Genetic Testing for CHARGE Syndrome - CAM 343

CHARGE syndrome is an autosomal dominant genetic disease caused by mutations of the chromodomain helicase DNA binding protein 7 gene (CHD7) gene on chromosome 8q12.1 resulting in a wide range of congenital anomalies, including colobomas, which is a congenital absence of pieces of tissue in eye structures that may cause defects in the iris, retina, or optic nerve; heart defects; choanal atresia, which is an obliteration or blockage of the posterior nasal aperture due to a persistent oronasal membrane that prevents joining of the nose and oropharynx; retarded growth and development; genital hypoplasia; ear anomalies; and deafness.


  1. Genetic testing for CHARGE syndrome is considered MEDICALLY NECESSARY to confirm a diagnosis in a patient with signs/symptoms of CHARGE syndrome when a definitive diagnosis cannot be made with clinical criteria.
  2. Genetic testing for known familial variant mutations of CHARGE syndrome in first-degree relatives of an affected individual is considered MEDICALLY NECESSARY.
  3. Mutation testing for CHARGE syndrome in cases of prenatal testing and pre-implantation is considered MEDICALLY NECESSARY.

The following does not meet coverage criteria due to a lack of available published scientific literature confirming that the test(s) is/are required and beneficial for the diagnosis and treatment of a patient’s illness.

  1. Mutation testing for CHARGE syndrome is considered NOT MEDICALLY NECESSARY in all other situations

CHARGE (coloboma, heart defects, atresia choanae, growth retardation, genital abnormalities, and ear abnormalities) syndrome is a relatively common cause of congenital anomalies affecting approximately 1 in 8,500 to 10,000 births (Longman, 2018). First described by Hall (1979) and Hittner, Hirsch, Kreh, and Rudolph (1979), CHARGE syndrome was diagnosed clinically (K. D. Blake et al., 1998; Pagon, Graham, Zonana, and Yong, 1981) until causative mutations were identified in the CHD7 (Chromodomain-helicase-DNA-binding protein 7/ATP-dependent helicase CHD7) gene (Vissers et al., 2004). Due to the great variability associated with CHD7 mutations, genetic analysis may be helpful for genotypic diagnostics but will not necessarily assist in phenotypic predictions (Bergman et al., 2011).

The CHD7 protein is a member of the SWI-SNF superfamily of ATP-dependent chromatin remodelers that bind to DNA and modulate gene expression (Asad et al., 2016; Marfella and Imbalzano, 2007). The CHD7 gene contains 38 exons that encode for the 300-kDa CHD7 chromatin remodeler protein (Bilan et al., 2012). It has an important, dosage-dependent role in the development of several different craniofacial tissues (Sperry et al., 2014) and has also been found to assist with orchestrating neural crest and central nervous system development (Bajpai et al., 2010; He et al., 2016; Van Nostrand et al., 2014; Whittaker et al., 2017). Further, CHD7 plays a role in additional gene expression programs and cellular interactions during embryogenesis; this likely occurs through the dysregulation of co-transcriptional alternative splicing (Belanger et al., 2018; Berube-Simard and Pilon, 2018; Schulz et al., 2014).

It is worth noting that the CHARGE syndrome acronym does not cover all disorders that may result from this disease; a diagnosis may be responsible for additional sensory deficits and birth defects, including cranial nerve dysfunction, clival pathology, and feeding and gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction (K. D. Blake and Hudson, 2017). More than 90% of patients experience feeding and GI dysfunction; this is known to cause a great amount of morbidity and mortality in the CHARGE syndrome patient population (K. D. Blake & Hudson, 2017; Hefner and Fassi, 2017). Further, many CHARGE syndrome patients exhibit clival pathology, such as coronal clefts; this is now considered a useful diagnostic malady for patients (Mahdi and Whitehead, 2018). Nonetheless, the wide range of gene expression affected by mutations in the CHD7 gene results in a broad phenotype that may involve almost all organ and sensory systems in the body, therefore causing significant variabilities in severity and comorbidity (de Geus et al., 2017). Hence, no single feature is universally present or sufficient for the clinical diagnosis of CHARGE syndrome.

Clinical Validity
The initial clinical CHARGE syndrome diagnostic criteria (K. D. Blake et al., 1998) was first adapted to include supplemental clinical abnormalities (Verloes, 2005). More recently, the diagnostic criteria were updated to incorporate results of molecular testing (Hale, Niederriter, Green, and Martin, 2016). The majority of individuals (90 – 95%) fulfilling the clinical criteria for a CHARGE syndrome diagnosis have a CHD7 variant that is detectable by Sanger sequencing or next generation sequencing (NGS) (Bergman et al., 2011; Janssen et al., 2012). However, since the inclusion of CHD7, variants have been described in 14 – 17% of mildly affected individuals who would not meet the clinical criteria (Bergman et al., 2011). This has resulted in the addition of CHD7 to NGS gene panels for developmental delay, colobomata, heart defects (Corsten-Janssen et al., 2014), and other congenital malformations (van Ravenswaaij-Arts and Martin, 2017). The clinical validity of genetic testing that relies on identifying CHD7 gene mutations may create issues in the future; van Ravenswaaij-Arts and Martin (2017) stated that individuals with a missense variant of the CHD7 gene will less often fulfill clinical criteria of CHARGE syndrome, since there may be a decreased prevalence of congenital heart defects and choanal atresia with a missense variant. However, this type of variant is overrepresented in families with parent to child transmission of CHARGE syndrome (van Ravenswaaij-Arts and Martin, 2017).  

The cause of CHARGE syndrome remains unclear in approximately 5 – 10% of cases which may be due to variants, such as whole gene deletions, that are not detectable in currently used assays (Janssen et al., 2012). Other genes or genetic conditions may also be involved in CHARGE syndrome, such as 22q11.2 deletion (DiGeorge) syndrome, Kallmann syndrome, and Kabuki syndrome; these conditions are known to have an overlapping phenotypic spectrum with CHARGE syndrome (Janssen et al., 2012). Additionally, it is challenging to distinguish younger patients with Kabuki syndrome from those with CHARGE syndrome since they lack the facial gestalt of Kabuki syndrome but show similar organ malformations to those of CHARGE syndrome patients (Pauli, Bajpai, and Borchers, 2017).

A more recent study utilized whole exome sequencing to genetically analyze 28 individuals exhibiting CHARGE syndrome features. Pathogenic variants in CHD7, other genes (RERE, KMT2D, EP300, PUF60), and no pathogenic variants were found in 53.6%, 14.3%, and 28.6% of participants, respectively (Moccia et al., 2018). Based on these results, it was suggested that “the phenotypic features of CHARGE syndrome overlap with multiple other rare single-gene syndromes” (Moccia et al., 2018).

In a study by Gonçalves et al. (2019), mutations in the CHD7 gene were observed in patients with isolated congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (CHH), a condition that is characterized by the lack of normal pubertal development resulting from deficient gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH). This demonstrates a limitation to clinical validity in CHD7 genetic testing for CHARGE syndrome. The variable phenotypic expression is related to the type of mutations, as CHARGE syndrome patients seem to have “typically highly deleterious protein-truncating mutations, whereas CHD7 mutations in isolated CHH are typically missense” (Gonçalves et al., 2019).

A study conducted by Qin et al. (2020) also found five neonatal patients to have drastically different clinical CHARGE syndrome phenotypes, with postnatal dyspnea as the most prominent symptom in the study cohort. The study found three novel genetic variants (c.2828_2829delAG, c.4667dupC, and c.7873C > T) and two reported variants (c.4667dupC and c.1480C > T) using whole exome sequencing that contributed to CHARGE syndrome clinical presentations. In accordance with this data, researchers concluded that though prenatal diagnosis of CHARGE syndrome may continue to be a challenge, “fetal de novo mutations screening by non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) with maternal plasma is highly efficient for diagnosis. Detection of mutations in E1 and E38 may also provide clues for predicting severity of CHARGE syndrome by NIPT with maternal plasma” (Qin et al., 2020).

Another study was completed with data from 145 participants, all of whom were previously clinically diagnosed with CHARGE syndrome. Researchers surveyed these participants to determine if they had completed genetic testing to confirm a CHARGE syndrome diagnosis. Of the total survey participants, 68% had never received genetic testing; of the 46 patients who did complete genetic testing, 74% tested positive for the CHD7 mutation (Hartshorne, Stratton, & van Ravenswaaij-Arts, 2011). 

Clinical Utility
Patients with CHARGE syndrome experience a wide spectrum of comorbidities, some more severe than others and the complex management of these comorbidities oftentimes can lead to more issues. The clinical utility of making a definite diagnosis of CHARGE syndrome is high since a confirmed CHARGE diagnosis will lead to changes in clinical management, including well-defined clinical assessment and treatment recommendations (de Geus et al., 2017; Trider, Arra-Robar, van Ravenswaaij-Arts, and Blake, 2017). No consensus on the utility of genetic testing in patients who present with a clear clinical diagnosis exists. However, testing may be useful in patients who do not have the classical CHARGE characteristics and may be at risk for the long-term complications of CHARGE syndrome (K. Blake, van Ravenswaaij-Arts, Hoefsloot, and Verloes, 2011). For instance, many patients with CHARGE syndrome will often have more than one dysfunctional cranial nerve (CN), which can manifest as an absent or reduced sense of smell (CN I), weak chewing/swallowing (CN V), facial palsy (CN VII), sensorineural hearing loss (CN VIII), balance/vestibular problems (CN VIII), and swallowing problems (CN IX, X) (Hudson, Trider, and Blake, 2017). Hudson, Trider, and Blake (2017)Testing is recommended in all suspected cases of CHARGE syndrome, especially in patients who partially meet the clinical criteria (Bergman et al., 2011; Hale et al., 2016; Trider et al., 2017).

Hefner and Fassi (2017) state that a CHARGE syndrome diagnosis “should be considered in patients with any of the major diagnostic features: coloboma, choanal atresia, semicircular canal anomalies, or cranial nerve anomalies.” These features are also common in 22q11.2 deletion (DiGeorge) and Kabuki syndromes, and genetic testing may be used to distinguish between these conditions; further, genetic counseling is an important step in a CHARGE syndrome diagnosis (Hefner and Fassi, 2017). This will prove to be critical in establishing a multidisciplinary care team for potential developmental concerns of a CHARGE syndrome child, such as combined deafness-blindness (Hudson et al., 2017). As CHARGE patients grow up, they may have feeding difficulties or orofacial anomalies that may need to be attended to by ENT specialists, cardiovascular malformations that may involve pediatric cardiologists, or concomitant hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (HH) that may require the help of pediatric endocrinologists, proving a high clinical utility of CHD7 testing of CHARGE syndrome (Dijk, Bocca, and van Ravenswaaij-Arts, 2019). 

To date, no formal professional society guidelines or recommendations have been found regarding the genetic testing of CHARGE syndrome patients. Therefore, recommendations by subject matter experts in the field are included below.

A comprehensive guideline and clinical checklist was developed by the Atlantic Canadian CHARGE syndrome team. This checklist includes diagnostic criteria such as clinical diagnoses and genetic testing; genetic consultation for CHD7 analysis and array comparative genomic hybridization is recommended. Further, the guideline notes that although “there is no consensus on genetic testing in the presence of a clear clinical diagnosis”, multiple guidelines recommend genetic testing in “all suspected cases of CHARGE syndrome and especially for patients who partially meet the clinical criteria” (Trider et al., 2017).

According to guidelines published by researchers at The Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics in Kansas City, Missouri, a previously unknown missense mutation in exon 31 of CHD7 can cause a diagnosis of CHARGE syndrome; this mutation may be passed down genetically, showing that family history should be considered as a major diagnostic criterion for CHARGE syndrome (Hughes, Welsh, Safina, Bejaoui, and Ardinger, 2014). Moreover, orofacial clefting is often seen with a diagnosis of CHARGE syndrome; it is also suggested that patients with this anomaly be tested for CHARGE syndrome (Hughes et al., 2014).

Guidelines published by de Geus et al. (2017) provide a comprehensive overview of all other published recommendations for CHARGE syndrome and introduce guidelines for cranial imaging. A summary of their recommendations regarding genetics of CHARGE is in the table below (de Geus et al., 2017).



CHARGE is a clinical diagnosis

(Bergman et al., 2011; K. D. Blake et al., 1998; Harris, Robert, & Kallen, 1997; Issekutz, Graham, Prasad, Smith, and Blake, 2005; Verloes, 2005)

CHD7 testing can confirm uncertain diagnosis in mildly affected patients

(Bergman et al., 2011)

CHD7 testing may be performed according to a flow diagram

(Bergman et al., 2011)

A genome‐wide array should be performed in patients with CHARGE syndrome but without a CHD7 mutation

(Corsten-Janssen et al., 2013)

Clinical genetics consultation is indicated, including options for prenatal diagnosis

(Bergman et al., 2011; Lalani, Hefner, Belmont, and Davenport, 2012)

Patients diagnosed with hypogonadotropic hypogonadism and anosmia should be screened for clinical features consistent with CHARGE syndrome

(Jongmans et al., 2009)

Olfactory bulb hypoplasia and semicircular canal aplasia should be considered major signs for CHARGE syndrome

(Asakura et al., 2008; Sanlaville et al., 2006)

If a parent has any features of CHARGE syndrome, molecular genetic testing is appropriate if a CHD7 pathogenic variant has been identified in the proband

(Jongmans et al., 2008)

CHD7 analysis should be performed in patients with a 22q11.2 deletion phenotype without TBX1 haploinsufficiency

(Corsten-Janssen et al., 2013)

CHD7 analysis should be performed in patients with Kallmann syndrome who have at least two additional CHARGE features or semicircular canal anomalies

(Bergman et al., 2012; Costa-Barbosa et al., 2013; Jongmans et al., 2009)

CHD7 should be included in massive parallel sequencing gene panels for diagnostics in syndromic heart defects

(Corsten-Janssen et al., 2014)

CHD7 analysis should not be performed routinely in patients with only atrial septal defect or conotruncal heart defects

(Corsten-Janssen et al., 2014)

CHD7 analysis should not be performed in septo‐optic dysplasia patients without features of CHARGE

(Gregory et al., 2013)

MLPA analysis is indicated if no causal CHD7 is mutation is found

(Wincent et al., 2008; Wincent, Schulze, and Schoumans, 2009)

MLPA analysis is not indicated if no CHD7 mutation is found 

(Bergman et al., 2008)

Guidelines for clinical diagnosis have also been published by Hale et al. (2016), which include the identification of a pathogenic CHD7 variant as major criteria for a CHARGE syndrome diagnosis.

Bergman et al. (2011) published recommendations which stated that CHD7 testing can confirm uncertain diagnoses in mildly affected patients; a clinical genetics consultation is also indicated, including options for prenatal diagnosis.

Corsten-Janssen et al. (2014) published recommendations which state that:  

  • CHD7 should be included in massive parallel sequencing gene panels for diagnostics in syndromic heart defects
  • CHD7 analysis should be performed in patients with a 22q11.2 deletion phenotype without TBX1 haploinsufficiency
  • Genome‐wide array should be performed in patients with CHARGE syndrome but without a CHD7 mutation

Jongmans et al. (2008) and Jongmans et al. (2009) recommended that:

  • Patients diagnosed with hypogonadotropic hypogonadism and anosmia should be screened for clinical features consistent with CHARGE syndrome
  • If a parent has any features of CHARGE syndrome, molecular genetic testing is appropriate if a CHD7 pathogenic variant has been identified in the proband
  • CHD7 analysis should be performed in patients with Kallmann syndrome who have at least two additional CHARGE features or semicircular canal anomalies

Usman and Sur (2020) compiled guidelines for evaluation that were rooted in temporal bone imaging and clinical findings, and they ultimately concluded that evaluation via prenatal genetic screenings of CHD7 variants was only restricted to familial cases via amniocentesis or chorionic villus screening at 10 – 12 and 18 – 20 weeks’ gestation respectively.


  1. Asad, Z., Pandey, A., Babu, A., Sun, Y., Shevade, K., Kapoor, S., . . . Sachidanandan, C. (2016). Rescue of neural crest-derived phenotypes in a zebrafish CHARGE model by Sox10 downregulation. Hum Mol Genet, 25(16), 3539-3554. doi:10.1093/hmg/ddw198
  2. Asakura, Y., Toyota, Y., Muroya, K., Kurosawa, K., Fujita, K., Aida, N., . . . Adachi, M. (2008). Endocrine and radiological studies in patients with molecularly confirmed CHARGE syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 93(3), 920-924. doi:10.1210/jc.2007-1419
  3. Bajpai, R., Chen, D. A., Rada-Iglesias, A., Zhang, J., Xiong, Y., Helms, J., . . . Wysocka, J. (2010). CHD7 cooperates with PBAF to control multipotent neural crest formation. Nature, 463(7283), 958-962. doi:10.1038/nature08733
  4. Belanger, C., Berube-Simard, F. A., Leduc, E., Bernas, G., Campeau, P. M., Lalani, S. R., . . . Pilon, N. (2018). Dysregulation of cotranscriptional alternative splicing underlies CHARGE syndrome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 115(4), E620-E629. doi:10.1073/pnas.1715378115
  5. Bergman, J. E., de Ronde, W., Jongmans, M. C., Wolffenbuttel, B. H., Drop, S. L., Hermus, A., . . . van Ravenswaaij-Arts, C. M. (2012). The results of CHD7 analysis in clinically well-characterized patients with Kallmann syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 97(5), E858-862. doi:10.1210/jc.2011-2652
  6. Bergman, J. E., de Wijs, I., Jongmans, M. C., Admiraal, R. J., Hoefsloot, L. H., & van Ravenswaaij-Arts, C. M. (2008). Exon copy number alterations of the CHD7 gene are not a major cause of CHARGE and CHARGE-like syndrome. Eur J Med Genet, 51(5), 417-425. doi:10.1016/j.ejmg.2008.03.003
  7. Bergman, J. E., Janssen, N., Hoefsloot, L. H., Jongmans, M. C., Hofstra, R. M., & van Ravenswaaij-Arts, C. M. (2011). CHD7 mutations and CHARGE syndrome: the clinical implications of an expanding phenotype. J Med Genet, 48(5), 334-342. doi:10.1136/jmg.2010.087106
  8. Berube-Simard, F. A., & Pilon, N. (2018). Molecular dissection of CHARGE syndrome highlights the vulnerability of neural crest cells to problems with alternative splicing and other transcription-related processes. Transcription, 1-8. doi:10.1080/21541264.2018.1521213
  9. Bilan, F., Legendre, M., Charraud, V., Maniere, B., Couet, D., Gilbert-Dussardier, B., & Kitzis, A. (2012). Complete screening of 50 patients with CHARGE syndrome for anomalies in the CHD7 gene using a denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography-based protocol: new guidelines and a proposal for routine diagnosis. J Mol Diagn, 14(1), 46-55. doi:10.1016/j.jmoldx.2011.08.003
  10. Blake, K., van Ravenswaaij-Arts, C. M., Hoefsloot, L., & Verloes, A. (2011). Clinical utility gene card for: CHARGE syndrome. Eur J Hum Genet, 19(9). doi:10.1038/ejhg.2011.45
  11. Blake, K. D., Davenport, S. L., Hall, B. D., Hefner, M. A., Pagon, R. A., Williams, M. S., . . . Graham, J. M., Jr. (1998). CHARGE association: an update and review for the primary pediatrician. Clin Pediatr (Phila), 37(3), 159-173. doi:10.1177/000992289803700302
  12. Blake, K. D., & Hudson, A. S. (2017). Gastrointestinal and feeding difficulties in CHARGE syndrome: A review from head-to-toe. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet, 175(4), 496-506. doi:10.1002/ajmg.c.31586
  13. Corsten-Janssen, N., du Marchie Sarvaas, G. J., Kerstjens-Frederikse, W. S., Hoefsloot, L. H., van Beynum, I. M., Kapusta, L., & van Ravenswaaij-Arts, C. M. (2014). CHD7 mutations are not a major cause of atrioventricular septal and conotruncal heart defects. Am J Med Genet A, 164A(12), 3003-3009. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.36747
  14. Corsten-Janssen, N., Saitta, S. C., Hoefsloot, L. H., McDonald-McGinn, D. M., Driscoll, D. A., Derks, R., . . . van Ravenswaaij-Arts, C. M. (2013). More Clinical Overlap between 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome and CHARGE Syndrome than Often Anticipated. Mol Syndromol, 4(5), 235-245. doi:10.1159/000351127
  15. Costa-Barbosa, F. A., Balasubramanian, R., Keefe, K. W., Shaw, N. D., Al-Tassan, N., Plummer, L., . . . Crowley, W. F., Jr. (2013). Prioritizing genetic testing in patients with Kallmann syndrome using clinical phenotypes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 98(5), E943-953. doi:10.1210/jc.2012-4116
  16. de Geus, C. M., Free, R. H., Verbist, B. M., Sival, D. A., Blake, K. D., Meiners, L. C., & van Ravenswaaij-Arts, C. M. A. (2017). Guidelines in CHARGE syndrome and the missing link: Cranial imaging. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet, 175(4), 450-464. doi:10.1002/ajmg.c.31593
  17. Dijk, D. R., Bocca, G., & van Ravenswaaij-Arts, C. M. (2019). Growth in CHARGE syndrome: optimizing care with a multidisciplinary approach. J Multidiscip Healthc, 12, 607-620. doi:10.2147/jmdh.S175713
  18. Gonçalves, C. I., Patriarca, F. M., Aragüés, J. M., Carvalho, D., Fonseca, F., Martins, S., . . . Lemos, M. C. (2019). High frequency of CHD7 mutations in congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1597. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-38178-y
  19. Gregory, L. C., Gevers, E. F., Baker, J., Kasia, T., Chong, K., Josifova, D. J., . . . Dattani, M. T. (2013). Structural pituitary abnormalities associated with CHARGE syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 98(4), E737-743. doi:10.1210/jc.2012-3467
  20. Guercio, J. R., & Martyn, L. J. (2007). Congenital malformations of the eye and orbit. Otolaryngol Clin North Am, 40(1), 113-140, vii. doi:10.1016/j.otc.2006.11.013
  21. Hale, C. L., Niederriter, A. N., Green, G. E., & Martin, D. M. (2016). Atypical phenotypes associated with pathogenic CHD7 variants and a proposal for broadening CHARGE syndrome clinical diagnostic criteria. Am J Med Genet A, 170A(2), 344-354. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.37435
  22. Hall, B. D. (1979). Choanal atresia and associated multiple anomalies. J Pediatr, 95(3), 395-398. Retrieved from
  23. Harris, J., Robert, E., & Kallen, B. (1997). Epidemiology of choanal atresia with special reference to the CHARGE association. Pediatrics, 99(3), 363-367.
  24. Hartshorne, T. S., Stratton, K. K., & van Ravenswaaij-Arts, C. M. (2011). Prevalence of genetic testing in CHARGE syndrome. J Genet Couns, 20(1), 49-57. doi:10.1007/s10897-010-9328-7
  25. He, D., Marie, C., Zhao, C., Kim, B., Wang, J., Deng, Y., . . . Lu, Q. R. (2016). Chd7 cooperates with Sox10 and regulates the onset of CNS myelination and remyelination. Nat Neurosci, 19(5), 678-689. doi:10.1038/nn.4258
  26. Hefner, M. A., & Fassi, E. (2017). Genetic counseling in CHARGE syndrome: Diagnostic evaluation through follow up. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet, 175(4), 407-416. doi:10.1002/ajmg.c.31589
  27. Hittner, H. M., Hirsch, N. J., Kreh, G. M., & Rudolph, A. J. (1979). Colobomatous microphthalmia, heart disease, hearing loss, and mental retardation--a syndrome. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus, 16(2), 122-128. Retrieved from
  28. Hudson, A., Trider, C.-L., & Blake, K. (2017). CHARGE Syndrome. Pediatrics in Review, 38(1), 56-59. doi:10.1542/pir.2016-0050
  29. Hughes, S. S., Welsh, H. I., Safina, N. P., Bejaoui, K., & Ardinger, H. H. (2014). Family history and clefting as major criteria for CHARGE syndrome. Am J Med Genet A, 164a(1), 48-53. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.36192
  30. Isaacson, G. C. (2018). Congenital anomalies of the nose. Retrieved from
  31. Issekutz, K. A., Graham, J. M., Jr., Prasad, C., Smith, I. M., & Blake, K. D. (2005). An epidemiological analysis of CHARGE syndrome: preliminary results from a Canadian study. Am J Med Genet A, 133a(3), 309-317. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.30560
  32. Janssen, N., Bergman, J. E., Swertz, M. A., Tranebjaerg, L., Lodahl, M., Schoots, J., . . . Hoefsloot, L. H. (2012). Mutation update on the CHD7 gene involved in CHARGE syndrome. Hum Mutat, 33(8), 1149-1160. doi:10.1002/humu.22086
  33. Jongmans, M. C., Admiraal, R. J., van der Donk, K. P., Vissers, L. E., Baas, A. F., Kapusta, L., . . . van Ravenswaaij, C. M. (2006). CHARGE syndrome: the phenotypic spectrum of mutations in the CHD7 gene. J Med Genet, 43(4), 306-314. doi:10.1136/jmg.2005.036061
  34. Jongmans, M. C., Hoefsloot, L. H., van der Donk, K. P., Admiraal, R. J., Magee, A., van de Laar, I., . . . van Ravenswaaij, C. M. (2008). Familial CHARGE syndrome and the CHD7 gene: a recurrent missense mutation, intrafamilial recurrence and variability. Am J Med Genet A, 146A(1), 43-50. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.31921
  35. Jongmans, M. C., van Ravenswaaij-Arts, C. M., Pitteloud, N., Ogata, T., Sato, N., Claahsen-van der Grinten, H. L., . . . Hoefsloot, L. H. (2009). CHD7 mutations in patients initially diagnosed with Kallmann syndrome--the clinical overlap with CHARGE syndrome. Clin Genet, 75(1), 65-71. doi:10.1111/j.1399-0004.2008.01107.x
  36. Lalani, S. R., Hefner, M. A., Belmont, J. W., & Davenport, S. L. (2012). CHARGE syndrome In R. A. Pagon, M. P. Adam, & H. H. Ardinger (Eds.), GeneReviews (R). Seattle: University of Washington, SEattle.
  37. Longman. (2018). Obstetric Imaging: Fetal Diagnosis and Care.
  38. Mahdi, E. S., & Whitehead, M. T. (2018). Clival Malformations in CHARGE Syndrome. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 39(6), 1153-1156. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5612
  39. Marfella, C. G., & Imbalzano, A. N. (2007). The Chd family of chromatin remodelers. Mutat Res, 618(1-2), 30-40. doi:10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2006.07.012
  40. Moccia, A., Srivastava, A., Skidmore, J. M., Bernat, J. A., Wheeler, M., Chong, J. X., . . . Bielas, S. L. (2018). Genetic analysis of CHARGE syndrome identifies overlapping molecular biology. Genet Med, 20(9), 1022-1029. doi:10.1038/gim.2017.233
  41. Pagon, R. A., Graham, J. M., Jr., Zonana, J., & Yong, S. L. (1981). Coloboma, congenital heart disease, and choanal atresia with multiple anomalies: CHARGE association. J Pediatr, 99(2), 223-227. Retrieved from
  42. Pauli, S., Bajpai, R., & Borchers, A. (2017). CHARGEd with neural crest defects. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet, 175(4), 478-486. doi:10.1002/ajmg.c.31584
  43. Qin, Z., Su, J., Li, M., Yang, Q., Yi, S., Zheng, H., . . . Luo, J. (2020). Clinical and Genetic Analysis of CHD7 Expands the Genotype and Phenotype of CHARGE Syndrome. Front Genet, 11, 592. doi:10.3389/fgene.2020.00592
  44. Sanlaville, D., Etchevers, H. C., Gonzales, M., Martinovic, J., Clement-Ziza, M., Delezoide, A. L., . . . Attie-Bitach, T. (2006). Phenotypic spectrum of CHARGE syndrome in fetuses with CHD7 truncating mutations correlates with expression during human development. J Med Genet, 43(3), 211-217. doi:10.1136/jmg.2005.036160
  45. Schulz, Y., Wehner, P., Opitz, L., Salinas-Riester, G., Bongers, E. M., van Ravenswaaij-Arts, C. M., . . . Pauli, S. (2014). CHD7, the gene mutated in CHARGE syndrome, regulates genes involved in neural crest cell guidance. Hum Genet, 133(8), 997-1009. doi:10.1007/s00439-014-1444-2
  46. Sperry, E. D., Hurd, E. A., Durham, M. A., Reamer, E. N., Stein, A. B., & Martin, D. M. (2014). The chromatin remodeling protein CHD7, mutated in CHARGE syndrome, is necessary for proper craniofacial and tracheal development. Dev Dyn, 243(9), 1055-1066. doi:10.1002/dvdy.24156
  47. Trider, C. L., Arra-Robar, A., van Ravenswaaij-Arts, C., & Blake, K. (2017). Developing a CHARGE syndrome checklist: Health supervision across the lifespan (from head to toe). Am J Med Genet A, 173(3), 684-691. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.38085
  48. Usman, N., & Sur, M. (2020). CHARGE Syndrome. In StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing
  49. Copyright © 2020, StatPearls Publishing LLC.
  50. Van Nostrand, J. L., Brady, C. A., Jung, H., Fuentes, D. R., Kozak, M. M., Johnson, T. M., . . . Attardi, L. D. (2014). Inappropriate p53 activation during development induces features of CHARGE syndrome. Nature, 514(7521), 228-232. doi:10.1038/nature13585
  51. van Ravenswaaij-Arts, C., & Martin, D. M. (2017). New insights and advances in CHARGE syndrome: Diagnosis, etiologies, treatments, and research discoveries. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet, 175(4), 397-406. doi:10.1002/ajmg.c.31592
  52. Verloes, A. (2005). Updated diagnostic criteria for CHARGE syndrome: a proposal. Am J Med Genet A, 133A(3), 306-308. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.30559
  53. Vissers, L. E., van Ravenswaaij, C. M., Admiraal, R., Hurst, J. A., de Vries, B. B., Janssen, I. M., . . . van Kessel, A. G. (2004). Mutations in a new member of the chromodomain gene family cause CHARGE syndrome. Nat Genet, 36(9), 955-957. doi:10.1038/ng1407
  54. Whittaker, D. E., Riegman, K. L., Kasah, S., Mohan, C., Yu, T., Sala, B. P., . . . Basson, M. A. (2017). The chromatin remodeling factor CHD7 controls cerebellar development by regulating reelin expression. J Clin Invest, 127(3), 874-887. doi:10.1172/JCI83408
  55. Wincent, J., Holmberg, E., Stromland, K., Soller, M., Mirzaei, L., Djureinovic, T., . . . Schoumans, J. (2008). CHD7 mutation spectrum in 28 Swedish patients diagnosed with CHARGE syndrome. Clin Genet, 74(1), 31-38. doi:10.1111/j.1399-0004.2008.01014.x
  56. Wincent, J., Schulze, A., & Schoumans, J. (2009). Detection of CHD7 deletions by MLPA in CHARGE syndrome patients with a less typical phenotype. Eur J Med Genet, 52(4), 271-272. doi:10.1016/j.ejmg.2009.02.005

Coding Section

Codes Number Description
ICD-9-CM Diagnosis 759.89 Other specified congenital anomalies (includes CHARGE syndrome)
ICD-10-CM (effective 10/01/15) Q99.8 Other specified congenital anomalies (includes CHARGE syndrome)
ICD-10-PCS (effective 10/01/15)  

Not applicable. ICD-10-PCS codes are only used for inpatient services. There are no ICD procedure codes for laboratory tests.

Type of Service    
Place of Service    

Procedure and diagnosis codes on Medical Policy documents are included only as a general reference tool for each policy. They may not be all-inclusive.

This medical policy was developed through consideration of peer-reviewed medical literature generally recognized by the relevant medical community, U.S. FDA approval status, nationally accepted standards of medical practice and accepted standards of medical practice in this community, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association technology assessment program (TEC) and other non-affiliated technology evaluation centers, reference to federal regulations, other plan medical policies and accredited national guidelines.

"Current Procedural Terminology © American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved" 

History From 2014 Forward     


Correct date in history box it should be 01/12/2022 instead of 01/12/2021. No other change made. Disregard date on previous note 


Annual review, no change to policy intent. Updating policy number, adding the verbiage for the acronym CHARGE to policy statement 1, changing the word mutation to genetic in policy statements 3 & 4 for clarity. Updating rationale and references. 


Annual review, no change to policy intent. Updating description, rationale and references. 


Annual review, no change to policy intent. 


Annual review, adding medical necessity coverage for familial variants related to first degree relatives. No other changes made. 


Annual review, no change to policy intent. 


Annual review, no change to policy intent. Updating background, description, guidelines, rationale, category, review date and references. 


Annual review, no change to policy intent. Updating background, description, regulatory status, rationale and references. 


Annual review, no change to policy intent. Updated background, description, rationale and references. Added coding.


New Policy.

Complementary Content