert L, et al. Diagnosis of deficiency by metabolomic profiling in plasma reveals a phenotypic spectrum. Mol Genet Metab Rep. 2016;8:61-66. doi:10.1016/j.ymgmr. 2016.07.007 24. Pappan KL, Kennedy AD, Magoulas PL, Hanchard NA, Sun Q, Elsea SH. Clinical metabolomics to segregate aromatic amino acid decarboxylase deficiency from drug-induced metabolite elevations. Pediatr Neurol.2017; 75:66-72. doi:10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2017.06.014 25. Tam A, AlDhaheri NS, Mysore K, et al. Improved clinical outcome following liver transplant in patients with ethylmalonic encephalopathy. Am J Med Genet A. 2019;179(6):1015-1019. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.61104 26. Bainbridge MN, Cooney E, Miller M, et al. Analyses of SLC13A5-epilepsy patients reveal perturbations of TCA cycle. Mol Genet Metab. 2017;121(4):314-319. doi:10.1016/j.ymgme.2017.06.009 27. Almontashiri NAM, Berry GT, Majzoub J, Peake RWA. Abnormal glycerol metabolism in a child with global developmental delay, adrenal insufficiency, and intellectual disability. Clin Chem. 2018;64(12):1785-1787. doi:10. 1373/clinchem.2018.293696

JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(7):e2114155. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14155 (Reprinted) July 12, 2021 13/14

Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ on 09/29/2021 JAMA Network Open | Pediatrics Untargeted Metabolomic Profiling vs Traditional Screening to Identify Inborn Errors of Metabolism

28. Stowe RC, Sun Q, Elsea SH, Scaglia F. LIPT1 deficiency presenting as early infantile epileptic encephalopathy, Leigh disease, and secondary pyruvate dehydrogenase complex deficiency. Am J Med Genet A. 2018;176(5): 1184-1189. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.38654 29. Kripps K, Nakayuenyongsuk W, Shayota BJ, et al. Successful liver transplantation in mitochondrial neurogastrointestinal encephalomyopathy (MNGIE). Mol Genet Metab. 2020;130(1):58-64. doi:10.1016/j.ymgme. 2020.03.001 30. Shayota BJ, Soler-Alfonso C, Bekheirnia MR, et al. Case report and novel treatment of an autosomal recessive Leigh syndrome caused by short-chain enoyl-CoA hydratase deficiency. Am J Med Genet A. 2019;179(5): 803-807. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.61074 31. Birjiniuk A, Glinton KE, Villafranco N, et al. Multiple mitochondrial dysfunctions syndrome 1: an unusual cause of developmental pulmonary hypertension. Am J Med Genet A. 2020;182(4):755-761. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.61491 32. Burrage LC, Thistlethwaite L, Stroup BM, et al; Members of the UCDC. Untargeted metabolomic profiling reveals multiple pathway perturbations and new clinical biomarkers in urea cycle disorders. Genet Med. 2019;21 (9):1977-1986. doi:10.1038/s41436-019-0442-0 33. Wangler MF, Hubert L, Donti TR, et al. A metabolomic map of Zellweger spectrum disorders reveals novel disease biomarkers. Genet Med. 2018;20(10):1274-1283. doi:10.1038/gim.2017.262 34. Shayota BJ, Donti TR, Xiao J, et al. Untargeted metabolomics as an unbiased approach to the diagnosis of inborn errors of metabolism of the non-oxidative branch of the pentose phosphate pathway. Mol Genet Metab. 2020;131(1-2):147-154. doi:10.1016/j.ymgme.2020.07.013 35. Glinton KE, Levy HL, Kennedy AD, Pappan KL, Elsea SH. Untargeted metabolomics identifies unique though benign biochemical changes in patients with pathogenic variants in UROC1. Mol Genet Metab Rep. 2018; 18:14-18. doi:10.1016/j.ymgmr.2018.12.005 36. Kruszka P, Regier D. Inborn errors of metabolism: from preconception to adulthood. Am Fam Physician. 2019; 99(1):25-32. 37. Cappuccio G, Pinelli M, Alagia M, et al. Biochemical phenotyping unravels novel metabolic abnormalities and potential biomarkers associated with treatment of GLUT1 deficiency with . PLoS One. 2017;12(9): e0184022. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0184022 38. Almontashiri NAM, Zha L, Young K, et al. Clinical validation of targeted and untargeted metabolomics testing for genetic disorders:a3yearcomparative study. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):9382. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-66401-2 39. Haijes HA, Willemsen M, Van der Ham M, et al. Direct infusion based metabolomics identifies metabolic disease in patients’ dried blood spots and plasma. Metabolites. 2019;9(1):E12. doi:10.3390/metabo9010012

SUPPLEMENT. eAppendix 1. Traditional Biochemical Screening eAppendix 2. Metabolomic Analyses eReferences eTable 1. RUSP Conditions Covered by Traditional Screening and Clinical Metabolomics eTable 2. Disorders Identified by Traditional Screening eTable 3. Clinical Description of Positively Diagnosed Metabolomic Cohort eTable 4. Categorized Metabolic Conditions Screened by Clinical Plasma Metabolomics and Covered by Traditional Screening and/or the RUSP

JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(7):e2114155. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14155 (Reprinted) July 12, 2021 14/14

Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ on 09/29/2021